Tabroom.com

Barkley Forum for High Schools

2022 — classrooms.cloud, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maxine Adams Bridgeland High School 3 rounds

Devin Anderson The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 25, 2022 at 10:22 AM PDT

School affiliations: (Past) - Nevada Union HS, CKM, (Current) - Northwood HS, Harker

Updated for: Tournament of Champions 2022

Add me to the email chain: devinanderson@ucsb.edu

Round starts in 5 minutes:

-- Policy debate, 4 years for Nevada Union HS. Qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year, coached 2 TOC qualified teams

-- Judge instruction + framing is very important

-- Familiar with some arguments on this topic, but don't assume

-- More K background, love policy debates, do whatever

-- Tech > truth. Except for any argument that is racist/xenophobic/homophobic/etc.

-- I’ve abandoned a lot of my predispositions. Organized, well-warranted debates >>>

T/Theory

I enjoy these debates if debaters take the time to develop terminal impacts (i.e how norm violations undermine skills that would otherwise spill out and solve 'x'). The interpretation and violation should be very clear. Offense will win you these debates, too much defense and spreading through theory blocks will lose you them

Case

Very important. I am a big big fan of impact turn debates and heavy block case work.

CPs

Sufficiency framing is persuasive. The more specific and strategic the cp, the better. 2nc CPs are legitimate and strategic (most of the time). Solvency evidence is preferable but can be substituted with intuitive argumentation and CPs grounded in aff ev. Show me a centralized strategy around your CP and get to the nitty-gritty of its mechanism. Fiat does not make a CP the death star--answer the deficits thoroughly

DAs

Better for deterrence, appeasement, etc DA scenarios. Enjoy immensely, but less familiar with, intricate political capital DAs. I'll resolve the biggest question framed at the end of the debate, judge instruction is important here--you should tell me where the nexus of my decision should be. Strong evidence is key here, I will re-read cards in most debates I judge

I've debated for and against this argument most of my debate career--it has efficacy and value in debate. Overall: you do you in these debates. I enjoy skills and/or fairness offense and any combination of them. Debate is probably a game but there are args that are persuasive for why it is more or not so. I will evaluate this debate largely on the internal link and impact level, and how that implicates both teams' models of debate. ***Answer aff specific impact turns***

Kritiks

Make your links clear (name them!). Do not rely on overviews and buzzwords--rely on the argumentative power of your authors and explain how it relates to politics/debate/etc. The best debates are the ones that use an in-depth link debate to structure the rest of the flow. Links are DAs to the perm and the alt should resolve them. Framework is important in front of me--I default to letting the aff weigh their advantages. Chances are, I know your argument or a variation of it, but don't assume

K Affs

These debates are valuable, I will evaluate them as objectively as any other--whether it's structural, performative, or theory-based. Topic ties and smart c/i's on framework are ideal. These debate will be much easier for you if you're winning central offense about the topic/debate and their investments in them. Combine it with terminal defense/offense on the skills/fairness debate. To keep it simple: prove your model is good and that your advocacy generates more persuasive/warranted offense

Speaker Points

I reward smart cross-x questions, strategic pivots, and most certainly unpredictable (but logical) 2NR/2AR decisions. If 10 seconds in, I'm already psyched about your speech, good boost for you. I think speaker points are arbitrary and should give me the ability to help you get to where you want to be in a tournament. It's your job to prove to me why you deserve it. Don't be rude. ***Make me laugh, whether or on purpose or accidentally***

Emily Atamov Lincoln East High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain: atamovemily@gmail.com

I was a policy and congressional debater with a bit of speech experience.

I'm pretty open argument-wise (except disclosure theory). Go for anything and as long as you lay everything out for me, you should be fine. Don't make me do the work that you should be doing in the round.

Keep your own time please :)

I probably won’t know what the resolution is till the 1ac. Do with that what you will

TLDR: Go for anything. Weigh your args. Be nice. I hate disclosure theory do not read it in front of me

LD: I don’t prefer a specific style but know I am not well-versed in tricks and high-level theory. I see this type of theory more during online tournaments so it shouldn't be that big of an issue during local tourneys. I'm fine with phil and trad rounds. I tend to be a bit more engaged during non-trad rounds.

PF: I never did PF nor do I judge PF that often. I don’t care about performance in pf. You could spread and I wouldn’t dock your speaks (as long as your opponents are cool with this and have the case etc). Just give me clear, concise overviews and thoroughly explain why you won my ballot. I enjoy it when teams make it easy for me, especially in PF. Strike me if you disagree with this

Congress: Kinesics and presentation are important to a certain extent, but if your content is subpar then it won’t matter as much to me. I love good clash in congress and hate rehash with a burning passion. I don’t want to hear three aff speeches back to back about xyz issue because then, instead of being a debate event, it becomes a speech event. I encourage you to be aggressive (yet respectful) during cx!

Flow: I will flow everything in the round and base my ballot on what I see on my flow. I don't flow cx unless you tell me to. Tag team cx is cool with me.

Quality > Quantity

Tech > Truth

Give a bit of explanation on your extensions

Kritiks: I have some experience with k's (biopolitics, necropolitics, set col, cap). I would prefer you to treat me as a lay judge with your kritik, though. Meaning, you flesh out every link. Also, if you have any sort of narrative or poem or something along those lines, please don't spread that. It makes me feel icky !

DA: Explain your disad thoroughly. Fully explain how your opponents link and why it matters. If there's no impact then what's the point?

Speed: I'm fine with spreading. Slow down on analytics or I won’t catch everything. If I yell clear once or twice and you don’t comply, I’ll stop flowing.

Theory: If your opponent doesn't answer this then you win the round just give your voters and I'll flow it. I will not vote on disclosure theory because my jurisdiction begins with the 1AC and ends once I’ve submitted my ballot.

Speaks: Speaks are incredibly arbitrary; I have no set measurement for speaks. I tend to usually give the highest speaks to individuals that I felt were genuinely respectful throughout the round. If you’re rude, you may win the flow but you and your opponent's speaks will prob be like .1 away from each other. Aside from being a decent person, if you give me organized rebuttals that make it easy to write my ballot, you’ll get high speaks. Just make it easy for me and you’ll do well

Basically, just be precise, do all the work for me when explaining your argument, weigh your arguments, and be nice!!

Have fun :)

Luke Bagdon Pennsbury High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 8:11 AM EDT

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

do you, and do it well
don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene
don't misgender me, or your competitors
do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging
of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment
apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.
'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.
going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos
i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Ramanathan Balasubramanian Riverside HS 2 rounds

Dahlia Mungo Bekong Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:54 AM EDT

NEWARK/LEX 2024 UPDATE: Have been judging a bit again, so I am vaguely aware of topic literature. I would still appreciate being on the slower side when it comes to spreading, though. Just let me know how fast you’re going beforehand.

Email chain: blackdahling@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Dahlia Bekong (she/they). I debated in LD for Bronx Science for four years, competed at the TOC my senior year, and am now a sophomore at Binghamton University. I mostly read performance and kritiks throughout high school (specifically anti-blackness & quare theory), but I’m fine with most things.

TLDR: Ks/K-affs/Non-T/Performance > K Theory > LARP > T/Theory > Phil > Friv Theory/Tricks (Depends)

A few things to note:

- Disclosing to Black debaters is a must. I am of the stance that Black debaters don’t have to disclose to non-Black debaters. Debaters reading anything that makes ontological claims of violence toward a group they do not belong to will result in me autovoting you down.

- I have been out of debate for a while, so please make sure to go at about 70% circuit speed AT MOST. I was never that good at understanding spreading anyway so if you’re fine with it I’d prefer if you went even slower than that, but I’ll try to keep up with whatever pace you decide to go for.

- Please refrain from doing anything racist, transphobic, ableist, etc. If you think your position would specifically perturb me or your opponent, either refrain from reading it or ask us beforehand if it’s okay to read. If you think your opponent violates this, impact it out and I’ll def be willing to vote on it.

- I have sensory issues so if your case utilizes flashing imagery and/or loud sounds, either heavily reconsider reading that or the accept the fact that I will be too zoned out to flow that part of the debate.

- Above all, I LOVE creativity regarding positions. A position that’s well-constructed and has its implications thought out is something a lot of debaters lack, so if you’re willing to go the extra mile and can explain it, feel free to blow my mind.

Okay, actual debate thoughts.

First and foremost, have a model of debate. If both debaters end up LARPing or something then this probably won’t come up, but I default to debate being a homeplace, where idea testing is somewhat good but never trumps the actual safety and/or right for debaters to be in the space. This is especially true for clash of civ debates: explain your model of debate, including why you’re here, why I’m here, what we should individually do, and what the utility of the ballot is.

I’m gonna borrow a phrase from Temitope Ogundare’s paradigm that I really liked: “Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient)”. A lot of the times I find “tech over truth” is pragmatically used to shut down any conversations about the way personal identity manifests itself.

However, there does exist a threshold where if you clearly don’t know what you’re doing I can’t really say anything. If you’re winning the flow on a technical level and can explain why that’s actively good then I will vote for you, but if you’re doing something like distinguishing between structural and procedural fairness solely to shut out identity positions then you’re doing way too much.

Finally, I’m on the firm position that debate is not a game. I personally depended on debate as a way to cope with transphobia and help pay to go to college in the first place, which is to say, debate has very material impacts for people that can begin from reading something in round and extend to the outside world. If your shells rely on this as a crutch to shoo way identity arguments, then I’m gonna tell you to take the L on this one.

Okay, even more specific debate thoughts.

Identity Ks/Performance: Yeah!!! I have the most experience with running these, but I will emphasize to only read one if you know what you’re doing. Slow down to explain concepts and warrant your arguments. Err on overelaborating about what the alternative actually does and weighing that against the world of the aff. For performances, make sure that the performance isn’t simply tangentially related to the case but also gives you material offense. I love specific and clear link stories so I will be very swayed if you convey that in the 2NR.

K-Affs/Non-T: Yeah!!! These were my favorite positions in high school. You can mostly look at the previous section but for these I will also advise you take an extra hard look at the model of debate stuff. Whether the aff has a clearly defined model of debate that accounts for why they’re doing what they’re doing AND the debate space at large will usually dictate whether they win against T.

K Theory: Ranges from “Yeah!!!” to “Cool”. I love seeing the incorporation of critical literature into an argument meant for norm-setting but the same rule of actually knowing what you’re talking about applies here, ESPECIALLY since you’re talking about your literature in a “debate-rule” context.

LARP: Ranges from “Cool” to “Eh”. A lot of LARP ends up impacting out to nuclear war, which is very tiring. I’d like to see weighing that involves more metrics than magnitude or scope so I don’t have to worry about the next coming of Fallout 3. I’d like to see more weighing, period. Please read proper plan texts that either correlate with your evidence or that you can explain the link between the text and your evidence. Please remember mutual exclusivity exists, especially in the case of CP’s (doubley with PICs). PLEASE make your links specific to the aff.

T/Theory: VERY heavily depends. I have an extremely high warrant for T and theory to the point where I don’t think fairness is a valid terminal impact. There are other impacts out there that actually account for material violence that occurs from the same standards that are impacted out to fairness. Make sure your interp is specific and actually encapsulates what your model of debate is (planks are very useful for this).

Identity K/Non-T aff v T/Theory (Yes, this is a specific section): Aff gets to weigh. A pet peeve is when debaters overexaggerate the reality of debate norms (i.e. someone reading one non-T aff destroying limits completely). A BIGGER pet peeve is when debaters read the latter argument to disengage from the former (especially against Black debaters). Debates of these nature should never boil down to whether the aff belongs in the space, but whether their way of incorporating it could be improved. If the neg doesn’t have a way to account for the affs’ harms, I will presume aff.

Phil: Ranges from “Cool” to “Ugh”. I’m probably the least experienced with this so I will absolutely need you to overexplain your arguments. Can very quickly become mumbo-jumbo that makes my head spin so focus on big picture work and my route to the ballot.

Friv Theory/Tricks: Ranges from “Ehh” to “No”. Will autovote you down if you read these against an Identity K/Performance position, I consider it a sign of extreme disrespect to the affirmative. Reading these against LARP, Phil, and non-identity based positions is fine and often entertaining but I have a really low warrant for responses.

Alex Berry Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 3:32 AM CDT

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

Anthony Berryhill Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 4, 2024 at 9:26 AM CDT

Anthony Berryhill (MBA, M.Phil., M.A., CSM, CSPO) | Judge Paradigm- updated 9/2/2023
email (for speech docs): anthony@elitecollegehacker.com

Experience:

Professional background: Former Vice President of Learning (executive) at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm. Stanford (BA) and Yale (PhD Candidate) alumnus--both in political science with a focus on contemporary political theory
Current job: Running college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com.
Recent Debate Career Highlights: Coach of 3 national champions (College PF, HS LD @ 2019 NCFL, HS PF - International TOC) | 6x LD Wording Committee member | NSDA Final Round Judge (Policy 2022, LD 2019-2022) | Former Managing Director at VBI | LD (TOC-NSDA-NCFL)/Extemp (NCFL)/Congress (NSDA Senate+NCFL) Qualified student @ Isidore Newman (1996-2000)

How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.

Style info:

Good debate is good debate - I have judged late TOC and NSDA elims of all styles and historically have very successfully coached traditional, policy, performance (at the LD TOC), and K debaters.

I strongly prefer debates about the topic, but can be convinced otherwise if you pull it off well.

Speed is ok if you are clear, avoid monotone, and if you include me on the speech docs.

How to win my ballot and get high points (preferences):

I strongly prefer debaters who do the work to cross apply, connect arguments together, extend evidence, signpost, and keep the flow clean. These students get wins and 29.5s+ with shocking consistency.
I look for the easiest, most clear way to vote, so I can minimize/avoid intervention (within reason). I am not a judge who will reconstruct a round and read cards for 30 min after a debate. That's the debaters' job. The more work you do to write the ballot, the more weight I will give to your interpretations and positions.
In-round analysis and smart strategy counts: Weighing, closing doors (telling me where you can lose and doing the hard work in detail to stop me from doing so), crystallization, and extensions will help you sway the ballot to your side.
Clarity matters: I am biased toward debaters who do the work to explain very complicated ideas in a simple, clear, and accessible way. As a former PhD in critical theory @ Yale, I appreciate good argumentation, depth, and skill at explanation.

What I strongly dislike/what you will want to avoid:

High Mental/Cognitive load/confusion -> judge intervention: It is in your interest to collapse arguments down in order to reduce how much I have to evaluate or consider. Otherwise, I get to be dangerously creative and decide how I want to vote, which I'd rather not do.

2. Misbehavior in rounds and debate politics. I judge by the "any given sunday" principle. I do not hack--and have never--hacked for anyone, any position, or at any time. Therefore any debater can win in front of me if they adapt. Make sure to avoid behavior that is out of bounds (swearing, use of inappropriate words, and other actions that parents/principals would disapprove).

3. A note about theory and identity arguments. If you need theory or identity based arguments, go for it. HOWEVER, frivolous theory or blippy arguments are not strategic in front of me.

Also, as one of the first students in circuit LD to run heavily race/gender based arguments (in the late 90s) I'm especially sensitive to students treating these arguments with the seriousness they demand.

Therefore, if you run identity arguments, please do not treat these as strategic pawns to be deployed without regard to ethics (i.e., I've seen some folks use racially insensitive language as a strategy, lie about misgendering/pronouns to trap opponents, claim that only people of a certain race can make certain positions, etc.) As an intersectionalist by training, I'm opposed to essentialism, stereotyping, and authenticity policing. Let's do none of that please.

Good luck!

Dayanand Bhojak Monta Vista High School 6 rounds

Kristi Bogy Midlothian HS 3 rounds

Jacob Bosley NSU University School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

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

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2---General Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3---T vs. Plans

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

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

4---T vs. K Affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5---Kritiks

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

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

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

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

6---Counterplans

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

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

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

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

7---Disadvantages

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

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

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

8---Theory

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

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

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

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

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

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

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

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

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

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

Line-by-Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luiz Bravim Cardinal Gibbons 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 11:09 PM EDT

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over (e.g. FL, D.C., Korea, China, Uganda).

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

* Big Questions

No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

Most of my experience judging BQ was in 2020 when Nationals was online. I approach BQ like a less flow-centric traditional LD round and the person who most clearly frames and resolves the "big question" will win the round, regardless of the flow. Each debater should aim to do that. I like this event and love the current topic. I wish BQ Debate were more mainstream outside of NSDA Nationals. FYI: I have above average knowledge on world religion and the history of science, but I will only use what you tell me in round.

* LD Prefs

I'm best at adjudicating traditional LD rounds. However, I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If it's getting debate on fw is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else.

Slow down on card tags, warrants, weighing, and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Don't drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

In order of preference:

1.) Trad/lay 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4 times and I've judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of the tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.

* PF Prefs

Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. I believe the spirit of PF necessitates a less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This ultimately lacks both in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 22 years and there are going to be different ways to gain in round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is not only arrogant, but also wrong. I've witnessed 1,000+ debate rounds and seen poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On Speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + allthe judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I've heard my share of theory arguments and find the majority of those rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. : (

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all 3 are part of effective argumentation)

* Congress Prefs

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Doc bots.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )

Academic Interests:

I teach AP World History, AP European History, and AP Microeconomics on the high school level. I teach various business courses at the university level.

Topics in which I have some specialized knowledge include: world religion, modern history, organizational culture, business management, and law.

Good luck to all!

Kiarra Broadnax Ramsay High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 10, 2021 at 8:23 AM CDT

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

Grant Brown Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:43 PM CDT

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

Robert Burns Silver Creek High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 2:50 PM EDT

My highest commitment as a judge is making this activity accessible and inclusive. I am committed to developing novices and want to make varsity debate a welcoming environment for students who are moving from novice/JV to varsity.

I understand and appreciate critical and policy arguments and am fine with you arguing about whatever you wish to make the debate about. I see my role as an educator, however, and so will not allow anti-trans, antiblack, or bigoted language or attitudes that would deny the humanity of any participant in the activity. With those ground rules in place, I try to center my decisions on the arguments made in the debate and bracket my own predilections as much as I can. This is an aspiration but I also recognize and try to be reflective about the way my identity and history shapes my thought. It is important not to bracket these questions, even as I try to evaluate arguments fairly and not intervene to tip the scales.

With that said, here are my thoughts on procedural arguments.

Games have to be fair and simulate something we love about life, or be connected to life or they are not very fun. But what does it mean for a game to be fair? Is that the only value I should care about?

I love debate, so access to it is a terminal impact. It is an educational game (or it has been for me) so education is also a terminal impact. But it's a game. So fairness matters.

I don't think any of these three procedural impacts are more basic or fundamental than the other. I just abide in the tension and allow debaters to frame the impacts.

I believe debate is about open inquiry, and I want to allow debaters to test all kinds of claims. Admittedly, if you choose to examine philosophical questions, I will enjoy the discussion. Please note that explanation will serve you in debates centered around complicated concepts. Although I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, I would rather be treated as an informed layperson than a specialist.

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 11:03 AM EDT

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Carlos Daniel Carrasco Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:44 AM PDT

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both

Keep me on the chain por favor – ccarrasco244@gmail.com

If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back

general -

- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms

- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it

- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far

———- some more specifics ———-

I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well

Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too

On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.

On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.

Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically

on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible

Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.

Chris Castillo Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

I rarely read evidence after debates.
Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Dhruv Channa Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 4:45 AM PDT

USC '25 (Debating)

DVHS '21

he/him

Use speechdrop or whatever file sharing platform the tourney offers - it usually avoids the delays associated with email sending.

If not, add me to the email chain: channa.dhruv@gmail.com

------------------------------------------------------UPDATE----------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR - most of the stuff remains true, but I've realized more and more that leaving my preferences at the door is probably best. I've done and read almost everything, so do what you do. I was a more K leaning individual on a very policy HS team, and in college I've continued to enjoy debating both sides of the spectrum. I still think that K affs should be topic-centered, and those that will win in front of me will often redefine words rather than solely relying on impact turns vs T, esp generic ones.

Fun debates/Debates where the atmosphere isn't hostile will receive high speaks: Innovative, fun, complicated, etc strategies that are executed well will be rewarded. That isn't to say you will be penalized for going for a "generic" strategy - if you can execute your strategy well, do it because I will enjoy that just the same.

LD -

Tricks - Strike me, don't really care to judge those debates because they're used in a way that's meant for the other team to drop them for you to win. It's the only predisposition I have vs any argument.

Phil - Pref me low, don't have the will to parse through these debates

1 - Policy, T, Impact Turn debates, Topic/Generic/Innovative Ks, Resolutional K affs, K v K

2 - K Affs(non resolutional), T-FW vs K affs

3 - High theory K/K-affs(i.e. Pomo)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a current debater at USC and competed in LD and Policy throughout high school, I've been a 2N throughout my career, but have switched to being a 2A as of late.

I'm pretty comfortable for whatever you want to do(some exceptions)... I've run most arguments on the spectrum, from being solely straight-up my sophomore year, to practically one-tricking the Security K my junior year, and ending up debating flex my senior year.

I'm not fond of the "1- ... 2- ... 3-" stuff, but I guess it can be helpful so:

1- Policy(DA, CP), T, T-Fw vs K Affs, Generic Ks or Topic Ks(things like Security, Cap, Berlant, etc)

2- Theory, K Affs, K v K

3- High theory Ks, Pomo Ks, Identity Ks

(IF LD)

4- Generic Phil(like Kant)

5- Phil other than Kant

STRIKE ME if your main strategy relies on making arguments that you can only go for if dropped(i.e. blippy theory arguments like Shoes theory, indexicals, and other tricks). Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact, I will not vote on anything that falls short of this threshold.

ONLINE

Please record your speeches and if the call drops, keep going and send the recording at the end of the speech. Also, please go 75-80% speed max, thanks :)

Policy

DAs -

I love them, straight turns are amazing, impact calculus is a must, Ptx DAs are good, Turns case with impact calc is great(especially when there's timeframe contextualization with these).

CPs -

I love a good counterplan debate.

CPs MUST have some mechanism of solving the aff in the 1NC itself, preferably a solvency advocate(card) but a simple line explaining how it would solve (if it's intuitive) works.

PICs do not need to have a specific advocate that advocates for the entirety of the plan excluding the thing being PICd out of.

Cheaty CPs are fine: process, advantage, etc are all good and valid.

T/Theory -

I default to competing interps, DTA on everything but condo and T, Condo good. That said, those are just my defaults, I can very easily be persuaded the other way via good debating. Fairness is an impact, so is education.

SLOW DOWN on theory, please. If I don't catch something and it becomes the entire 2NR/AR, I will not feel too bad not voting on it... don't tell me I didn't warn you.

Err neg and DTA are really persuasive arguments in my opinion, unless there's some real reason for DTD.

Pragmatics>>>Semantics - Semantics don't matter to me unless it's setting up an argument for predictability or precision or something like that.

Ks (on the neg) -

Love 'em.

I really love good K debates with nuanced link works and the sauce. A lot of my 2NRs my junior year was the K, and the K was often present in the 1NC my senior year as well. That said, don't take it as an excuse to just throw out buzzwords or expect me to know what you are talking about. I will not do work for you.

I'm very comfortable with the generics or with topic-specific Ks, anything else must be explained to me(little more so than the generics). I'll really like it if your OV explicitly states your theory of power, and that will make the rest of your work on the K proper much cleaner and it will make much more sense to me. I think I catch onto the thesis of Ks pretty quickly, so if I'm not making any sense in the RFD as to why I voted against you, it's probably because your explanation was incoherent.

Speaking of OVs, please keep them on the shorter side... If you say "new page for the OV", I will not be happy... and neither will you with your speaks.

Default to Affs should get to weigh the case, can be persuaded otherwise.

Make FW arguments explicit and do weighing as if it is any other arg. I find that the best debaters often resolve the differences between the models provided and help me identify what exactly makes one interp better than the other.

Perfcon is an issue of condo UNLESS you are using the aff's responses to one position to garner offense for the other. It's not usually the most persuasive

PIKs and FPIKs are prob illegitimate, but you gotta do the work to prove that.

K affs -

I'm down to listen to a good K aff. Affs must be in the direction of the topic somewhat, not saying "no K affs" but rather I'm saying that there must be some connection between the aff and the topic that is made in the 1AC. A really good example of this was this one aff that St Francis read on the arms sales topic about Queer Militarism with definitions of munitions being related to queer bodies... not saying that's true, rather that I love clever strategies.

T-Fw is very persuasive vs K affs - movements, fairness, education, whatever you want to read. Tbh I have yet to see a good answer to movements.

PIKs vs K affs are strategic, probably won't vote for PIKs bad

K affs get perms

K vs K affs are interesting, so if that's your strat, go for it.

- I default Comp Worlds(tough to convince me otherwise), no RVIs(though that doesn't mean I won't vote on one).

- Condo is probably good, but it becomes somewhat abusive past 2

- Ks on the neg in LD: I am fine with new Link extrapolation in the 2NR(i.e. recuttings of the aff), esp if its breaking new. That said, you need to have some card in the 1NC that provides the thesis of those links

Phil/Trix

Try just to not read it lol.

Good phil = read it, but err on over-explaining because Im not familiar w most of the lit.

Trix = L 27(not actually, but if you make me suffer i'll return the favor)

default modesty

Good extensions of your Moen and/or Pummer evidence vs Phil should get you out of a lot of trouble

A lot of the paradoxes are terrible arguments, try to make intuitive responses to them

Theory vs trix is a very good strat in front of me

T-implementation vs "General principle" affs was my go-to strat, and I think that it is a good one

Grouping args(like calc indicts) is good and doing that little overview-y grouping work can help you in a lot of places, especially when going against blippy analytical walls.

I will not give you good speaks if you go for trix and will try to not vote on it in any and every way possible, so please just do not include it in the round itself, thank you.

The rest of the LD section should be the same as Policy

Misc

1. Please disclose on the wiki(open source w/ highlighting is best practice) if you are in Varsity unless you have some issues(either school-related or wiki troubles). Sending docs when requested is fine too.

2. Prep time is whatever has been determined by the tourney, prep stops when you have finished saving your doc. If <= 3 cards, body is cool, anything more please send a doc.

3. I have absolutely no qualms about giving the "I don't get it" RFD

4. I don't judge kick unless instructed to, and justifying should(if contested) go past "it's a logical extension of conditionality"

5. Ev ethics challenge ends the round there, I will evaluate and the winner of the challenge gets a W30, loser gets an L27 (if it was a false claim) or L and lowest speaks possible if the challenge was true.

6. Clipping challenges needs evidence(recordings, unless I notice it - then i'm your witness), but it's also the same as an ev ethics challenge. If I notice it and the opp doesn't, your speaks won't look so hot.

7. I will read your ev, so good quality prep gets high speaks in front of me.

8. If it's a lay tournament but both debaters want a flow round, go ahead and have fun!

9. If it's a bid tournament, I don't think you have to adapt to novices or non-circuit debaters. If theory was dropped, just extend it for a quick sec or two and continue the debate for educational purposes, that will earn you a ton of respect and good speaks.

10. If theory/T is dropped in a circuit round, I will be very unhappy if the next speech(if rebuttals) isn't that argument or if that speech is longer than 30 seconds tops...

11. Tech>Truth, except for things like racism good or the like. I will not tolerate any instances of racism, sexism, etc in round.

12. Sending a marked copy does not constitute prep, but requesting a doc where "unread cards are deleted" constitutes prep

Ultimately, just have fun and do you! If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me at my email above!

Vishan Chaudhary The Harker School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 5, 2023 at 3:28 AM PDT

Updated for TOC 2023

Email for chain – vishanc4@gmail.com

Conflicts: Harker, Harvard-Westlake

Tl;dr: good for: CPs, DAs, T, non-postmodern Ks. bad for: tricks, pomo, theory debates, phil.

Longer version:

1. I enjoy judging. TOC 2023 will likely be the last tournament I judge for a while. I know how much effort goes into preparing for debate tournaments, let alone a season end tournament like the TOC. I am excited to hear what you have to say.

2. Speed - you should not go your top speed, 80-90% is probably fine most of the time, maybe err on the slow side on (especially short) analytics.

***Theory is an entirely different ballgame - I don't know if theory arguments are just getting shorter or if I'm not catching as much because people go too fast, but people need to slow down a substantial amount. This is one of the most important parts of this paradigm, it is also the most ignored.

3. I care about evidence more than the average judge. I usually read the most important cards after the debate and compare what the evidence actually says against the debaters’ explanations. Evidence is almost never perfect – pointing out flaws in your opponents’ cards, comparing author qualifications, etc. will result in higher points.

4. I will only vote on arguments that I understand and can explain back to the other debater. I will never vote on arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

5. Arguments should be complete in the first constructive in which they are presented. CPs need to have competition and solvency arguments explicitly made in the NC. DAs must have uniqueness. ACs must include solvency arguments. Ks should have a semblance of a FW argument in the NC. Incomplete arguments can be dispatched by brief, smart analytics.

6. General argument preferences – I prefer quality arguments related to the topic. All things equal, I prefer to hear a core topic DA instead of politics, a K with a strong link to the aff over a consult CP, etc. Of course, if you execute a niche argument really well, go for it, just be aware that the less familiar I am with it, the less likely I am to fully understand it, and the more likely it is that you get a decision that you may not like.

A. Policy arguments (CPs, DAs, etc.)

–I am best for these types of arguments.

-Impact calc + turns case are underutilized/usually a game winner if you do them well.

-The Politics DA is the worst argument that I vote on routinely. Dunking on politics during CX (while still being respectful of course)/dismantling it in the 1ar will likely result in higher points. Unfortunately, affs rarely do this and instead just read 4 impact defense cards :(

-I do not default judge kick, but I am open to it.

-I am open to most CP theory (conditionality, PICs, agent CPs, etc.) but am a hard sell on LD nonsense (must spec status in speech, no neg fiat, etc.). One condo is generally ok, two is pushing it, three or more is no good. However, debates that come down to 1ar theory are among my least favorite to judge (unless it’s a slam dunk)

-That being said, most CP theory arguments other than condo are likely better as competition arguments rather than theory

-I've noticed a proliferation of really horrible process CPs. I don’t like them. Most of these are consult CPs that lack a reason why bindingness/consultation are key – these should easily be beaten by permutations. If you have qualified cards from the literature about the topic (or even close to being about the topic), though, I am good for these.

B. Topicality/Theory

-I like well executed T debates.

-But I'm usually not thrilled to be judging Nebel over and over again. Nebel/can't spec should be viewed as a last resort (cases where the aff is very very small). I will probably vote aff on the “PICs argument” if both sides debate this argument equally.

-I find myself usually unpersuaded by “only semantics matter” claims on T. A well thought out limits claim is definitely the way to go in front of me.

-On T I’m probably 50-50 on the competing interps/reasonability debate.

-In theory debates, I am generally persuaded by reasonability + drop the argument. I do not like judging theory debates a whole lot.

-I would not read an RVI in front of me. I have a hard time understanding the warrants for these. It will be nearly impossible to get me to vote on one.

-I prefer not to judge debates with out of round violations (disclosure etc.) The exception is if your opponent does not disclose first 3 last 3 - include screenshots/evidence and this is a near slam dunk. Other disclosure violations (round reports, open source, etc.) can be easily beaten by reasonability in front of me. Things like "misdisclosure/opponent lied" are uncomfortable to judge/you must include screenshots/definitive evidence in your speech docs.

C. Ks

-Yes - Neolib, Afropessimism, Set Col, other "structural" identity Ks, Security

-No - pomo. It’s not that am not ideologically against these Ks, I am just very unfamiliar with them which will make it hard for you to win them in front of me. It's unlikely you get higher than a 28.5 unless you are very good at explaining your argument.

-I probably lean neg in FW/K aff debates. Negs should articulate an impact outside of "limits because limits" and affs should have counterinterpretations that solve most of neg offense

-When going for a K on the neg, if your only link is some fancy packaging of "fiat bad" I am not the judge for you.

-Links should be contextualized/turn the case. This does not mean that all your links need to be to the plan; rather, if you explain why your links turn the case under the aff FW, you are in a good spot.

-Ideally the 2NR does most if not all of their work on the line-by-line – I’m fine with a short overview to explain thesis/impact but I’m not a fan of the 4-minute overviews followed by the neg saying “this was in the overview” to answer every 1AR argument.

- Neg teams should frame their link not only against the plan alone but through the lens of the permutation. Likewise, affs should frame their link turns not through the lens of the status quo, but through the alternative.

D. Philosophy

- I’m most well-versed in consequentialism but I think I understand Kant and some political theory a decent amount. I’m at ELI5 level for almost every other type, so tread carefully. You do not need an explicit standard text.

-I’m pretty tired of every phil debate I judge coming down to induction fails/consequentialism impossible.

E. Tricks

-“Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!” – Trix kids

7. Evidence ethics – if a debater claims their opponent committed an evidence ethics violation, such as clipping, they will stake the debate on that claim. If there’s proof that the accused the debater clipped, they get an L and the lowest points I can give. If the opposing debater did not clip, the accusing party gets an L and the lowest points I can give.

I don’t read along in the speech doc…usually. Usually if you’re talking, I’m flowing. Sometimes, however, I look if I suspect clipping is occurring. If I catch you clipping, I will let the debate finish, but you will lose. I won’t catch everyone who clips, I don’t think it’s my job to constantly check everyone, so when I check/when I don’t may be somewhat arbitrary, but the easy way to not get caught is to not cheat.

If I call clear (multiple times) and you don't clear up/I cannot understand the words you are saying, it is clipping.

Things like bracketing, cutting an author who concludes the other way (as long as it’s not egregious), etc. aren’t round-stopping issues to me. However, I am extremely receptive to theory arguments about them, and doing those things will tank your speaks.

This is how I evaluate these issues, even if no ethics challenge is raised.

If I notice...

-Card from an article which concludes the other way - your speaks get tanked (25) if you don't go for the flow/it is not egregious; you lose if it is integral to your strategy/you would lose the debate without it

-Card with paragraphs missing - you lose

-Clipping - you lose

-Cards that are miscited - you lose

8. Ways to get good speaker points

-Demonstrating topic/content knowledge

-Debating about author quals

-High quality/not scarcely under-highlighted evidence

-Going for an impact turn well

9. Last housekeeping things

-You must share your speech docs with your opponent - email is preferable

- Each debate will have 1 winner and 1 loser. The speech times are set as is prep time. You can’t use CX as prep time. Asking for me to give you a 30 will result in you getting no higher than a 26.

-I like evidence a lot, but good analytics >>> bad cards. Even if your card is A+, you only get credit for how good you explain it in later speeches/when you extend it.

- Debate is a communicative activity, so I don't make my decision by reading through all the cards in the speech doc after the debate. I think I'm a pretty good flow, so I don't backflow unless I think it was my fault. If it's not on my flow, you don't get credit for it - emphasizing/slowing down on certain arguments will greatly enhance my ability to understand them. People need to slow wayyyyy down on theory.

-Please be nice to your opponent

Leah Clark-Villanueva Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 8, 2021 at 1:08 PM PDT

she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh

leah.clarkvilla@gmail.com

[Judge Info]

A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.

B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy

C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.

D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.

heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.

How I Evaluate & Structure Arguments:

Parts of an Argument:

Claim - your argument

Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence

Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important

Impact Calculus:

Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen

Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected

Timeframe - when this impact will occur

Reversibility - can the harms be undone

[Online Debates]

prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclear

pre-pandemic paradigm particularities

for policy and/or ld:

1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something

2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.

3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts

4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo

5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.

6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts

7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?

8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.

9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"

10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.

Chris Colvin The Montgomery Academy 4 rounds

Madeleine Conrad-Mogin Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 16, 2023 at 4:43 AM PDT

The preferences below are a reflection of the way I debated in high school and the way I coach students, not the way I evaluate debates 100% of the time. Most of them can be changed through persuasive argumentation. I’m just going to vote for whoever wins the round.

Email: mconrad@ihs.immaculateheart.org

General Philosophy

Debate should be fun and I want to see you have fun and excel at what you do best. Please don't adjust your debating too much to me. I regularly vote for arguments and strategies I passionately disagree with and vice versa. No matter what strategy you defend, act as if my prior knowledge of it is close to 0. Even if you're right, I will judge and hold you accountable for warranting your arguments as if my knowledge was in fact 0. I treat judging as a serious obligation and no matter what you do, I'll give you my full attention and effort!

------

Non-Negotiables

1) Disclose. Full text is a bare minimum to win in front of me.

2) I will not vote on any argument about events outside the debate (I consider disclosure pertinent to the debate). Death good, arguments about your opponents appearance/clothing, and facially offensive actions end the round. I am not comfortable using my ballot as a moral judgement on students.

3) Fair Play. Miscut evidence, clipping, reading ahead, outside communication, evidence fabrication, etc are cheating. Accusations without proof mean you lose. “Evidence ethics” ends the round.

4) I won't vote on arguments I can't understand in the speech they're first made.

5) Show up to round on time. Prep ends when the doc is sent. Flow clarification is prep/CX. Marked docs should be sent immediately after the speech. If your opponent did not mark any cards in their speech, but did not read certain portions of the speech doc (i.e., skipped certain cards entirely), you must start prep before receiving a marked doc. If, however, your opponent marked cards, you may wait until you receive a marked doc to begin prep. The reason I have different policies for these circumstances is that the former is just flow clarification, whereas the latter actually affects the way you answer arguments.

-------

Preferences

1) I don't want to judge rounds about heinous tricks. I enjoy judging Phil debates but think they benefit from more explanation and less tricks.

2) In general, I lean neg on CP theory. Creative counterplans are underutilized. Creative perms are too. Judge kick makes sense to me, but is not my default. I'm not opposed to voting on condo, but err heavily neg, and I don't find hail-mary condo 2ARs fun to judge. To make it a viable 2AR, condo should be more than a sentence in the 1AR.

3) "Not defending implementation" doesn't make sense to me.

4) I err neg in K Aff vs. T debates, but my judging record in these debates is fairly even. Thoughts:

Aff: I think affirmatives have a burden of "affirming" something - I’m easily persuaded that pure pessimism is neg ground and presumption is winnable if the aff doesn't do anything (I don't know why this is almost never the 2nr). When answering T, counter-define words and have a debatable counterinterp ("discussion of the topic", "only our aff", etc. don't count - they wouldn't make sense in any other T debate). An effective strategy against framework should explain what your model of debate looks like, not just why your aff is important.

Neg: Listen to the 1AR - when I vote aff, it’s usually because of technical drops. Neg usually under-develop the TVA, but I find having one less important than a lot of judges do.

5) A kritik should disagree with and disprove the aff - you should be able to point out specific lines in the aff the K disagrees with. “Pre-fiat” does not mean anything. Answering the case is important. Weighing is important. The K should turn and outweigh the case, even if it’s an indictment of the representations the aff uses rather than the consequences of the plan. The 2NR should incorporate K tricks - they are smart and underutilized.

6) Independent voters don't exist. All arguments need to be tied to a specific framing argument.

7) Tired of hearing the same topicality debates over and over again. If it's just a dressed up version of plans bad (Nebel/T-a/etc) I'm probably not the best judge for it (although I vote for these arguments all the time). I don't think complex grammar debates are the best way to set the limits of the topic.

8) Random paradigmatic things:

- 1AR doesn't get add ons. 2NR doesn't get new uniqueness, links, etc.

- Insert re-highlighting: sure

- "You didn't read a fairness voter" isn't super compelling to me w.r.t. paragraph theory. It seems obvious to me that both sides should have a roughly equal shot at winning, all things equal.

- I will disregard any argument about my "jurisdiction" as a judge.

Sreyaash Das Memorial High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 11:08 AM EDT

Northview '21

University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign '25

Debated LD in high school for 3 years and coached for 1 year, 10 career bids, cleared at TOC in 2020 and 2021

I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions

Doc sharing is good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

I prefer using Speech Drop for docs, its easier.

Email: sreyaash.das@gmail.com

Some quick notes and preferences:

1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.

2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments

3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.

4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.

5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.

6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing affect your arguments. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience; I wouldn’t have joined circuit LD if I hadn’t faced different progressive arguments at locals. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.

7) "If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.

9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.

Prefs Overview

Note: Just because certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this

Policy/Larp -2

Kritiks - 2

Theory - 1

Phil -3

Tricks -2

I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation

Policy/Larp:

Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics

Be smart and do link analysis

Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho

Zero risk is a thing

Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence

Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards

1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple

2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse

Don't forget to kick out of things

Theory

Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis

Standard weighing is dead - plz do it

Paragraph theory is fine

Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed

Terminal D on a shell is a thing even under competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.

Send interps/counter interps plz

Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them

Kritiks:

Dont be a doc bot the entire time

Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power

Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it

Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power

K Affs/T:

These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model

Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity

Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T

Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T

No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides

Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)

Philosophy:

Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds

I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required

I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense

Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more

Tricks:

Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms

If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx

Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow

Slow down on blips - flowability is key

Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.

Traditional:

I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.

Substance > V/VC debate

Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2

I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.

Ari Davidson NSU University School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 6:03 AM PDT

This is a severely abridged version of my paradigm. If you'd like the full version, feel free to reach out to me (college) or have a coach reach out (HS) for it.

WFU '23

Now at UT-Austin for grad school

Yes email chain — ask before the debate.

TOC UPDATE:

If you're a senior at your last TOC ever, please tell me before the debate. I'd like the opportunity to congratulate you on your career and reward your ability to be here with some great speaker points. You should be proud of yourself for the tremendous amount of work you've put in to get this far!

Paradigm:

Say what you want and defend what you say. I reward clash of all kinds and dislike cowardice more than almost anything. I will attempt to write down every argument presented in the way you present it, regardless of your argumentative or speaking “style”, to repeat it in my RFD. This means clarity, both in argument explanation and words coming out of your mouth, is imperative. Don’t over-adapt to what you (probably wrongly) think I want to hear. Debate is for the debaters, just have fun and say smart things and I’m your judge.

The only caveat to this is I have very little interest in parsing through interpersonal disputes between debaters over events that occurred outside of the debate round. I understand that sometimes we have personal disagreements with one another as a community founded on discord, and I also understand that sometimes we don't feel comfortable sharing how we feel with the people we disagree with in other interpersonal settings — and that is reasonable. But I struggle to find why the solution to this is to have that precise conversation during a debate round and for judges to insert their own interpretations over events they have little knowledge of. This applies doubly to high school debate. Given this, while I will not ignore any words you say in a debate, you will notice that my decision proper will not pertain to/include the content of personal disagreements tangential to the topics of the debate. To clarify, if you find something the other team has said or done in the debate round to be objectionable, this is obviously fair game and I am more than happy to hear reasons why it should be a voting issue. I think issues of disclosure fall into this category as well given that prep time is part of a debate round and proper disclosure is what enables proper pre-round preparation.

Also, say words if you want me to judge kick the counterplan. I’m indifferent personally, but prefer to go with what debaters say out loud in a debate.

Speaker Points:

My speaker points vary widely. This is because the quality of debates I judge vary widely. I make no apology for the points I give. I try to adjust my points to the tournament and division, so for example if you got a 29 at a regional and a 28.5 at a major it does not necessarily mean you got worse (in fact, your performance may have improved!)

Here is my approximate scale for the open division (does not apply to JV and Novice):

30: I've only given one of these in policy debate, and it was due to a combination of celebrating a senior's wonderful career at her last tournament ever along with amazingly proficient execution. Requires devastating speeches that show novel and tailored strategy, technical proficiency, and efficient and effective cross-examination periods (on both sides). A 30 is earned if it is apparent to me that not a single second, word, or breath was wasted in the debate.

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters. This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

26-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

25: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

Yay debate!

Sherrell Devose Suncoast Comm High School 6 rounds None

Rachel Ding Vestavia Hills High School 6 rounds

Bennett Dombcik Isidore Newman School 3 rounds

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 8:48 AM PDT

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Cyprian Dumas The Montgomery Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 17, 2023 at 5:46 PM CDT

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!

Henry Eberhart Lake Highland Preparatory School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 3:25 AM CDT

FOR ONLINE DEBATE- please please please go 70% of your top speed and send all analytics- it is very difficult to catch blips and high tech clash over zoom.

My pronouns are he/him. I'd love to be on the email chain. henry.t.eberhart.24@dartmouth.edu

If you are an inexperienced debater, WELCOME! Do your best, I believe in you. I'm here to help and provide feedback! Do your best to explain why your impacts are more important than your opponents, and you will do well!

Now for the Nat circuit nerds,

TLDR: As a debater my goal was to go into every tournament reading something that nobody else is reading. If you are a debater who thinks the same way pref me. I will listen to and evaluate fairly rounds with a common recycled aff vs the camp politics da, they just aren't the rounds I've had the most experience with.

I was a performance and k debater in high school. I went 1 off k basically every single round my sophomore -> senior year. I won't front and say that I'm some magical "blank slate" judge. My internal biases will probably lean me toward arguments I read, but this bias is extremely easy to overcome if you debate clearly and explain why I should vote for you.

Truth> Tech. Let me explain myself. If one debater spits some truth, and your response is to spew off 10 blips from your block file that aren't responsive, and they drop 7 of them, I will be very likely to vote for some truth, and not for 7 conceded analytical blips. But if your opponent concedes an argument, and you spend time to develop it, flesh it out, warrant, impact, weigh, then I will vote for it. That's what I mean when I say Truth>Tech.

critical arguments: These arguments are important. It is my personal belief that kritik literature ought not be run for the sole purpose of strategy. The violences that you speak of in round impacts many in the debate community and the world at large. Please approach these arguments with care and respect.

Theory/tricks: *UPDATE* I have been judging worse and worse theory rounds and am now willing to gut check shells if I do not think they are legitimate abuse. If your strategy is running 1ar thoery and random 1nc shells for the sake of out tech-ing your opponent, I am not the judge for you.

I do not vote on skepticism.

You should probably disclose if you have the ability to do so ("ability to do so"= your school won't threaten your program due to the arguments you make, your parents won't react negatively if they see your arguments, etc, etc)

I'm cool with speed if I have a doc, do slow down a little in rebuttals, or I will miss arguments.

High speaks if you make me laugh.

If you use actively oppressive argumentation or argue for oppression in any light (racism, sexism, classism, hetero-patriarchy, settler colonialism, ableism, etc), I will stop the round immediately, vote you down and give you the lowest speaker points I can.

If you have any questions on my paradigm, ask me before round!

Eric Endsley Sam Barlow HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 17, 2021 at 11:53 AM EST

tl;dr is in bold

Email: eric.endsley4@gmail.com

I have 4 years of HS policy debate experience debating semi-regularly on the national circuit, and sporadic college parli experience. I have been judging HS policy debate on and off since 2012 and have been judging national circuit LD frequently since 2019. I have generally found that my experience with CX translates to judging the national circuit style of LD without much in the way of skipping-a-beat.

As a debater I ran primarily kritiks during my most competitive seasons. As such I'm familiar with most K lit bases, theory args, etc, and I'm comfortable with speed. I do ask that you please vary speed and/or tone between your tags, theory shells and analytics versus the text of your cards, especially if you're reading a lot of blippy theory args. Being comfortable with speed doesn't mean I appreciate flowing all 8 of your 5-word standards in 10 seconds with no 'nexts' in between.

I generally consider myself fairly tab, with that being said I have some opinions:

Plan Texts/DAs/CPs: Don't be discouraged by the fact that I was a K hack as a debater. I don't find that I enjoy K heavy debates any more than policy oriented ones as a judge, I just enjoy good debates. I specifically enjoy well executed small/janky plans and CPs. I don't have much else specific to say about these args.

Kritiks: As above, I'm very down with whatever K you want to run, even the weird ones. I don't necessarily believe Ks require an alt, if you can make clear why the aff is entirely self defeating or detestable on face, I think you can win, but you're probably better off with an alt. I do try to counterbalance against a bit of commonplace anti-K bias in terms of the degree of explanation I require from Ks. If debaters are expected to understand the intricacies of what's happening in the South China Sea, I think it's reasonable to expect them to know the definition of Biopower. However, I do expect a robust explanation of how your K interacts with the Aff specifically and the unique wrinkles of your kritik. I think this specificity tends to become more important in the more postmodern lit bases, as well as with args like Cap which can be run in near infinite flavors.

'Nontopical' K affs/Project Affs/Performance Affs/Rejecting the resolution/Whatever: I am probably more down with these types of affirmatives than the average judge. You should articulate either in the 1AC or near the top of the framing/framework flow A. your interpretation of what debate is, what it's for and your Aff's relationship to the resolution (are you claiming to be topical somehow? shouldn't have to be?) and B. why doing whatever your Aff is doing is good in light of that interp.

Speaker Points: I believe these are arbitrary and I wish we had better ways to break ties. I tend to give high-ish speaks with the winner of the debate getting an extra half-point. Being that I think they are arbitrary, I may tank your speaks, no matter your speech quality, if you anger me by being needlessly rude or obnoxious.

Theory Generalities: I believe that competing interpretations is the only truly appropriate way to evaluate debates about debate. I am more likely to evaluate reasonability type arguments as a standard or defense against voters on theory than as a proper response to competing interps because top level reasonability arguments are themselves a competing interpretation -- lending the argument a weird performative incoherency on-top of, in my experience, never being clearly defined.

I generally take it for granted that fairness is an internal link to education unless told otherwise.

I will generally vote on any theory argument that I'm instructed to vote on if the offense is clearly won. That being said if you pick up on one of the arguments I am about to say I do not like, or something you and I both know is an awful argument, I may drop your speaks.

Theory Specifics:

RVIs: I see these being read a lot in LD. I do not recommend reading these in front of me. I don't generally believe that it is unfair to debate about any aspects of debate, and I don't think I've ever seen an RVI run convincingly. If you insist on going for an RVI, I'd be far more compelled by arguments about theory bloat harming the educational value of debate than the args I typically see along the lines of 'they read too many theory args/I disagree with their theory args and that's not fair.' But probably just don't.

I am much more willing to consider Ks of framework/theory (which I've always viewed as distinct from RVIs, though I've seen them used interchangeably in LD) as voters. If you go for this, you should have a clear story about what is so rhetorically/structurally harmful about their theory arguments that your opponent ought to lose outright.

Floating PIKs: Don't do them. If your kritik doesn't solve some aspect of the aff you're probably doing it wrong, but if your alt actually enacts nonprecluded parts of the affirmative plan, you need to be forthcoming about that in the 1NC. I'm probably more lenient than most on floating PIKs when judging policy, but the structure of LD definitely raises my expectations in terms of specificity from the 1N. I won't reject the argument out of hand but I'll allow new "floating piks bad" in the 2AR which will obviously sink your PIK.

Aff/Neg Choice: I hate these args. In line with the rest of my opinions here, I believe things in debate should be up for debate. Reading interps that state terms of the round should be chosen by either party, or that an opponent should not be allowed to respond to a particular argument, fundamentally does not sit well with me. I think winning these args requires winning with essential certainty that whatever "choice" it is you're making (e.g. aff chooses util good) be the best choice, in which case you should just win that interp in the first place.

Perf Con: I probably take perf con arguments more seriously than the average judge. If there is a significant rhetorical/performative/in-round component to enacting your alt or advocacy, I think performative contradiction can be articulated as a turn that is not resolved by conditionality. I think it makes more sense articulated as a solvency turn than a theory interp though.

Those are all the specific things I can think to comment on at the moment. If you have questions, certainly ask.

Nathan Frenkel Catonsville High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 18, 2021 at 11:03 AM EDT

natefrenkel12@gmail.com (please put me on the chain!)

Background

Hey y'all I'm Nate (he/him/his). I debated LD at Catonsville for 4 years. I was a trad debater, but I debated on the circuit a bunch, even making it to a few bid rounds and clearing and advancing at nats multiple times so I'm familiar with both worlds of debate and the styles within them. As long as you're respectful and aren't a blatant jerk, we should be fine!

General

Tech > truth unless the args are morally repugnant. All args need a claim, warrant, and impact, I won't do the work to warrant your arg or create an impact for you. I probably won't be familiar with any of the topic lit so don't assume I know what your acronyms or topic specific jargon mean. A lot of kids seem wary of this, but if you're obviously winning the round don't spend 10 minutes repeatedly extending the same arg, end your speech early. More than anything, debate should be an inclusive place, I won't reward an exclusionary practices. I'm also a first year out, so you probably shouldn't pref me too high in the first place lol. Oh also you probably shouldn't read idpol stuff if you don't identify as a member of the group, I probably won't drop you face, but your speaks will probably be tanked and my threshold for responses will be crazy low.

Speed

You can go as fast as you want as long as I can comprehend what you're saying. I don't like to flow off a doc so I'll clear you and then stop flowing if you don't slow down. For online debate it's probably best that you don't go top speed for clarity over zoom. It's probably also best if you slow down on dense analytics, especially if they aren't in the doc. I was the kid that ran anti-spread theory in out-rounds at circuit tourneys so if you're being a dick to a lay kid I'll be extremely receptive to a lay "don't spread against lay kids" kinda theory arg. I'm also super comfortable saying that I didn't evaluate an argument because you were going to fast/being incomprehensible so I couldn't flow it.

LARP

Definitely the style of debate I'm most familiar with and feel most comfortable judging. The most important thing in these rounds is impact calc. I really don't wanna intervene, y'all should be telling me exactly how to vote through your impact calc. Disads need a clear link and impact, and should probably be more than just 1 blippy card if you want me to vote on it.

T/Theory

Ran some theory on the circuit, but def less familiar with it. Not a big fan of dense theory debates and probably not the best judge to adjudicate them. Theory is about coverage and a shell needs to be fully extended in order for it to be a complete arg. More friv theory is probably bs and I'll probably have a lower threshold for responses. Default to DTA and CI, but please don't make me default. Also, please don't run disclosure against a lay debater or a clear novice, I def won't be happy.

Phil

Probably some of my favorite debates. I default to epistemic confidence and truth testing (don't make me default please). Don't assume I know your philosophy. If you're spreading, slow down on the dense analytics, especially if they're not in the doc. Please weigh, don't just tell that your fw is better than your opponent's so you get an auto-win. I also was never a big fan of the prewritten extensions that always got read at the start of every non-constructive speech. I also think the current state of circuit phil debate is centered around extending dropped blips which makes me kinda sad.

I'm pretty familiar with most of the more stock Ks (cap, fem, security, setcol), but I probably am not the best judge for dense K debate or more high theory/pomo Ks. You should probably treat me like a policy judge for most Ks. Don't assume I'm familiar with your lit. Ks probably need a clear link, links of omission are super dubious in my mind. Your alt clearly needs to do something, and if you don't extend some sort of alt solvency, I can't vote for the K. K affs are also kinda dubious, especially if there's no real explanation of the alt/alt solvency. I'll listen to them for sure, but I'm pretty receptive to T fw here.

Trix

Please don't read trix in front of me lol. If that's your go-to, it's probably to your benefit to strike me. I won't auto-drop you and I'll still do my best to evaluate the args, but my threshold for responses is gonna be much lower.

Lay Debate

I really love high level lay debate. It can easily be more exciting than a good circuit round if done well. Fw debate is great, but don't spend 5 minutes telling me why justice is better than morality or vice-versa. The best lay debaters know when to strategically kick their fws. I also need actual impact calc. If you're going claim material advantages, you have to be prepared to defend implementation and its consequences. Too many lay debaters are comfortable saying "oh this is LD, I don't have to defend implementation or any of these disadvantages."

Priya George Riverside HS 2 rounds

Mike Girouard Coppell High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 14, 2020 at 7:49 PM CDT

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

Balaji Gopalakrishnan Ardrey Kell High School 2 rounds

Gerard Grigsby Marlborough School 6 rounds

Srini Guda Thomas Edison EnergySmart Charter School 3 rounds

Emilyn Hazelbrook Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 8:37 AM EDT

Emilyn Hazelbrook (she/her)

Please put me on the email chain: emilyndebate@gmail.com

Kamiak '21, Emory '25. Debated policy for four years in high school and in my third year of college debate, although I am not nearly as involved as I once was in the activity.

I adapt to you, not the other way around. Everything below will make it easier for me to understand, weigh, and vote for your arguments, but shouldn't dissuade you from reading anything.

LD for Barkley Forum 2024: I have judged approximately 10 rounds of LD in my life and none on this topic. The closer your debating style resembles policy, the more easily I will be able to evaluate arguments, but I do have experience with evaluating criterion/value debates. My best advice to you is to focus on clash and responding intelligently to the other person's arguments and over-explain terms on this topic. Ask me as many questions before the round as you need.

Tech > Truth.

Argument = claim + warrant (and + impact or reason why it matters in rebuttals). If you say "they dropped the link" and then do not explain warrants and impact out why I should vote on it, I will not vote on it.

K Affs — Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

Topicality — I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

Theory — Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

Kritiks — Read very specific links and err on the side of over-explaining your thesis and alt. I'll probably weigh the 1ac impacts, but if the aff is losing that your reps/in-round actions make the world/debate worse, you're in a bad place. I am not the best for postmodernism kritiks and will likely be confused if I have to render a decision on one.

Counterplans — I lean neg on most questions of competition, although I am really not a fan of consult cps. If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2ns won't spend time extending a losing cp.

Disadvantages — Compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

Case — Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Miscellaneous — High-quality historical examples, well-executed jokes, and really good CX will boost your speaker points. Suffering, violence, and death are unquestionably bad. I like debaters who make it easy for me to flow them by numbering arguments, signposting clearly, and avoiding extensive overviews or walls at the top of the flow. I dislike people who cross the line between assertive and unnecessarily rude during CX, and will factor that into speaker points.

Be nice and have fun!

David Herrera Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Will Hobson Carrollton 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:12 PM EDT

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother ~~likes~~ LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

dylan jones Lynbrook HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 7:30 AM CDT

[[ ]] I was told my old paradigm was too long, so I've shortened it considerably. I still agree with everything that was there broadly, and you can read the archived version here.

[[ ]] About Me

I debated in HS and won some stuff, graduating in 2021. I also had a brief stint in NDT/CEDA policy and won nothing. I haven't competed since early 2022.
Disinterested in judging vacuous non-arguments and listening to kids be jerks to each other. Be nice. Violence in front of me is an L0 and a talk with your coach. The target of this violence decides what happens with the debate. Yes, this includes misgendering.
MUCH WORSE FOR E-DEBATE. It's too draining and I zone out a lot. Pref me online at your own risk.
I want to be on the email chain, and I want you to send docs in Word doc format: dylanj724@yahoo.com
Yes speed, if you have to ask though you're likely unclear and I urge you to correct it.
Yes, clash. No to arguments that are specifically designed to avoid engagement

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

tl;dr is that I think every decision is interventionist to some degree, but I try to be as predictable and open about my preferences as possible.
yes, policy; counterplans, disads, etc. are fine. Zero risk is probably a thing. I think it's more interventionist to vote on unwarranted arguments unjustified by the evidence than to read evidence after the debate without being prompted. My BS detector is good and if you're lying about evidence, I'll probably know.
yes kritiks, but I lean more toward policy these days. these next two sentences might seem paradoxical, but I assure you they are not. I am deeply interested in poststructuralist positions and think I will be the best for you if this is your thing. you should defend something material and do something. preference for speeches that contain the alternative and do something material instead of heavy framework dumps with "reject the aff." To clarify, framework and a link is a fine 2nr but the important part is a link. If I don't know what the aff is doing that is actively bad I cannot vote it down even under your framework interp.
yes planless/creatively topical/critical affs, but again I lean more toward policy these days. justify why reading your aff in a space where it must be negated and debated against is good, not just why it's good in a vacuum. talking about the resolution is a must - you should not be recycling backfiles from a different topic and saying nothing about the resolution. Talk about the entire resolution and don't abstract from words or modifiers. if I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. I'm a big sucker for presumption.
yes T-FWK. fine for both fairness and clash, although if you're going for fairness as an internal link, you're probably better set going for clash as an impact itself. Talk about the aff, don't just debate past it.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

Phil: sometimes. I understand these arguments theoretically considering it's what I'm studying and I know what people like Kant, Levinas, Spinoza, and Hegel say. I don't understand the debate application of these folks. Be clear and overexplain.
Tricks: strike me.

If you have questions email me, although the archived version of my paradigm at the top will likely answer them. Good luck!

Tommy Jordan Riverwood High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 9, 2024 at 9:29 AM EDT

Main Paradigm

questions/email chain - jordant2debate@gmail.com

You do you; I do not care. Any style of debating is on the table as long as there is clash and respect.

I will vote on pretty much anything, as long as it is warranted and packaged well.

The following are just random thoughts.

Policy:

You are not allowed to send more than three cards in the body of the email.

Theory: I will not judge kick. Multiple conditional planks on the same cp are very bad to me. All other theory depends on the flow. I am in favor of multiple conditional alternatives as long as there is no contradiction.

T:Love me some T debates. The neg should provide an explanation of the topic and clearly define how the affirmative justifies unfair/unpreppable affs. The neg should also provide a clear vision of topical ground with possible affs that could be read under aff's interp. The aff should provide a defense of how their plan text can be reasonably debated within the boundaries of the topic itself even if it might be outside the lit base.

K stuff:

Planless affs should respond to the resolution, even if you say no.

The k should link to the aff.

I am very sympathetic to presumption in a lot of these debates, and under-explained or confusing alts/solvency mechanisms are not going to go well with me. When on the neg, critical teams should highlight specific examples of the problematic philosophy/worldview that manifested in the 1AC. I also need strong arguments for why your argument matters in this scholastic activity.

More framework debaters should just go for the object of the resolution as topicality. Way too many planless teams depend entirely on state bad to win the debate without addressing real topic knowledge.

LD:

Overview:

I default to an offense/defense paradigm. Win the impact debate and the framework, and you will probably win the debate.

I will be deep in the cold, hard ground before I vote on an RVI.

Flex prep is allowed, but I do not count it as CX. You really should only do it to ask clarifying or procedural questions.

I am much more familiar with arguments that can be found in other events than I am with more specific LD arguments. This means that the nuances of unique LD debates like Phil could be lost on me. If you find me in the back for these debates, I will require more explanation and application to the larger debate to make sense of your argument.

Phil:I need a good overview at the top to explain your position. I am getting more familiar with this type of debate, but a quick and concise argument will make the debate easier for you.

Ks: Do it. I am pretty familiar with most lit bases, so I will probably have some bad comments to make.

PF:

No need for off-time road-maps or clarifications about the topic: I am aware of the resolution. Unless you are anticipating a definitions debate, that time could be better used. PF roadmaps don't make sense; you only have two flows....

I disclose, and I expect you to take notes on my RFD: You only get better with honest feedback and taking notes on said feedback. Feel free to ask questions of my decision.

I strongly encourage disclosure/evidence sharing: Good debates are made by good prep. Disclosing contentions and sharing evidence helps all of us ensure that we are using the best arguments possible. This is not a requirement, but it will help me give a better RFD and help you get better at debate.

Most 'voters' I hear aren't real voters: Voters should be crucial moments of the debate that control how I adjudicate the round. They are not just your impacts...

Framework: Can either be in the constructive or the rebuttal. It should be in the final focus if you want me to vote off it.

Theory: Allowed, but I will only vote on it if the violation is egregious and obvious.

Generic Thoughts: I think the second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal, and I think the first rebuttal should include a number of preemptive arguments that you assume will be read in the round. Use their contentions, their cross-fire questions, and your knowledge of the topic to predict what they will run and base your defense around that. Most case defense is meaningless repetition at best, and I don't bother flowing a lot of it.

The summary should be your last refutation of their points and the final focus should be framing, impacts, and writing the ballot. This means not everything has to be in the final focus, but offensive arguments should be.

Lisa Kahler Ayala High School 3 rounds

David Kilpatrick The Harker School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 3, 2024 at 12:06 PM CDT

New - NDT 24. Welcome to Atlanta!

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll recieve a loss along with the lowest points tabroom will allow me to asign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissable for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Gordon Krauss Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Julian Kuffour Peninsula High School 5 rounds

Debeshi Kundu Ardrey Kell High School 1 rounds

Rose Larson Sage 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 2:51 AM CDT

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

she/her

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas

CEDA Octofinalist x1, CEDA Quarterfinalist x1, NDT Double Octofinalist x1

If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to direct you to some resources. ESPECIALLY if you are interested in debating for/attending KU - we have a wonderful program and I'd love to talk to you about it.

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average LD debate. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. All things equal, the debates I most enjoy are phil, k, topicality, and traditional debates. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.

An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I don't care if your opponent didn't answer words you said, they haven't "dropped" anything unless those words were complete arguments. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it. If you can, feel free, and I'd love to vote for you.

I will not arbitrarily treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it."

I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, Kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash.

Topicality should include case lists, preferably both offensive and defensive.

I view counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness. I will evaluate the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative model for how I should think about framework debates.

Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty, RVIs, frivolous theory, Mollow

Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress

Arguments I like and want to see more of: circumvention, skepticism and determinism, specific impact turns, normative justifications for utilitarianism > "extinction outweighs", psychoanalysis, the cap K against policy affs, carded TVAs, advantage counterplans

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question outside of CX time, unless I also did not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Note on speaker points:
29.5+ one of the best speakers at the tournament
29.0-29.5 fantastic speaker
28.5-29.0 above average speaker
28.0-28.5 average speaker
27.5-28.0 below average speaker
27-27.5 very bad speaker

I will not give below a 27 unless something seriously wrong happens in the debate.

I have given two 30s in 300+ rounds of judging, congrats if you get one.

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.

Yoyo Lei Millard North High School 6 rounds

Rafael Li Brookfield East 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 10:49 AM EDT

I will get to you! I may take a little time to write critiques - I should be done within an hour or two for both debaters. Remember to check at the end of the tourney, any last thoughts will be left there.

Last Updated: 12/16/23

***TLDR***

Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

I am hybrid, trad/prog.

I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc as that's for checking warrants. If you are reading that fast please slow down.

I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional, mostly queer theory for Ks. Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down AT LEAST 25% for theory and quick prewritten analytics. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps.

Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.

Evidence ethics and courtesy please.

***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***

I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.

However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms as I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.

For safety slow down about 20-30%.

***OTHER COMMENTS***

I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!

Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good. Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.

And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.

Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns

Brookfield East '19 | UMBC '23 Computer Science - Cybersecurity

Junior Minotaur Developer - Prescient Edge Corporation

01rafe0li@gmail.com [zeros not o's]

Conflicts: Brookfield East

***ABOUT ME***

I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.

In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.

***GENERAL GUIDELINES***

Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks

a. No racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobia, etc.

b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.

c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.

d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.Don't read if your opponent expresses they cannot hear it, I will auto drop and tank you.

- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad

- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims

- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense

-Roadmaps seem pointless, if you are efficient, organized, and signpost well you shouldn't need to

I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns

**SPEAKS**

- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.

30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.

<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics

27-27.4 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.

27.5-27.9 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.

28-28.4 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.

28.5-28.9 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.

29-29.4 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.

29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.

***ROUND PREFERENCES***

Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.

* General Strat

- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing

- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"

- Structure well

- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics

Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues

* Speed

- Spreading is fine

- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer

- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.

- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags

- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.

* CX

- Be assertive, not overbearing

- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write

- Flex prep fine

* Flashing

- Flash everything not extemp

- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell

- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for

* Disclosure

- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu

- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much

- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one

* Tech > Truth

- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.

1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications

2. Despise friv theory, don't read

- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense

* General Tech

- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations

- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells

- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy

- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended

- Would prefer explicit kicks

- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should

- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?

- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is

- Severance perms seem bad

* K

- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory

- Be genuine, especially if running performance

- Know what you are running

- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate

- Develop your thesis and link story

- Err on the side of overexplaining

- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations

- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue

- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story

- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison

* K v. Topicality

- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well

- Clear sequencing and defense will save you

** LARP

* Plan

- Text is explicit and specific

- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical

- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency

- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen

- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation

* CP

- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP

- Prove competitiveness

- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them

* DA

- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants

- Functional warrants throughout link chain

- Weigh

* Theory

- CI, DTA, No RVI

- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense

- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it

- Slow down for analytics

- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention

- Independent Voters: same as found in K section

- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters

* Tricks

- Zero experience with this stuff

- Won't vote off of hidden text

- Implicate and justify well

Nethmin Liyanage Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:05 AM PDT

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

sim luo Prospect High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 8:59 AM EDT

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Alison Manaker Strath Haven 1 rounds

Cale McCrary Westlake 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 10:43 PM CDT

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

David McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School 6 rounds

Samantha McLoughlin Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 10:33 PM PDT

**Conflicts for TOC 24: Harvard Westlake, Scarsdale, Westridge TW, Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, San Mateo YR, Monta Vista KR, Los Altos AK, Amador Valley EM, Brophy TJ, Stanford OHS AY, Horace Greeley SG, Bellevue WL, Concord Carlisle FZ, St Agnes EH

**TOC Specific: if you're a senior and would not like to hear the RFD, just let me know!

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past two years/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

If you are going too fast for me to tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not. I will call clear and slow, please listen or we will all be sad.

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Jenn Melin Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:24 AM CDT

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.

Parth Misra The Academy Of Classical Christian Studies 6 rounds

Shampurna Mitra Saratoga HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 24, 2022 at 8:47 AM CDT

i did ld for two years at westlake high school

she/her pronouns; abide by your opponent's pronouns

add me to the email chain: shampurnam@gmail.com

i'm more of a flow judge and i don't like doing work so i prob won't evaluate an argument unless it's clearly extended

probably most familiar with larp and theory debate but any args are fine as long as you flush them out properly (i hate phil debates tho and am really bad at evaluating them)

layer ur args and warrant why you're winning in the top layer. give me a big picture analysis at the end and explain to me why you're winning; essentially write my ballot for me

fine w/ speed but if i say clear twice and u don't slow down or speak clearly then i will stop flowing; im usually pretty generous with speaks but i have a really low threshold for debaters being rude and/or aggressive to me or their opponent and i WILL give u low speaks if you say anything problematic

please give trigger warnings; also i don't do well with any extremely graphic depictions of rape and sexual violence

larp:

- DAs: pretty much fine with anything as long as you have a proper link story and clear impact calculus

- plans/cps/pics: pls do comparative worlds weighing; i think these are strategic and mainly what i ran in hs so i'm fine with really anything

Ks:

- fine with anything as long as they are well warranted; explain why voting for the k actually matters

- PIKs: open to PIKs good/bad debate, i don't have a default on this

- pls do work with the alt and explain the methodology; i have a low threshold when alt isn't warranted

- k affs are cool just explain to me why it's relevant to vote aff and why your topic or method is better

performance:

- i think performances are really cool and meaningful in the debate space; just explain why i should endorse the performance and also pls have good warrants

theory:

- really low threshold for friv theory

- don't spread your interps and have a strong warrant on your abuse story

t/framework:

- i think t debate is valid but i definitely will buy an abuse story off the neg if it is warranted

- pls pls pls explain why your fw matters more and what my role is as the judge; i think framework debates get really messy and i don't like doing work so please weigh

phil:

- sorry i don't like phil debate and i'm pretty bad at evaluating these types of rounds

- if you're reading dense phil please slow down and explain to me the argument like im 5 lol

tricks:

- i don't like them and idk how to evaluate them

good luck everyone! i know debate can be a toxic and negative space sometimes so if you ever need to leave the round please just let me know; mental health comes first

Rishi Mukherjee Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 4:49 PM EDT

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Rishi Mukherjee (he/him)

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, Cicero Project, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University.

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com put me on the chain

Harvard Update

I have had a recent spiritual realization. I have faith that there is no truth without wisdom. When making decisions I find that wisdom>tech>truth: divine and spiritual understandings seem inseparable from any ethical paradigm including intuition, consequentialism, intention etc. thus argumentation that does not center religious or divine morality will not be rewarded.

Lexington Update

- i do not want to judge online debates when there is an in person alternative - in college berhe and i deadass strike all online judges - my computer is egregious as i'm using a very old laptop and it can barely handle gmail and overheats when i use zoom - so please strike me if you're online.

- if you feel you must pref me despite competing online i do understand as someone who has to finesse for funding and has debated sick trust me i resonate - of course i still value fair competition above all else and of course i will not punish you with speaks or the ballot if you pref me online - but i will be very grumpy if you choose to pref me despite my objections - if i am judging you online please refer to the section called "online debate".

- this is my first tournament on this topic and i haven't judged policy since last years TOC - and also this is my first year judging where i know close to little about the high school topic - i know nothing about the camp affs, common arguments, side bias, T wordings, accepted norms etc. - for what it's worth i will say i'm majoring in finance and i'm quite knowledgeable about economics plus i've coached on a PF topic about UBI and i've researched and debated an aff about fiscal redistribution - if that matters to you or your coaches you should pref accordingly.

- if you're interested in debating in college in the northeast feel free to let me know or ask questions :)

PF Paradigm
- everything applies from policy paradigm (the top level part mostly)

i consider myself flay funnily enough - but to you i'm probably a flow judge - I do policy - but taught some PF - im ok with speed - ok with theory - ok with k's - plus down for (well executed) trolling

misc things that are weird about me in PF:

down for paraphrasing - but i believe down with paraphrasing
i would prefer that people do speech docs than waste time in ev checks
i flow crossfire
i actually treat grand cross and the summary as one speech - in my head its the 1ar in policy
i care about extending 'complete' args into the FF
i care less than most about terminalization but im lowkey a fan - numbers are cool
i never understood pf judges deciding based on the number of clashes (see jamie zhang) - i resolve debates based on offense/defense and what seems most important - i dont really go clash by clash to resolve debates - i also default to what i consider judge instruction - (see policy paradigm)

LD Paradigm(Updated for Blue Key RR)

If I were preffing myself: 1 for LARP, Ks, Tricks, & T/Theory and 2/3 for Phil

I do CX, but I've done and judged a fair bit of LD. Everything from my policy paradigm applies. Defaults and Bias are my position without explicit argumentation. Defaults: I default to T as a higher layer than the K . I default permissibility and presumption negates. I default dtd on T/Theory.
Ks/Kaffs/T-FW all fine - I've debated on both sides. Far higher tolerance than most for "frivolous" theory, tricks, a priori's. Harder sell but ok for T-Nebel and RVI's but that's because I think plans are good and that I'm decent for theory generally respectively - if you win technically you're fine.

Memes aren't an autowin despite what you might hear about me. They still need to be fleshed out arguments. But I will be pleased if you send it and go for memes!

Policy Paradigm (Updated for Emory)

Emory Update - Policy

- i noticed i am regressing speakswise because im not impressed recently

- i know the NATO topic pretty well - i debated a NATO aff for all of alliances and have done some prep on this topic plus i occasionally read the news abt Russia - and im disenchanted with the love of recent ev as a substitute for coherent warrants

- talking to shree a lot has made me care more about a) cards in K debates & b) near-excessive contextualization to the other team in FW v Kaff debates by both the aff and neg

- whimsically down for a condo debate that starts early in the 2ac

Top Level:

- I believe debate is best when the judge does not favor adjudicating the round based on personal preconceived notions such as "rep" or "truth" among others. I strive to uphold this ideal and evaluate the debate in a technical manner. "If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates; explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments & competing claims as well as why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I will make my own judgements on how to evaluate competing arguments. Many "JF's" occur because judges put the puzzle pieces together differently in their own head. Tbh this is more important than "opinions" on arguments. Tell me how to think and why!

Online Debate

- Don't start a speech without me.

- I usually won't say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. It is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming args until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully.

- Record your speeches; people inevitably disconnect in the middle of a speech and recording prevents issues that arise from this. My computer caught on fire one time lol anything can happen.

K Stuff -

Kaffs/Framework

- I know people pref based on this so TLDR: I'm very middling. I would pref myself above most clash judges but below judges who lean for you because I'm good for policy-policy and K v K.

- I don't care about what the aff does unless the neg makes it an issue. I read both affs with a plan and planless affs in high-school and continue to read both on the aff in college and I also often read FW on the neg.

- I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg i.e. people who say fairness is always better than clash etc. I think that categorizing certain impacts as always strategic or unviable is an L take. Go for whatever option you are most comfortable with/you think is most strategic.

Ks on the neg v Policy Affs

- I'm persuaded by the idea that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.

- I find it simpler to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.

K v K

- Framing and judge instruction should be very explicit and debated out.

- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds; buzzwords lose rounds.

Policy Stuff

- I like the full package: I want a predictable model of debate that also produces good debates. I find it difficult to intrinsically care more about one of these components than the other.

- Reasonability is more persuasive to me when articulated with specific arguments with impacts like substance crowd-out rather than vague pleading that I should believe the affirmative.

- I am unfamiliar with the current high school topic.

DAs

- Comparison of any form including turns case or impact calc wins debates.

- A central question I usually have is evaluating and comparing risk. I find "zero-risk" impossible but often negligible risk is functionally the same e.g. I consider the risk of randomly getting struck by lightning negligible so I wouldn't decide against going outside just because the magnitude of taking a walk is outweighed by death by lightning zap. There is not zero risk that Shree wins the Olympic 200 meter dash in flip flops, however there is very negligible risk of such an event.

- great evidence > good analytics > poor evidence

CPs

- I used to not judge kick unless instructed to do so - I accidentally did one time though. Eh probably neg leaning if you tell me to.

- Fine for hella condo, but I always will take condo seriously if properly extended. I personally care much less abt perf con than most.

- I have no problem with process CPs that compete off of "arbitrary things" like certainty/immediacy as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other 'abusive' CPs. I generally find it easiest to vote aff in these debates if you have a process advantage. However, most good aff teams can also handily defeat these positions with proper theory and competition debate.

- I am lowkey not with the hype around going for tricky perms against process CP and I'm not enchanted with tricky perms as most and I prefer just voting on theory. I am generally compelled that things like intrinsic perms are bad, but at the same time that certain process cp's are bad.

Misc

- I believe meme arguments are an art form - passion and skill are critical! - this argument has gone underground - if you know you know.

- Don't make debate unsafe. I don't have a problem with stuff like the Death K, Spark, Wipeout etc. but use your best judgement.

- Clipping or other ev ethics violations are a loss and 0 speaks, accusations need a recording/proof and will stop the round.

- I give "modern" speaks and modulate based on the tournament "difficulty".

- I often flow CX.

- While I might not think too highly of debate in the abstract, I definitively respect the passion and effort people put into the activity. Therefore I approach judging and feedback seriously in accordance. The investment is what makes it all worth it.

Manny Navarrete Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 4:57 AM EDT

he/they

Coaching affiliations: Atlanta Urban Debate League Debate Ambassadors (Grady, Decatur, Drew Charter, etc.), 2018-2022; Emory University, 2022-

Scroll to the end for non-policy

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - mnav453[at]gmail[dot]com

SEND OUT A TEST EMAIL 5-10 MINUTES BEFORE THE ROUND. Subject should be formatted something like: "Tournament Name and Year - Round Number - Aff team vs Neg team." For example, "ADA 2023 - Round 1 - Greendale Community College AA vs Springfield University BB"

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES: If I am judging you online, please go slower, especially when you are starting your speeches; my audio set up is not the best. You should also get some sort of confirmation that everyone is present before starting your speech. If I have my camera off, I am not there and you should wait until I have turned my camera back on before starting your speech or CX.

Feel free to email if you have questions about anything I've written here or if you thought of a question after post-round feedback.

I have organized the policy portion into a short version for the pre round and a long version for prefs. After that is some procedural stuff, i.e. how I handle ethics violations.

NDT 2024 UPDATES

I have not judged since the first semester, so I am pretty unaware of topic innovation and metagame shifts from Wake onwards. I am also trying to rely less on docs when flowing, so you may want to go slower than you normally do.

TL;DR (FOR THE PRE-ROUND)

If I'm judging you in person, then I would appreciate wearing masks when you're not actively speaking or eating/drinking. It's not a requirement and I won't change your speaks for it, but we are still living with COVID and I'd rather minimize risk if possible. Thank you for the consideration.

Do you and make choices. I am most experienced judging policy aff v policy neg and policy aff v critical neg debates, but I will try my best to judge the arguments in front of me in the ways that the debaters want me to. Just make sure to choose the most important arguments and resolve them in the final rebuttals. In other words not every argument on a sheet of paper needs to be extended into the final speeches.

I care a lot more about the flow then the card doc. I will read along during speeches, but I try not to read cards after the debate unless either the debaters have explicitly instructed me to do so or I feel that I have to in order to resolve an important argument. As a result, go slower and follow the line by line. That doesn't mean numbering every argument you make, but rather sticking to the arguments in the order they were originally presented in and explicitly saying so when you deviate from that order.

In the event that you want me to read cards, please do some evidence comparison: tell me how I should read, not just what, i.e. what does your ev assume that theirs doesn't, is their evidence rhetorically powerful instead of argumentatively substantive, etc. This can help in determining close debates.

I care more about big picture storytelling and substantive engagements than cheap shots and minor technical concessions. I'd rather decide a debate on the basis of well warranted evidence or great judge instruction than "multiple perms are a reason to reject the team".

If you're extending a negative advocacy (CPs & Ks), assume I know nothing about your mechanism/literature/whatever, and spend some time in the block just explaining the premise(s) of your argument.

2023-2024 college policy topic thoughts: Judged a few debates at Kentucky and UMW. More comfortable with the core affs/core DA's. Don't have a strong opinion on T questions.

LONG VERSION (FOR PREFS)

Still figuring myself out as a judge, so what follows are not my indelible Thoughts on Debate but rather what I happen to think at this moment in time. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in the way(s) the debaters want me to. That being said, I think how someone approaches judging will be much more useful to you as you fill out prefs than the whats of their pre existing biases.

Most people seem to be debating to the 2AC/block and card doc instead of the 2NR/2AR and the flow these days. I don’t say this because I want to show off my flowing skills (I am pretty average with respect to flowing ability, perhaps slightly worse on a laptop), but because this an easy way to extend arguments but not resolve them. You can read all of your impact turns to T in the 2AC or every neg UQ card on politics in the 1NR, but extending all of them without saying why you’re extending them in a strategic sense makes it difficult to determine what the most important arguments are and how to resolve them. It also doesn’t help that most people blaze through their blocks without slowing down on tags, using transition words, or otherwise making their speech palatable to the human ear.

As such, I will try to reward strategic decision making and judge instruction more than just who read more cards. This does not mean I hate cards – obviously well-researched and well-prepared arguments are better than badly-researched and ill-prepared ones – but rather that, unless the debaters have instructed me to read specific cards or I feel I must do so in order to resolve an important argument, I will try not let the evidence speak in place of the debaters. I will note however that in close debates, good evidence comparison can be a massive help in resolving the debate. By “good evidence comparison” I mean telling me what parts of the evidence I should prioritize, what the implications of the comparison is, etc. In other words, evidence comparison is another aspect of judge instruction.

In terms of how this actually affects your debating, you should generally go slower and prioritize your flowability. Start the 2AR/2NR by isolating what is the most important argument to resolve and why resolving that one argument filters the rest of the debate. From there you pick the most important arguments on your flow, follow the line by line, and explain why each argument is a necessary component of my decision, and explain why I should resolve them in your favor. If you want me to read a specific card or set of cards, then you should tell me to do so.

What follows are my biases and thoughts on different genres of debates.

K aff v T: While I have run the occasional aff without a plan, most of my debate experience, whether competing or coaching, is policy affirmatives against either some version of CP/DA or K strategies. Most of how I think about debate follows on from this style. This does not mean that T versus an aff without a plan is an auto-win in front of me, but rather that I have less experience and knowledge about these types of affirmatives. I think that affirmative teams should at least have some relation towards the resolution and should try to offer some sort of model of the topic and/or debate in general. Conversely, negative teams need to explain why fairness/education/whatever your standard is would be a preferable to whatever standard the affirmative proposes. In other words, you can win fairness is an impact but still lose if you don't win it outweighs the aff's impacts. I am sympathetic to limits arguments, but only to the extent they resolve some kind of impact that interacts with the opponent’s impacts. TVA’s and switch side arguments can serve as useful tiebreakers for the negative. I also think these affs should defend some departure from the status quo.

Policy aff v K: I find that the two basic ways to win a K in front of me are either to explain why I should change my decision calculus from utilitarianism and/or consequentialism to a different model (“framework”) or why I should prefer a different way of approaching the world/politics than standard USFG action (“alt”). “Links as linear DAs” I don’t find super persuasive. With regards to more framework-type strategies, you need to explain the implications of winning framework: does it change how I evaluate the link debate? Is winning framework enough to justify a ballot? This also applies to the aff: you need to explain why I should care about your framework arguments beyond “now we don’t lose on framework”. I also find role of the ballot/role of the judge arguments not super useful, since they seem to be round about ways of doing framework and impact analysis; they most frequently appear in my RFDs when the other team has conceded them. For framework strategies, it may be useful to forefront your defense and minimize how much the other team can access their offense. For alt-type strategies, you should explain why the alternative is competitive with the affirmative's intervention and how it resolves the affirmative's offense and/or your offense. My biggest comment to affirmative teams is to pick the focus of disagreement in advance and not just let the negative dictate the terms of the debate.

Policy v policy: Please, go for "substantive" strategies and not cheap shots; those debates are maybe harder to execute well but are much more rewarding for everyone involved. Case debating is a lost art these days, between the rise of massive multi plank CPs that fiat everything possible and most people prioritizing impact defense in their 2NR case coverage. Cases tend to be weakest in their internal link chains and solvency, so negative teams should think about what the weakest part of the case is and not just what you have backfiles to answer. In other words I am willing to vote negative on presumption. I am not good for complex process CPs or CPs that fiat in offense. To go for that strategy, I find it requires a lot of theory debating, which I have more thoughts on below, but also the ability to impact your theory and competition arguments. I also don’t find “sufficiency framing” a useful argument in a vacuum since I don’t know what counts as sufficiently solving the case. I like DAs and impact turns, since they more or less force disagreement over some part of the case. Just make sure to highlight the important cards you want me to read after the round. You also need to explain why winning certain parts of the flow are enough to win you the debate even if you are losing other parts. For example, in a debate about de-development/degrowth, my ballot gets a lot easier to decide if you win that sustainability is more important than a transition or vice versa.

K v K: I have the least experience judging these kinds of debates. I need some sort of clear idea of what the aff does and why its intervention is important and a departure from the status quo, and the negative needs some reason why that intervention is not desirable. I would describe my knowledge of critical literature as broad but shallow: I have some idea of the main arguments of many of the most cited authors but either haven’t read most of the primary works or haven’t thought about how they function in the debate context. If you want to go for the cap k as a policy team versus an aff without a plan, you should explain why I should care about extinction impacts or the desirability of your political project as compared to the negative's.

T and Theory: I think of T against policy affs as fall back options for when substantive strategies don't work out. If you want to win T then you need to explain why the aff's interpretation of the topic so unlimiting so as to make the topic not worthwhile from either an education perspective or games playing one. Condo is pretty much the only theory argument for which I would reject the team. To win on condo as the aff you need to explain why the practice of conditionality makes debate uniquely worse, i.e. why is the skew in this instance worse than skew as a result of a lot of DAs and T violations. I think going for condo is all or nothing; there is no reason why 1 condo is good but 2 is bad, and so on. The negative should explain why the practice of conditionality makes debate uniquely better. I won’t judge kick unless told to do so. All that being said I think that CP theory is an underutilized toolkit for the aff considering how prevelant massive CPs are in contemporary negative strategies. I care more about functional competition than textual competition, at least with respect to process CPs.

PROCEDURAL STUFF (POLICY)

An accusation of an ethics violation i.e. clipping will result in the immediate stop of the round. The accusing team will need video/audio evidence of this accusation.

I am not fond of "insert this re highlighting." If you think the other team's evidence actually concludes in the opposite direction of their argument, you should be confident in re reading the evidence. The only insertion of evidence I would prefer is if your evidence is a chart/graph/visual information, something that doesn't translate into words/speech very well.

Arguments I will never vote on: death/self harm good; pref sheets args; out-of-round incidents

LD-SPECIFC STUFF

tl;dr I don't know much of the activity and thus you should approach like in a "policy-esque" way. Additionally, it would behoove you to do less theory work than you might be used to. Overall, my advice is to pref me only if you are comfortable with a standard policy debater judging; if not, then don't.

I have very little understanding of the nuances of the activity, i.e. what constitutes a well-constructed case for me might be different than what is generally considered to be such in the community. I'm also a policy debater by training and so I probably lean towards "progressive" trends than some (as in, I am fine with spreading). I also have ZERO knowledge of the topic and you should be prepared to break down its complexities for me. One other thing: I will probably use my policy speaker point scale from the beginning of this philosophy but I have no idea if that scale is typical of current LD numbers or not.

PF-SPECIFIC STUFF

PLEASE kick scenarios by the end of the debate; my ideal debate has each side go for 1-2 impacts and most of the final focuses being spent on impact comparison (Mr. T, for example).

Most crossfires I have seen are filled with bad or leading questions. Instead of asking "You failed to respond to our card about (insert issue here), so doesn't that mean we win" you should be asking questions like "why should the judge prefer your evidence over ours"

Pet peeves - offenders will be docked speaks:

don't say "we tell you about (insert issue here)": just say what you want to say about the issue

DO NOT END YOUR SPEECH WITH "FOR ALL THESE REASONS I STRONGLY URGE A (INSERT SIDE HERE) BALLOT": I know what side people are on and will intuitively understand what you say is a reason to vote for you...

Conor Obrien Woodrow Wilson High School 6 rounds

Jacob Palmer Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 8:38 AM EDT

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.

Rodrigo Paramo Greenhill School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 3:07 PM CDT

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Jung Park King High School 6 rounds

Phoenix Pittman Sequoia High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 6:31 AM EST

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

Ronald Poole Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 3:31 PM EDT

"RW," please and thank you. I use the "he" pronoun series.

Email: poole.ronald344@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

In general, I don't care what you do-- notwithstanding overt harm. I only wish for you to do whatever it is you do, well. You are an intellectual, so you will be held responsible for your performance and the scholarship you choose to forward. I'm a young judge/coach, yes, but I've been doing debate long enough to genuinely not be surprised by anything you could do in round. This is not an invitation to shenanigans. Let's all be fr.

I flow. I'll read speech docs, sure, but I flow... 'If I didn't flow it, it didn't happen' is my default. It's also a cautionary note to speed. You can turn yourself blue reading through your blocks so long as you don't expect me to understand you. You should slow down to a conversational pace when you're saying something I should flow. Otherwise, we'll just be looking at each other.

As for the technical aspects, everyone has equal access to competing interpretations. This is an important note on FW, T, the K... all of it. Folks should come prepared to defend their model of debate in the context of the opposing model presented by the opposing team. That's debate...

You can mark me as a 1-3 for pretty much all K & Theory debates (so long as you are absolutely sure you can out-tech your opponents). These debates-- K v. K, (some) performative debates, debates about debate-- have the potential to be super interesting and enriching for the game. They, most often, are not. Since I don't know that this can be helped entirely, my suggestion to you is to be clear and to make it make sense-- defend your assumptions to get access to your impacts. Given today's average K-team, that's the very least you could do for me to be engaged. Ultimately, I'll only consider smart, thorough offense on the flow-- y'know, the line-by-line. High theory stuff (à la Baudrillard, D&G, Bataille, and their others) is cool, but I tend to vote based on advocacy, i.e., through some definitive method which expands the (educator) framework I'm inclined to default to, not how well you can explain the ineffable in a 3 or 4-minute 2NR overview.

*Flag your analytics for me. Knowing what's you versus your authors is important for assigning speaks.

While I'm not a fan of all-out policy showdowns, since I (regrettably) end up sifting through massive speech docs, checking cards in the post-round, trust that I can keep up. On the DA, uniqueness and the link should be bracketed to tell a story. 'Uniqueness controls the link'-- I need to be clear on how uniqueness and the link interact... Another cautionary note to reading generic disad sequences, since DAs should be intrinsically related to the action of the Affirmative advocacy. I'm not so sanctimonious that I can't at least meet you half way (re: generic offense), but it is your responsibility to explain why your disad outweighs the advantages of the plan, convincingly. These thoughts similarly apply to how I vote on the CP. There should be some intrinsic connection between the plan and counterplan. There are minimum competitive thresholds (re: clarity, reasonability, functionality, and solvency) a CP should pass for me to even consider a "net benefit."

Speaker Point Ranges

28.1-28.3 = Needs Improvement

28.4-28.6 = Well Done

28.7-28.9 = Excellent

29.1-29.5 = Thoroughly Impressed

30 = Top Seed

Jack Quisenberry Northland Christian School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 9:12 AM CDT

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

Chris Randall Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 10:17 AM EDT

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Nitin Rastogi Loveless Academic Magnet Program 3 rounds

Vidya Reddy North Allegheny 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 13, 2021 at 8:10 AM EDT

Hi, my name is Vidya Reddy and I am a LD Parent judge for North Allegheny High School.

NOTE : My 2012 - 2016 Judging is not listed as we were not digital then.

I feel a great joy and take pride in volunteering my time as Parent Judge, as I learn so much just sitting and listening the student’s perspective about all the current Topics. Seeing these kids decked out in suits ready to harness the great power of communication inspires me. It takes just one debate round to realize that the skills learned in speech and debate will ultimately reform the world for the better.

I have been judging LD ,in the year 2012-2016 for 4 yrs when my Daughter was in debate team and I resumed my Parental Judging Role 2019 – Present for my younger child. Both are LD Debaters.

I basically judged the LD & PF and couple of times judged the Prose/Poetry

LD- I am more experienced in LD, my both kids have taught me well in flowing the debates and to give the constructive Feedback. I Have better understanding of LD Debate Mechanics. Most important for me to win my vote is to uphold and support the Value & Value Criteria with proper Crystallization. I will Judge based on following Framework

Burden of proof/Value structure/Argumentation/Resolution/Clash/Delivery

I like to hear a well-organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation.

a. Burden of proof - Which debater has proven his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle by the end of the round? No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution.

b. Value structure – Which debater better established a clear and cohesive relationship between the argumentation and the value structure?

c. Argumentation – Which debater better presented his/her arguments with logical reasoning using appropriate support? Which debater best utilized cross-examination to clarify, challenge, or advance arguments?

d. Resolution –Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution?

e. Clash – Which debater best showed the ability to both attack his/her opponent’s case and to defend his/her own?

f. Delivery – Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear, and professional manner?

SPEECH :

The speech should be either to inform or persuade. Showcasing the voice, passion for the topic and confidence in delivery.

OI - Different types of literature into one cohesive performance, clear motivated blocking, living in the character.

Extemporaneous - Looking for 3 good points and sources to back it up.

Declamation - Language elevated, inspirational, elegant. Speaking with confidence and authority.

Interpretation (HI, DI and Duo) - Entertaining, humorous, bringing characters to life, confidence and delivery.

Courtney Reid Millburn High School 6 rounds

Zachary Reshovsky Mercer Island High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:52 PM EDT

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing ð˜¾ð™¡ð™šð™–ð™§ weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

Claudia Ribera Harvard-Westlake School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:49 PM CDT

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

Hanna Rice Hire 1 rounds

Ian Riekhof Hire None

Aida Ruan Strath Haven 2 rounds

DavÍd Salazar Midlothian HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 23, 2023 at 1:52 PM CDT

TLDR: Flow over your args. LBL is good. Apply cards to the round instead of just reading them. I know Ks, but not all of them, act like I'm dumb when giving your exposition.

Howdy Friends!

:) Just some stuff to show I'm not completely lay:

I debated CX and PF for 4 years in HS and am currently an applied mathematics major at TAMU. I've been to 2 nats for PF and to state twice for cx. I quarter-finaled for UIL 5a CX state. I also qualified for nationals Extemporaneous twice.

Moral stuff:

Have fun, unless your fun is morally wacky. Fun is considered "morally wacky" when it is one or multiple of the following; racist, sexist, homophobic, promotes self-harm, attacks people within the round, is directed at a specific religion, or ya know invokes things that make you seem not so vibey in the public eye. If you run any of the prior it's an L0. Also, don't misgender your opponent, that'll also be an L0 (if on purpose obviously).

Pre-round questions?:

I am open to any questions prior to the round, so just shoot me an email at a.david.salazar.ii@gmail.com and I'll answer asap . If you have any questions at all, no matter how small or significant they may be, please ask them! I remember reading some judging paradigms that actively dissuaded questions and it made the atmosphere of the round cold and tense. I promise you I won't get mad at any question posed or if anything out of your control occurs.

Oh yeah, please add me to an email chain with the above email, thank ya!

Important Note: I do have impaired hearing. I can hear sounds but intermittently fail to make out words. When debaters spread, whether LD or CX, I ask that they share a copy of their speech with me if at all possible. If Debaters are not comfortable sharing their speech, I completely understand and will judge to the best of my abilities.

CX:

My views on specific types of arguments are as follows:

Framework: When arguing against an opposing framework, I ask that you explain to me why your framework is inherently better than that of your opponent. Make sure to relate all of your impacts towards your framework.....please.

Case: Case is what CX revolves around. Failing to answer or weigh the case in round is something that will drastically affect the way I view the round. As aff, if you win all of the off-case but fail to flow over your on-case then you will be at a significant disadvantage.

Da: Links should adhere specifically to the mechanisms of the opposing case. Vague links are a plague in today's format (at least from what I experienced). I will value a DA based on the argumentation you put behind it.

CP: Tell me why the CP shows a better world than the case. The net benefit is the sole reason for voting.

K: If you run a Kritik you need to bluntly state how the alternative works within the world and how it is better than that of the affirmative. When running Kritiks regarding the opposing team's propagation of harmful pedagogy out of round, I ask that you clearly link the argument to a blatant example of this through the opposing team's speeches rather than a one-off comment (unless egregious). I am familiar with a lot of kritik lit's, but to make the round accessible you should still be able to contextualize and blatantly explain the k throughout the round in case your opponent has never come across the k you are using. Not only does it provide a more fair round, but also demonstrates that you actually understand what you're talking about. If you don't know the full extent of your K, don't run it. Also, if you're running a kritk that relies on the experience and pain of a certain group of people that neither individuals in your team represent, that's kinda messed up. Agency does matter. Don't profit off the pain of others for a win in a high school competition.

T: If ground is lost, tell me why that matters and how that affects the round. If a team does not tell me why the proposed ground loss is a voting issue, then I will not vote on it.

Theory: I mean it's a thing...if left uncontested it's obviously going to be a voting issue, but please apply it throughout the round and show how the given violation actually affects your standards rather than just stating "They dropped, we win"...please. Oh and RVI :).

Speed: Regarding the note at the top, I can still flow spreading as long as it is clear. I will miss some bits and pieces, but I have and most of the time will be able to flow general args if they are analytically given. Note: if the opposing team is not comfortable with spreading, or if they are hearing impaired, please make the speech accessible to them. Accessibility & education within debate is a voting issue.

LD:

I am mostly a policy/Flow judge, so please treat me as such if possible.

Pref Cheat Sheet;

1-Policy

2-K

3-Theory

4/strike-Phil

5/strike-Trix

RVI- I believe that winning a theory shell is a voting issue. I loathe theory for time sucks, it ruins the purpose of running a theory. If you introduce theory, be prepared to carry it all the way through.

Competing interps- I believe that clash on theory is important. Even if the theory is a wash, you should still have a counter. Answering and winning washed theories would help you will the round since I value each theory won as a voter.

Drop the arg- If a theory stands by the end of the round and the violation is relegated to one specific argument, then that arg will be dropped on my flow.

Disclosure- I like disclosure. If the opponent doesn't disclose pre-round, that doesn't instantly make it a voting issue for me. Run a full theory arg so that the violation is on the flow.

kicking args in last speech: If you feel like you have one topic won, and its impact calc, when compared to the standing framework, is the largest on the flow, and you want to run the entirety of your last speech flowing it over and solidifying it, go for it. Condensing is good, desperately holding onto arguments that are lost is not good. Of course, if you kick out of the thing you're winning then it could also hurt you, but y'all have a good idea of what y'all are doing so it should be fine. I'm not doing judge kicks, so explicitly state what you're kicking

PF:

PF is chaotic. That being said, I vibe with all types of arguments within PF (unless you advocate for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, self-harm advocacy, or moral arguments that would land you a special spot in Dante's Inferno, which is something I apparently need to add to a paradigm because people don't know how to act :\). While I understand paraphrasing is accepted, I feel that reading a carded case appears more professional and provides informational validity better. That doesn't mean it affects your speaks or anything, just a little aside.

OVERALL:

Please be nice to one another. Respect your opponents for the competitors they are. Rounds can get heated, and when they do sometimes tempers rise and people become more aggressive than needed. While this is a competition, please remember that it is an educational competition. Have fun, make friends, learn new arguments, and overcome your mistakes. At the end of the day, your rounds are simply pedagogical interactions, but when competitors' egos come before their logic in rounds, debate loses all meaning.

Gabriel Schuhl Ardrey Kell High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 22, 2023 at 1:45 PM EDT

email: gabrielschuhl02@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Gabe (he/him)! I did LD at Ardrey Kell for four years, and now I'm a Junior at Pomona. I mostly did traditional debate, except for some circuit LD my senior year. I study Politics and Philosophy, so I'm a big fan of more philosophy-heavy cases!

Make arguments you care about, be kind, and interact with your opponent's arguments.

please don't spread.

Thoughts:

- warrant things! I don't wanna vote on blippy, underdeveloped arguments, so give me a clear link and impact

- also warrant your extensions! Phrases like "independent voter issue" or "they dropped my sub-point c" are not complete extensions. I'm fine if you want to make 1AR extensions briefer, but at least give a short warrant and impact

- I don't think traditional debate should imply simplistic/repetitive arguments. Read that case you really love! I'm happy to evaluate elaborate frameworks or more unconventional approaches to the topic as long as they're well-explained

- technical aspects of debate are important, and winning strategies usually capitalize on where an opponent has been less interactive (AKA I will be flowing)

- please weigh. final speeches should be focusing on your important arguments/collapsing, and comparing them to your opponent's

- engage with framework meaningfully. I'm not a fan of debaters just restating their own fw as a rebuttal to their opponent's

- I don't have a lot of experience with theory and definitely don't remember most common arguments, but I will still evaluate genuine concerns about someone playing the game unfairly

- I have a low tolerance for circuit debaters making the round inaccessible for traditional debaters. if you're unsure about your opponent's experience, ask them about their preferences before round

- debate is fun when debaters are funny

- keep the debate space safe. use trigger warnings as needed. don't make personal attacks, offensive arguments, or bigoted remarks or I will drop you

Anushree Sengupta Ardrey Kell High School 2 rounds

Jungwoo Seo Hire

Last changed on Fri January 27, 2023 at 8:55 AM PDT

(Scroll down for my PF paradigm)

Defaults

Comparative Worlds

Theory/T -> K -> Case

Reasonability

Drop the arg

No RVI

Fairness

Ethical Certainty

Presume Neg

Quals:

I do LD. I've qualled to the toc and reached deep elims in a few tournaments.

Disclaimer: I haven't done anything debate-related for two years, so I will be rusty with getting back into it.

LD:

Framework: I enjoy framework debates. Although I am a progressive debater, I do understand and can vote off of framework if sufficient enough for me. Just remember to extend reasons as to why your framework should take precedence in this round. Also, don't confuse your case with the framework and cross-apply your case arguments to justify your framework. They are two very different layers of debate.

Kritiks: Kritiks are my favorite part of debate. If you are planning to run a K, please make sure you understand how to debate a K and know sufficiently about the K to debate it.

Theory: When there is real in-round abuse, I think theory is a good check to it. However, when you run theory just for the sake of winning, it's annoying. I will vote off frivolous theory and a priori arguments but with very great displeasure (expect a drop of speaker points). Disclosure is probably good.

Topicality: Topicality arguments are great.

P/CP: Case arguments that pertain to the topic are great. I like clever plans and counter-plans. PiCs are great as well. I'll take whatever you got but remember to extend.

Contentions: If you aren't a progressive debater, this may seem more familiar to you. I am completely fine with lay and traditional arguments, and don't let the previous stuff scare you into thinking that.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the rebuttal speeches, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments and be explicit.

Add me to the email chain if you are spreading: jungwoo.seo@emory.edu

Please don't spread if your opponents can't either; it's abusive and doesn't promote educational practices that way.

PF:

If you're going to be fast, don't read paraphrased evidence. I will not flow it.

Framework: Although I know that PF is more of a contention level debate, I have seen interesting frameworks being used, so I'm open to new and interesting frameworks that work on proving your point. I default to CBA if no framework is mentioned.

Contentions: You are free to use whatever arguments that you think may help you and if I think you won that, I'll vote for it.

Crossfire: I think crossfire is my favorite part of PF debate. Please keep it civil but don't be afraid to make some sassy comments or ask good questions.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the summary speech, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: This is critical, especially in public forum. I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments.

Defense: Defense is not "sticky." You need to cleanly extend the defense you want me to evaluate in the summary and ff if you want me to evaluate it.

Theory: I will evaluate theory just as how it is evaluated in LD and CX. You do not need to ask your opponent if you can run theory or not; that's silly.

Please don't shake my hand, thanks.

Samuel Shafiro Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 1:23 PM EDT

Introduction

Call me Sam, Oak Park River Forest '21 & Emory '25, coach for Pace Academy, yes email chain oprfgs@gmail.com , I know absolutely nothing about this topic...

In my mind there are two serious reasons you might be reading my paradigm: either 1. you are determining prefs before a tournament or 2. you are determining how I will respond to your strategy before the round. I have organized my paradigm accordingly.

Listed below are the things I think are most important to point out about the way I judge, and the places where I might differ from the "consensus" of the debate community. If I do not bring up a certain issue, you should assume that I adopt the general "consensus view." If there is a particularly question that is important to you that I do not mention, you should absolutely feel free to email me before a tournament or even before a round. I will not write you an essay on what arguments to go for but I will answer straightforward yes or no questions like "is inserting a card ok if it was read in cx" (yes) or "when debated equally, do you think a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid if both teams agree a counterplan must be textually and functionally competitive" (also yes). If you are unsure whether your question is appropriate, ask anyway.

For Prefs

General

-I like smart arguments. I like line by line. I like spreading (while being clear) and reading lots of cards and comparing evidence.

-I put substantial effort into evaluating every debate I judge to the best of my ability. That being said, the following is a ranking from most to least of my average confidence in evaluating each type of debate: DA/CP/Case Turn v Policy Aff, T v Policy Aff, K v Policy Aff, T/FW/DA v K Aff, K v K Aff.

FW/K

-Debate is a competitive research game with a winner and a loser. It is my job to determine who the winner and the loser are based on who does the better debating in the round. It is very difficult to convince me to vote for something outside of the round (however, a team responding to "out-of-round" arguments should still defend why these arguments exceed the ballot's purview).

-I have not judged many T-USFG/FW debates, so I am not sure how idiosyncratic my approach of them is compared to common community practices. However, all else being equal, I have yet to see a convincing argument for why the affirmative should not have to defend a topical plan.

For Pre- (and Post-) round

General Notes

-Do not over-adapt. Do what you do, do it well, and you will get my ballot.

-I am easily impressed by debaters who demonstrate that they command an extensive but approachable understanding of American foreign policy, the internal politics of other countries, "critical" debates in academia, etc. I am easily depressed by debaters who's knowledge of these subject is superficial or who can not describe these things in a way that is easily digestible. The best way to prove to me your quality as a speaker is to debate an important area of study both in-depth and in a way that a non-expert could understand.

-Read re-highlightings.

-Have perm texts (it's ok to insert them).

-I generally flow in-person debates on paper. If you think you are going too fast you are. If you think you are unclear you are. Please slow down when you are making a lot of non-carded arguments in constructives, especially on T/Theory/K OVs.

-Generally, after the debate ends, I will create a list of the questions I need to resolve to determine which side won. If the answers to any of these questions can clearly be determined based on my flow I will resolve them in the appropriate way. Finally, I will read the evidence presented by both teams on the more ambiguous questions on my list, and incorporate evidence, spin, and analytical arguments into evaluating them. Therefore, while good evidence is always important, evidence quality begins to matter a lot more to me if you have done less work with spin/analytics/etc, which is something you should keep in mind in how you approach your 2nr/2ar.

-Online: I highly encourage you to turn on your video if you are able to do so. Debate is a communicative activity and seeing you speak significantly helps me understand you on a psychological level.

-If the most precise reading of the resolution results in a bad topic, that's a gripe for the topic comity, not a justification for trying to re-define the topic (on either the aff or the neg). Is it possible to win my ballot on debatability? Yes. Does it require a lot of impact work? Also yes.

-Instead of focusing on only winning I should look at debatiability, predictability, or any of their component parts, consider how I will evaluate the round after it ends. Often times both teams have offered multiple lenses that modify one or more of these categories and how they interact. The teams that win T debates in front of me are usually the ones who come closest to identifying all the impacts and framing devices in the debate and explaining how they resolve.

DAs

-I love the politics DA. However, politics DAs require a story. The words "strong-arming moderates" in your uq ev + an "aff requires PC" card do not a story make. I will give good points for (decent) innovative politics strategies because I think they get at the heart of what makes debate fun and the ambiguities that fiat creates.

-There is a direct, positive, linear relationship between the amount of impact calc you do and how likely I am to vote for you. I know that's a cliché and I'm still including it here which should clue you in to how important this is. This also means that I am not a fan of framing contentions, and I only think they are useful in so far as you impact out and do impact calc with the applicable arguments on the appropriate DA or counterplan page. This is not to say I will throw out framing contentions; I will still try to adjudicate the debate as fairly as possible, just know that all else being equal I lean negative on theses issues and if you are running a framing contention you are better off convincing me the neg's impacts are securitized and bad then you are convincing me that DAs are fake.

CPs

-I default to counterplans needing to be functionally and textually competitive. However, the way the affirmative determines if the CP meets that burden is the permutation. Therefore, when debated equally, a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid.

-I am sympathetic to being time pressed in the 2AC and think the threshold for a sufficient explanation for a perm or solvency deficit in the 2AC is that I am able to reasonably predict the subsequent 1AR explanation. However, I am a lot less sympathetic to perms and solvency deficits (especially impacts to solvency deficits) that sound substantially different in the 2AR then they do in the 1AR (or that barely feature in the 1AR but feature prominently in the 2AR). While this is opposite to your strategic incentives, the earlier you explain your arguments the better for me as a judge, and perms or solvency deficits that are explained thoroughly in the 2AC require less time investment to explain in the 1AR, so there is a cost/benefit calculus you have to take on.

-In my mind, perms are a yes/no question. My default way to evaluate perms is to look at each one, see if it clearly establishes that the counterplan is not an opportunity cost the the plan, and depending on if the answer is yes or no discard the counterplan or move on to other arguments respectively. One implication of this is that I am generally unsympathetic to "any risk of a link to the net benefit" answers to the perm. Nevertheless, my stance on perms as a yes/no question is somewhat malleable if debaters make explicit arguments for why I should understand the perm in a different way.

-I view CPs through the lens of negation theory. The negative is, first and foremost, responsible for giving me a reason the aff is bad (not just a reason the aff is less good than it could be). That means all counterplans must have offensive net benefits. I will never vote for a counterplan whose net benefit is better aff solvency. Even if the counterplan solves the aff better, and is mutually exclusive with the aff, it has not provided a reason the aff is bad.

-By default neg leaning on theory. The two most important things to my ballot on a theory argument: 1. Win topic side bias AND/OR how this theory argument implicates this topic specifically AND explain the implications of this. 2. Do impact calc. These debates often get messy, so being simple and formulaic is to your benefit.

-If judge kick is not brought up in the debate, I will kick the CP for you if it has been clearly designated as conditional/dispositional. Otherwise, I will evaluate the arguments for/against judge kick presented in the debate. If the counterplan has not been clearly designated as conditional I will not kick it.

-If neither team forwards a "middle ground" fw interpretation, like "weigh the advantage but also weigh reps links," I will not intervene and make one for you. I will only decide between the fw interpretations forwarded by either side, but a team can make arguments that modifying its fw interpretation in later speeches to attempt to take the "middle of the road" and capture the other team's offense.

-I am uncomfortable adjudicating anything other than the debating that took place within the round I am assigned. If there is harassment within the round, I hold the appropriate course of action to be stopping the debate and going to tab, where I am happy to argue that the team doing the harassment should be expelled from the tournament and talk to the team's coaches about the debaters facing repercussions. If there is harassment outside the round, talk to me and/or send me an email and we can go to tab and/or try to determine an appropriate course of action.

Final thoughts

-I think debate is no fun when everyone is up-tight and being a little fun and/or silly is a good thing. However, this should never come at the expense of debating well.

-I am probably a better judge for arguments like death good than the rest of this paradigm makes it seem.

-If you feel unsafe during a round for any reason, send me an email.

-I am still paying attention even I am staring off into the distance, especially if I am flowing on my computer.

Andrew Shaw Interlake HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:48 AM PDT

Hi! I'm Andrew (he/him) and I debated in LD at Interlake for 3 years, graduating in 2021 and qualifying to the TOC my senior year. I now do some policy debate in college as a hybrid team with Western Washington University. Please add me to the email chain: shawan[at]uw.edu

Top Level:

- I am most familiar with philosophical arguments and decently familiar with policy, theory/topicality, and critical arguments. However, I'm willing to listen to anything as long as it is warranted and explained well—please don't run something you don't understand just because you think I would like to see it. I will also not supplement arguments using my prior knowledge if you do not make them, so what I know/do not know well should not be super relevant.

- In general, I will vote for the side that requires the least intervention for me to vote for.

- Weigh, signpost clearly, and collapse—the 2NR/2AR should give a ballot story and a clear path for me to vote for you.

- Don't do anything racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/anything that makes the round unsafe.

- Please try to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to your opponents (e.g. they say instead of he/she says).

- Defaults: drop the debater, no RVIs, competing interps, epistemic confidence, no judge kick, presume neg unless there is a CP/alt.

Locals:

- I'm fine with speed if you're clear.

- I will vote on the flow and will not consider blatantly new arguments that are made in the 2NR/2AR.

- It also makes me sad that framework/phil debates are dying out, so I'll give higher speaks if I see a normative framework syllogism and/or in-depth framework debate.

- I'm not interested in listening to your value debates. Values other than morality are probably impact justified and regress back to some form of morality. I use the value criterion to evaluate the debate at the end of the day, so please spare us all 3 mins of justice vs. societal welfare and skip to the value criterion debate.

- If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Phil:

- This is not the same as tricks debate—if your idea of a phil debate is spamming independent justifications or hiding indexicals in analytics, please see the tricks section below.

- Here are the FWs I ran/am most familiar with: Kant, virtue ethics, pragmatism, ubuntu.

- Well-justified normative syllogism > 10 blippy independent reasons to prefer. The best phil affs are those where every part of the syllogism can be strategically leveraged against different possible 1NCs.

- I know all judges say this, but please weigh and do comparative interactions between FW justifications! This means going beyond "and actor spec comes first since different actors have different obligations," but instead doing big picture explanation of the main points of disagreement and using those warrants to take out individual arguments.

- My favorite affs are plan phil affs with offense unique to the plan. I think analytic philosophy in general has a strong Western bias and love to see phil outside the Western canon when it's run well.

- I never understood indexicals and think it's a silly argument. It's fine as a throwaway argument in the 2NR/2AR but I would rather not vote on it.

DA/CP:

- LD 1NCs should spend more time on case in my opinion—many policy affs in LD can either be impact turned or are behind on the internal links debate.

- Cheaty perms are fine as long as you defend your model of CP competition and/or what the opponent has done to justify the perm.

- Weighing arguments should be comparative.

Topicality/Theory:

- A lot of theory shells/dumps are severely underwarranted—please include full warrants for theory arguments in the original speech that they are read in.

- I don't care whether your shell is frivolous.

- Paragraph theory ("x is a voting issue") and full theory shell are both fine.

- Reasonability needs a brightline. "Good is good enough" is not an argument.

- I think Nebel T is probably true on a semantic level and like a good 2NR collapse on semantics.

- No strong biases on condo or other CP theory—just justify why it's good/bad.

Kritiks:

- I am familiar with common Ks (afropess, anti-humanism, setcol, fem, cap, security, etc.). Regardless of my familiarity with your K, you should still give a brief thesis-level explanation of your theory in the 2NR.

- Ks should have link explanations that are contextualized to the aff and impacted out in the 2NR—explain the broader implication of your link arguments beyond just operating under the framing of the K.

- Floating PIKs are fine but the newer it is in the 2NR the more leeway I will give the 2AR to answer them.

Tricks:

- I don't like these arguments but will vote for them if won. I was never the best at flowing fast analytics, so read at your own risk.

- If I just don't understand an argument, I will not vote for it.

- I will evaluate the debate after the 2AR regardless of what arguments are made to the contrary, as it seems infinitely regressive to me to evaluate arguments on this issue.

- EDIT: Please do not read no 2NR I-meets + the N-word shell in front of me—I don't think it's responsible to trivialize serious racial issues in debate. If you read this and there is even a semblance of a response in the 2NR I will not evaluate it.

- EDIT: After judging truth testing + a prioris for 4/6 prelims at Grapevine, I would like to reiterate that I do not enjoy judging these debates. You will have a much better chance of getting higher speaks if you do not go for this strategy in the 2NR/2AR—please be more creative with tricks :(

K Affs and T-FW:

- I vote aff on K affs when the 2AR isolates an explainable impact to voting aff or what the ballot does.

- Affs that defend the topic "as a method of x" and then go for pre-fiat reasons to vote aff seem extra-topical or non-topical to me.

- 2NRs on T-FW should spend more time answering case.

- I think fairness is an impact and intrinsic to debate, but that there can be other impacts that matter more.

Aashril Shazar Scripps Ranch High School 3 rounds

Michelle Sleiman Riverside HS 2 rounds

Jasmine Stidham Harvard-Westlake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 8:07 AM CDT

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

Updated for 2023-24

I currently coach full-time at Michigan State University. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

October 2023 Musings

I don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon, but what happened to flowing and line-by-line? Stop. flowing. off the doc. Flowing is fundamental and you need to actually do it. Please stop over-scripting your speeches. I promise you will sound so much better when you debate off the flow.

I could not agree more with Tracy McFarland here: 'Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.'

In most of the college rounds I've judged so far this year, I have noticed that debaters are overly reliant on reading a wall of cards to substitute for actual debating. I don't know who hurt you, but you don't need to read 10 cards in the 1AR. Reading cards is easy and anyone can do it. I want to see you debate.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me.Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Specific

Updated March 2024 before TFA to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am very fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I assist Strake in LD and policy.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.

Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

James Stuckert Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 2, 2022 at 1:57 PM CDT

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Praphulla Suryawanshi Unionville 6 rounds

Dylan Sutton Millard North High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 10:48 AM CDT

Dylan Sutton's judging paradigm (click to open in Google Docs)

(updated Oct 2022)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - Worse than 4

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.
DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative
CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.
Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff - 3

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.
I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.
Case lists. What is topical under your definition?
No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K (general) - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs - 1

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Framework v K - 4

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.
More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.
That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.
Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

OLD PARADIGM

dylan.sutton@gmail.com is my email but I don't need your speech docs. If I need to read evidence I'll call for it after the round. I try very hard not to call for evidence though, so you should do your best to extend specific warrants on the flow.

He/Him

Background:

My job is teaching. As such, I approach debate from the perspective of an educator. This isn't itself super relevant but it does inform how I approach debate. So I'm going to default to an educational paradigm absent any other given to me by the debaters in round - this means things like truth over tech, quality over quantity, and most importantly be respectful of one another and the spaces in which we compete.

I'm from Nebraska and have coached in some capacity since 2005.

I am primarily a policy trained debater and judge, but I have been coaching and judging LD and PF over the last couple years as well. Because of my background, most of the assumptions you would make about a "policy judge" likely apply to me, for better or worse.

In general:

I won't tolerate violence or discrimination in round. You will lose my ballot immediately and I will talk to your coach and the tab room.

Speak from where you are comfortable. Tag team CX is fine. Please time yourselves (I will too but more is better). I will allow for a reasonable period of time to exchange speech docs, but don't abuse that privilege or we'll run prep time.

I try to be very flow centric and not impose my beliefs about particular arguments or styles onto the round, but that being said I am human so I am susceptible to bias just like anyone else. What that means for you is I will take every effort to resolve the round using only the words spoken by the debaters on the line-by-line. If I find that not to be possible, that is where I'll start to resolve issues based on my preferences.

My overwhelming preference is for specificity. Specific warrants are better than generic claims, specific links are better than generic ones, etc.

It is my belief that a well executed "defensive" argument can still win you a round.

Don't contradict yourself.

I'm not a fan of theory/"tricks".

Otherwise, I'm down for whatever you can defend. As long as you can make well warranted arguments for a given subject or method, I'll vote for it if you win the line-by-line. I've coached students who read very complicated K arguments, others who were very traditional in their style, others who sang songs, painted, re-enacted famous protests, read poetry, narratives, anything and everything so long as you can make a good argument. That said, I am still an educator so messing around just for the sake of messing around is not a path to my ballot.

Everything below the line is my old paradigm, which I wrote when I was only judging policy. It still has good insight into what I believe about debate, but it is mostly relevant to policy arguments.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

the least i'd hope you'll read:

This is written assuming policy debate. If I'm judging you in another event, I apologize. I'm just getting back to judging after taking about 5 years off, so I may be a bit out of date on topic knowledge and specific literature. I try to keep a very open mind about how I should evaluate rounds, and as such am willing to listen to most any role for myself as a judge or my ballot you wish to defend. That being said, I'd very much rather not judge anymore framework debates, I would much rather you engage the content of that which you would seek to frame out of the round. I've done the DA/CP/T thing extensively in the past and have no problem with it, but am at this point more grounded in critical literature and will be more entertained by a more creative round. Regardless of your argument, you shouldn't be worried that I will categorically refuse to listen. Pretty much only violence and hate speech are out of bounds. Don't be rude. Tag team cx is fine. Speak from where you are comfortable. Time yourselves if possible. Be reasonable about speech docs. Feel free to ask questions.

everything i care to say:

I debated in both high school and college, predominantly in the midwest. Specifically I debated for Fremont High in Nebraska (graduated '04) and the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I've since judged and coached for Fremont, Lincoln East, and Millard South, and Westside. So all told I've been active in the regional circuit since about 2001 until I stepped away to finish my degree. I worked at the Nebraska Debate Institute in the summers since of 2006 until recently.

Everything is pretty much a "make smart arguments" situation. I have no aversion to any particular type of argument so long as it is sufficiently explained and justified. That said - "the sun's not yellow, it's chicken". That is to say, I've become relatively bored by "traditional" policy debate. I am infinitely more interested in the critical, particularly the creative. Don't get me wrong, I've read/wrote lotsa DAs and some CPs in my time and voted on them quite often. I've just come to see that whole world as at best tiresome and at worst absurd to the degree of appearing to be self-mocking parody. Word to the wise - don't read this as me trying to code in something like "I'll automatically vote on Ks". If you read something that's either nonsensical or strategically a blunder, those things probably overcome the fact that I might find what you said intellectually stimulating. It would, however, be safe to read this as me saying "I'm down with anything" and actually meaning anything.

I conceptualize the round in terms of what actually comes out of your mouths, especially in the rebuttals. That means if you say "The Smith '05 evidence answers this", those 6 words are pretty much all you get credit for. What I'm trying to say is, you're better off saying the argument/warrant from the evidence as a part of the extension rather than expecting me to read your evidence after the round. I make a conscious effort not to read evidence after rounds. That's not an absolute, but it's the way I lean in evaluation. That said, I also believe that form and content are to some degree inseparable. so if you believe the form your arguments take (whether that be poetic or lyrical or whatever) is important, or theirs is bad, make that an issue.This belief is probably also at the heart of my disdain for multiple contradictory arguments. I want to make this fairly clear because I am apparently exceptional in this way: I will drop you because your cp/da/whatever link to the k you read, even after you've collapsed the round to one flow. Obviously like anything that assumes the argument is made and won in the round, but i am very easily persuaded that at very least the aff gets the perm, severance, and to kill the solvency for the alt. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency likely loses you my ballot.

Something else you'll probably wanna know is that I don't minimize the importance of so-callled 'defensive' arguments like a lot of people do. Often you'll hear people talk about giving "risk" to an argument despite the presence of a very smart, unrefuted 'defensive' argument against it. Just know that the risk i will give arguments that have good defensive arguments left standing against them is not very high, not high enough for the position to matter much at all.

The specific issues I tend to mention are topicality and theory. In terms of interest level, I enjoy a good topicality debate. I have been told that according to my voting record, I tend to not vote on topicality. I am one of those guys that requires an impact topicality (crazy I know). That is to say, voters require some work - or at least

more than simply being asserted. Perhaps keep in mind that my teams like to "impact turn" T when you're deciding how much time to devote to your voters.

Also, theory. A good general rule is to ask yourself "Am I just playing a game with this argument"? If your answer is largely "yes", you should probably reconsider. I know I don't often vote on theory. I have nothing conceptually against voting on theory, but it is rarely executed in a way I find persuasive enough to vote on. If you're wanting me to vote solely on theory you need to devote the depth to it that you would anything else you want me to vote solely upon. Noone extends a

disadvantage for 45 seconds and expects a vote on it, but it happens on theory all the time. I'll need specific analysis of the round that is happening and how it has been effected by the theory issue, refutations to their arguments, and comparisons between your theoretical impacts and theirs.

things i don't like: contradictory conditional arguments, states counterplans, policy only frameworks, and mint.

Any other questions you may have you can ask me in person. I'm really laid back about judging rounds. I'd like it if you'd talk to me, because otherwise things get sort of boring.

Jeffrey-David Swift Holy Cross School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 7:35 AM CDT

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

Nigel Taylor-Ward American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:21 AM CDT

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Chris Theis Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 6:34 AM PDT

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.

Affirmatives should usually be topical.

Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.

Extra T is probably bad

Severance is bad

Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps

Conditionality is OK

PICs are OK

Alt agent fiat is probably bad

Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually

Probably no RVIs

Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality

I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. (There is an emerging practice of hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks to the AC without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception and will result in an automatic loss).

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping. By sending those analytics you're representing, they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

Kobe Thompson The Village High School 3 rounds

William Thornton New Trier High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 9:02 AM PDT

New Trier '19, UCSB '23, coach for New Trier.

- he/him

- yes, add me to the chain. thorntonwilliam17@gmail.com

I did debate for 4 years in lay and national circuits, running policy and Ks. I tend to distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance (exceptions are listed below) and I like hearing arguments that you really believe in, especially Ks. Have fun, make me laugh, and dont be rude.

I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through anything, I will most likely not catch it.

-----General-----

1. I dislike arguments that either a. are read to avoid research or b. attempt to hide from clash. As such, LD shenanigans (tricks, bad theory, RVIs, etc.) are rarely successful in front of me.

2. I sympathize with lay debaters at nat-circuit tournaments: If you try to out-spread, run shady arguments, or smother a lay opponent your speaker points will suffer (and you will probably loose the round).

3. Argument comparison and judge instruction are more important than anything else. Most times you disagree with the decision, it's because the way you explained your arguments was not how you wanted me to understand them. Remedying this requires argument comparison, weighing, and framing how you think I should evaluate the debate. Don't make me do the work for you - I take my time making decisions and trust me it will be an awkward RFD.

4. Evidence is important to me but I prioritize explanation over evidence. That being said, when the content of cards is disputed/relevant in incredibly close or murky debates, I use the text of the evidence to resolve an issue.

5. Clipping, misrepresenting evidence, soliciting outside help, intentionally not disclosing = L; no inserting rehighlighting; save bathroom/water breaks for the other team's prep time; flow clarification is cx or prep. Shady disclosure practices will result in you taking an L along with some bad speaker points. I will check you on this even if your opponent doesn't.

6. You will take the L if you are racist, sexist, or argue that oppression is good.

---Argumentative preferences----

Run whatever you want so long as it’s not RVIs, tricks, or bad theory.

Kritiks: I love these debates and I am familiar with the lit but please please over-explain and engage with the resolution in some way. You should have very specific links with lines from their 1ac/CX and independent impacts/turns case. I need a coherent reason why the plan is a bad idea, otherwise arguments like ontology claims don't mean much to me. Affs should answer the specific links the neg reads and leverage the case against them and the neg should answer the case and do impact calculus.

Policy arguments: It's most interesting to me and useful to you to develop solvency/link answers instead of impact defense. Zero risk is a tough sell. Great for nuanced case debate, specific advantage counterplans, and well-researched topic disadvantages. Less of a fan of (but frequently vote for) counterplans that compete on certainty/immedicacy and politics disadvantages. Above average for impact turns like dedev, heg good/bad, warming good, first strike. Below average for spark/wipeout.

Nontopical/Performance/Rejecting the resolution: I really loved running these arguments and I am very open to them. But...you need to articulate your interp of what debate is and what your relationship to the resolution is (or why you dont need to relate to the resolution).

Theory: Not a big fan of strictly theory debates. The shell needs to be fully extended in order for it to be a complete arg. I believe in competing interps and that fairness is an internal link to education.

Lay Debate: I absolutely love a high level lay debate. Don't spend all your time explaining the difference between justice or morality if it is ultimately not going to matter in the debate - the best lay debaters know when to kick framework. Be prepared to defend implementation if you are going to try and claim material advantages. Don't just say "extend X argument" without weighing or reasoning and expect me to vote on it.

Perf con: I take this seriously but it makes more sense as a solvency turn then as a theory arg

Aaron Timmons Greenhill School

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 8:40 PM CDT

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Adam Torson Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 2:46 AM PDT

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Eugene Toth The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 6:04 AM EDT

Email for chains or questions: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

Background

Influences: Will Baker, Alex Sherman, Taylor Brough

Pronouns: he/they

Experience:
2016-2020 Debater @ Bronx Science -- Qual'ed to TOC
2020-2024 Debater @ NYU -- CEDA quarterfinalist, 2x NDT
2020-2022 Head CX Coach @ Bronx Science
2023-2024 Assistant PF, LD Coach @ Collegiate

Conflicts:Collegiate, Bronx Science, U. Chicago Lab, NYU

Last Updated: Updated for TOC 04/16/2024

Policy and LD general: Good for anything, mostly read Ks in high school and college. "Debate is a game" is a silly argument. You don't need to go for the alt on the K or a CP to win, but I won't judge kick unless instructed to. I actively coach multiple events and keep up to date with research, so I will have fairly decent topic knowledge.

Policy specific: Fairness might be an impact, but you need to prove it. I don't care if you read a plan, you just need to justify it. Strongly convinced by K condo arguments and I disfavor contradictory K arguments.

LD specific: Honestly fine for anything except tricks. I don't inflate speaks. Order of experience would probably be K > LARP >> phil > trad >> tricks.

PF Paradigm: Don't paraphrase. Cut cards, not corners. Read whatever you want in front of me. I don't care if you spread. Please read theory properly.

IMPORTANT if I am in the back of your debate:

1AC should be sent 3 minutes before start time, emails should be collected before that. If sending the 1AC pushes us more than 5 minutes past the start time, I will take all additional time past 5 minutes from you as prep.
Pen time is important, slow down a bit if you want me to get something down. Speeding through a 40 point 2AC block will not result in all 40 points on my flow. I flow your speeches, not your doc.
Stop stealing prep. Depending on how I'm feeling I'll call you out for it, but regardless of how I'm feeling I'll drop your speaks.
I assign speaks according to the speaker point guide provided to me by Tabroom. It is the most standardizable method and consistently lowers the standard deviation of speaker points when provided to judges. Please do not email me after the debate asking for a justification of your speaker points. They should speak for themselves.
If you are consuming products that I am aware are on the BDS list, I will drop your speaks by 2 full points. Throw out your Starbucks before I see you. This is non-negotiable and excludes computers.

Kate Totz Brentwood School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 5:15 AM CDT

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Becca Traber Lake Highland Preparatory School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 7:07 PM EDT

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Iyana Trotman Hire 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:05 AM EDT

2023 NDT Champion; 2023 CEDA Champion - Wake Forest

Iyanarobyndebate@gmail.com (Add me to the email chain)

"I am not a judge, but if you introduce these arguments (and by these I mean white mediocrity) I will be your executioner" - MWAH NO BARS.

**And so the chorus sings. I believe that all debates are performances and you are responsible for what you say and do in round. Because that is true, you should be prepared to debate the justifications and epistemologies of your arguments as well as the way you have performed in this debate. I have grown increasingly concerned with the language of “adhoms” and “violent arguments” in relationship to black debate and kritik arguments as ways to devoid accountability for instances of antiblackness, misogynoir, transphobia, classism etc. The phrasing of adhom attacks and the punitive measures adjudicators are taking (in the form of assigning losses, docking speaker points etc) is an indicator of the physical manifestations of antiblackness in the debate space. It is the “wrong forum” Framework argument being acted out. But, if debate is about compeititve incentives, where is the argument development from the plan side?? What are the other ways to address the antiblackness when yall run from and do not engage black debate in any way?Instead of taking the concerns people are raising about the activity and the students and programs in it that have caused actual antiblack misogynoirst violence - the decision has been made to frame performance and black debate as anti-educational and bad for the activity. This is an age old tactic that we’re used to. Calling out antiblackness is not violent. Calling out misogynoir is not violent. Calling out the ways the debate arguments that are “just for the game” spill into their personal lives and actions is not violent. What IS violent, however, is the reduction of Black debate to adhom attacks and violence. What IS violent is the sudden authority and clarity white people have developed about what constitutes as a violent act all because they haven’t won a debate; all the while, justifying and staying silent on the legacy of this activity and it’s theft and pathologization of black debate. In the words of Rashad Evans, “eat, pray, love, and cut some better cards”. GET GOOD! Happy Debating! **

I answer respectful questions, do not post round me rudely or I will respond accordingly.

I do not flow docs - I flow what you are saying in the speech. Be clear.

Do what you want! I've done Black Feminism, Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Framework, Racial Capitalism, Eroticism, RSPEC, Counter Performances, Body Politics, Critical IR Theory, Academy K etc.

I stop listening after 5 off.

Zaid Umar Charlotte Latin School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:58 AM PDT

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Christopher Vincent Isidore Newman School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:20 PM CDT

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

Tehya Walkingstick Claudia Taylor Johnson High School 3 rounds

Kristopher Wallen Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 12:58 PM EDT

Coral Glades 20 Emory 24

Yes, put me on the chain: wallenkrisedu@gmail.com

General

If you're wondering 'will Kris vote for x position,' the answer is yes 99 percent of the time. I have run nigh-every flavor of argument in my own time debating, but ultimately, my argumentative predispositions are secondary to the debating occurring in-round. Debate should be fun, and my favorite rounds to judge are rarely ever specific to round content, but rather reflect a joy and passion for the activity on display between competitors regardless of the style of debate being conducted.

Have the chain up and ready to go when the round starts. Label it reasonably.

Speed is great, but should never be sacrificed for clarity. Do not max spread card tags or analytics. Do not expect me to flow from speech docs, or to fill in gaps of incoherent spreading (I won't). Err on the side of slower in online debates.

Speaks go up if you are timely, organized, use cross effectively, display in-depth knowledge about arguments, execute strategic final speeches, provide judge instruction, etc. Expressing your debate personality, whether it be humor or intensity, also aids a lot here.

Speaks go down if you're rude or condescending.

My non-negotiables. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Don't clip. Don't cheat. There are speech times. I don't evaluate out-of-round occurrences.

Ask me any specific questions pre-round, or email me.

K (on the Aff) --- Affirmatives should have an explicit defense of what they are endorsing, and ideally take a stance on the resolution. Clarity about what the 1ACs method/performance does and how that is solvent, at whatever scale the 1AC selects, is key. I often find Affirmatives become so busy critiquing Negative positions that the central question of 'why vote Aff' becomes muddled or altogether disappears, and in those instances presumption becomes compelling.

Topicality/framework debates can be both incredible and incredibly stale. The former is characterized by in-depth engagement and specificity over generic block reading. Fairness is an impact if made an impact, although I often view clash as better interacting with Affirmative offense. Both sides should respect the TVA/SSD more. If Affirmative, you should choose between an impact-turn or a counter-interp, and use that choice to cohere your rebuttal strategies. If Negative, contextualization to the 1AC makes an enormous difference. I would also always highly consider the viability of other positions in-round before the 2NR. It's extremely frustrating to vote down a team who was massively ahead on the Cap K/Case Turn/etc because the 2N chose to go for T.

For K v K debates, the Negative should establish what aspect of the 1AC is mutually exclusive with the K, and the harms to that aspect. I am highly receptive to rejecting the perm and to PIKs. Pointing out Affirmative shiftiness between speeches, and academic or argumentative inconsistency, raises my receptiveness.

K (on the Neg) --- There are a plethora, but making your critique specific whether through evidence (ideally) or contextualization, is the key. Regarding framework, I will not arbitrarily generate a middle-ground interpretation in my head. Instead, I will weigh the pros and cons of either side's interpretation, as instructed by the debaters.

For Negatives, ensure final rebuttals collapse. I'm fine for framework reject the Aff, alternative solves case, link alone outweighs, etc, but I would advise against attempting to shotgun too many strategies in the 2NR.

For Affirmatives, impact turning the K is completely viable, as is the perm. Both have strategic uses, but I would do well to identify the value in either and use that identification to make a consistent choice in rebuttals. I often find the Affirmative forgets they have read a 1AC in these debates---make sure to leverage as much as possible against the K. Unsure why performative contradictions justify severing reps if the Negative agrees the debate should be a referendum on the 1ACs desirability at some level.

CP --- If it's a process CP, explain your competition argument well and in-depth. Conditionality is good.

DA --- Spin matters. Evidence indicts matter. Do both. Logical take-outs to more frivolous DAs are underutilized.

T --- I have limited topic knowledge, or you should at least act as if that is so. Default to competing interpretations. Often, T debates can devolve into frivolous claims to an Aff or Neg side bias - that is usually a secondary question to the debate over limits/predictability/ground.

For LD: Everything above applies - I enjoy 'larp' debates as well as K debates. I'm not the best for tricks/phil, but that's more so because debaters often speed through blippy analytics without really engaging and explaining - if you're gonna go for these types of arguments, DO THEM WELL and you'll be fine. Otherwise not the best idea.

Annie Wang Hire 6 rounds

Tyler Wood La Salle College High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 14, 2022 at 12:55 PM EDT

email: tyler.wood973@gmail.com

prefs:

I feel comfortable judging: Policy, Trad, T, neolib/cap, MM, Sec, set col, theory

I feel not comfortable judging: PoMo, pess, phil, most non-t affs,

I hate judging: trix, friv theory

also, I am no longer involved in argument formation or prepping debaters, I have very little background info on the current topic

you must send: interps / plan texts / standards (in a theory shell) / alt text / etc...

it would be nice for everyone if you sent: prewritten analytics / summary of standards (or the whole text) / overviews

I think it's also worth mentioning that I do not like disclosure arguments. I do not think the judge should have jurisdiction to vote on things that happen outside the round, as this is an infinite burden. Of course I can be persuaded otherwise

Bronx: I've started to realize that despite me indicating I'm not involved in prep, debaters continue to read 1ac arguments that require extensive background knowledge and research on contemporary global events, without explanation in the 1ac. I will no longer go on a wikipedia binge to attempt to understand the arguments you are making, I'll simply not evaluate them if the 1ac evidence is insufficient to explain the concept.

If you only have 30 seconds

Policy----X----------------------------------------K

Tech---------X------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--------------X----------------Conditionality bad

States CP good---------------------------X-------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----------------------X-------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most-----X---------------------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact

Try or die---------------X--------------------------No risk

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

Judge kick good-------X----------------Judge kick bad

3 minutes of theory preempts-----------------------X-a short U/V seems fine

Quick thoughts

Hi, I'm Tyler, I debated for La Salle College in PA for 3 years and am a second year out. When I debated I was mostly a disclosure/T/Plan debater. I ran some Kritiks, like cap, neolib, and a brief stint in MM and security, but not much else. My favorite 1a was 1-2 advantages, plan, framing, short UV. My favorite 1n was t/theory, 2 da, 1-2 cp, case.

For online tournaments:

please don't go top speed. I haven't judged circuit tournaments recently, and I have a really difficult time understanding things over zoom. It's much easier if you start slower and work up to 200-250 (please nothing over that). I'll say clear 2-3 times but after that I'll flow what I can hear and won't look at the doc.

Jalyn Wu Scarsdale High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 10, 2024 at 10:02 AM PDT

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I now coach LD at Millburn HS.

pre-PF TOC: i have very few paradigmatic preferences in PF, other than evidence must be carded, have proper citations (MLA is fine), and accessible to your opponent/judge should they ask for it.you should expect that i'll judge PF like I'm an LD judge.

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes

Derek Ying Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 13, 2022 at 10:48 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Derek.

he/him

Put me on the email chain: djying2003@gmail.com

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

This is a bit disorganized, but I've ordered these sections based on importance (in my opinion).

Last major update was on Jan 14 2022 for evidence ethics rules clarifications and some more reasons to increase speaker points.

HOW I EVALUATE DEBATES:

I evaluate debates by isolating the most important issue(s) in the round, then doing more nitty-gritty flow comparisons to determine who is winning that issue. This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner.

Debate, at its core, is a game. However, the nature and meaning of that game is extremely malleable. This means two things:

1. Tech>Truth unless safety, evidence ethics, or other rule-breaking is an issue.

2. My ideological preferences otherwise will have no bearing on the round and you can and should do whatever it takes to win, whether that entails bracketing out consequences, impact turning the apocalypse, critiquing rhetoric, or reading a nine-point dump on why taking prep time destroys education.

WHAT I WON'T VOTE ON:

There are a few things I won't vote on or evaluate:

1. Arguments that are made outside of your speech time (e.g. during prep time or your opponent's speech time) or lack warrants. I think Rafael Pierry's definition of a warrant is correct and have pasted it here:

"My general guideline for a warrant is: could I explain this argument to the other team in a reasonable post-round and feel confident that it was said by their opponents? This explanation doesn’t mean I need to have a deep intellectual grasp of the position, simply that I could re-state it and the losing side would understand why they lost."

2. Ad hominems or any attack on an individual debater's integrity/character.

3. Anything about clothes (unless you're wearing something super messed up like a well-known hate symbol)

4. Things that are patently unsafe (for clarification: I will vote on things like spark, animal wipeout, or even just Ligotti-style "death good", but not something like "white supremacism good" or any other sort of explicit bigotry - you'll get an L0 if you read the latter and I will inform the tournament organizers, possibly coaches as well).

5. Stuff about speaks (e.g. "give both debaters a 30 for reciprocity")

6. Arguments that are "inserted". That means you have to read re-highlights. I'll grant an exception if you have only re-highlighted punctuation.

7. New arguments in the final rebuttal (unless they're responding to something read in the speech immediately preceding, obviously) or arguments that proactively justify such (e.g. "I get new 2ar arguments for timeskew"). I'll put another two Rafael Pierry quotes here to clarify:

"Dropped arguments are absolutely true, but an argument only consists of the words you said. Additional words, warrants, or evidence are certainly new and merit new responses."

"In a similar vein, cross-applications are never new. You can persuade me that the opposing team made new arguments while cross-applying something and I’ll likely grant you new contextualization, but I am extremely unlikely to disallow cross-application in a final rebuttal."

LOGISTICAL RULES:

If you blatantly contradict your case in cx (e.g. claiming you skipped an off that you actually read) your speaks will begin at a 26, though I will "accept" the answer (e.g. I will remove the off from my flow). If you lie about having read something you didn't that is equal to clipping and will be evaluated as such (see clipping section).

Give content warnings for sensitive subjects and death good - if you think it could be sensitive just err on the side of caution - if someone does get triggered because you didn't give a warning you will be dropped and speaks will be tanked.

Please time yourselves, and feel free to call out your opponent if they are taking more time than they should or stealing prep. I've been trying (and will continue to try) to time the rounds I judge but I often find myself forgetting to.

Prep time stops when the speech doc is sent, or when the thumb drive is removed. You don't need to take prep time for tech issues or bathroom breaks, just try to get things resolved in a timely manner.

You won't be penalized for not answering a question asked outside of CX.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

In general, I will not be particularly knowledgeable on the topic. You should explain particular nuances to me or else I will not get them. However, I will note down some things that I am aware of for each topic. This does not mean that you can avoid explanation altogether: If your opponent reads and wins something that completely contravenes my understanding of the topic (e.g. if they read "to strike means to hit" and it's dropped), then I am more than happy to vote on it.

Jan-Feb 2021: I know generally what the Outer Space Treaty says about national appropriation of space and the general consensus among legal scholars about what that means for private entities (spoilers: they can't appropriate space either! unless it's mining for some reason - and apparently building bases perhaps? International law is very strange).

Nov-Dec 2021: I know enough about the NLRA to know that just expanding its scope is clearly not topical.

Sept-Oct 2021: I am familiar with what the term "evergreening" means and the length of time it takes for a patent to expire under TRIPS.

LESS IMPORTANT THINGS THAT STILL SHOULD BE NOTED:

I'm not good at minesweeping so I'd prefer if you put tricks (if you read tricks) in the doc. At the very least, slow down if you are coming up with a prioris off the top of your head.

If you tell me not to flow you, I won't flow, but I also won't evaluate.

What you do with evidence is more important than the evidence itself. I don't intend to read a lot of the evidence after the round unless I find it suspicious (see ev ethics). Unintuitive claims require more evidence and/or more explanation.

I don't disclose speaks.

You can use CX as prep time. I won't dock points for it.

You can call me "judge" "Derek" "Mr. Ying" or anything.

If you open-source all of your cards (including the ones on case!!!!! and the 1AR!!!!!) and tell me before the round I'll give you +0.3 speaker points.

"Eval after...": I will flow the whole debate, but I can be persuaded to not look at certain sections of the flow. In other words, if "Evaluate the debate after the 1AR" is won, I won't stop flowing and immediately start writing the RFD after that speech, just that after the round is over I will be disinclined to look at anything past the 1AR. I should also note that if the "eval after" argument is made inside the speech the argument is telling me to evaluate after then I will accept responses in the speech immediately after (e.g. the 2NR can respond to "eval after the 1AR" if it was made in the 1AR and I'll evaluate it).

ONLINE DEBATE:

Having your camera on is preferable but not needed.

Keep local recordings of speeches on hand. If I don't hear something due to connection issues and no recording is available, I will have no choice but to assume nothing was said.

If my camera is off, you should assume I am not ready or even present at my computer absent an explicit verbal cue.

I currently live in the UK. If I am judging online you should be aware that I am between 5 (for east coasters) and 8 (for west coasters) hours ahead of you. If I make statements that seem incongruous with the time (e.g. "wow it's dark" even though it's noon where you are) or seem far more tired than would be expected this is why.

In addition, my residence is next to a very busy street which gets especially loud at night (on my end, it will likely be sometime closer to the afternoon for you). Feel free to ask me to repeat things as many times as you wish if you did not hear them.

EVIDENCE ETHICS:

I think that, for the most part, evidence ethics and quality should be debated in round - if a card is cut out of context or is highlighted to misrepresent authorial intent this seems more of an in-round issue than something you should stake the round on. I am open to theory shells that defend a norm outside of the actual evidence ethics rules (e.g. "no brackets ever" or "cite must have DOA"), but I will evaluate it like any other argument.

Originally, I had a section explaining the evidence ethics rules I personally adhered to, but after some consideration, I have chosen to defer to the NSDA rules, as they are the highest authority, whether I agree with their judgments or not. I'll reproduce the rules here, though they will be shortened based on how I interpret the text of the manual.

Evidence is anything that is directly attributable to a specific source. For example, quotes and cards are evidence because it can be attributed to a single author or organization, but something like "the population of Earth is seven billion" is not evidence because it is not attributable to any specific source, it is just some fact floating out there.

There are four evidence ethics "hard rules" that constitute a loss if they are violated. If a debater is found to have violated these rules, they will get an L0:

1. Words that are added to the card's body must be bracketed in, and cannot distort the author's intent.

2. Evidence must have cites, and they must be correct. If someone (correctly) points out that the cite is not there the debater has twenty minutes to find it and show it.

3. The argument in a card cannot have been written with the intent to disprove it. (e.g. if someone says "Some say that white chocolate is superior to dark. Here is why they are wrong." and the only part you read is "white chocolate is superior to dark" then that is a violation.) I personally interpret this to mean that the argument is introduced in the original article specifically and only so that it can be torn down with practically no merits left standing, not a light critique of the argument or a partial agreement with nuances or corrections.

4. Text cannot be removed from the middle of a card. Substituting removed text with an ellipsis (three dots) is apparently especially heinous for the NSDA. I believe using "they continue" is an acceptable substitute for making a whole new card, because it clearly demarcates when each section begins and ends, like a card tag would, even if not actually a card tag.

Violations of points 1 and 2 are reasons to be disqualified from the tournament.

These four points are the only ones that can a debater stop the round on. Wrong evidence ethics allegations will be punished with a loss. The rules don't define any speaker point penalties, so I will just give an L26. The "winner" of an evidence ethics dispute will be given a W29.3 (rules don't specify anything for the winner, so I'll just give a somewhat above-average speaker score).

There are other evidence rules, but the rules say that I don't need to take action if they are violated, so I won't, with one exception: If it's not published or otherwise available online, it's not evidence and I will not evaluate it. If you want to card your email exchange with a scholar, put it on a blog first.

CLIPPING:

I read along with cards. if I catch a debater clipping I'll let the debate finish (unless someone stakes the round, then I'll stop), then drop the offender with the lowest speaks possible. If you skip 3 or more words, it's clipping.

If you stake the round on clipping you should have a recording in case I didn't catch it, but if I did catch it then whether or not you have a recording won't influence my decision.

DEFAULTS:

I don't like having to use defaults for anything other than presumption or judge kick. Judge instruction will be rewarded with a less confusing and more "correct" ballot.

1. Presumption flows negative unless someone gives a warrant for why it shouldn't.

2. I don't start off with judge kick, but I will allow it if someone says that they should have it, even absent a warrant (unless it's contested, obviously).

3. When it comes to anything else, I will try to operate under the shared assumptions of both debaters. For example, if the 2nr collapses to theory and the 2ar collapses to an RVI but neither DTD no RVIs were ever justified or refuted (don't do this btw), I'll assume that theory is DTD with RVIs. This also applies to substance: If the aff's sole contentions are "plan prevents a nuclear war" and every neg argument consists of "plan causes nuke war" I would assume nuclear war is really bad and the only thing I should care about even if neither side gives reasons why.

SPEAKS:

I'm not going to put one of those speaks chart things because I know I won't be consistent with it. Just know that I will reward good, well thought out strategies and creativity with higher speaks and punish irritating/bad strategies with lower ones. Unfortunately, "good" and "bad" strategies are ultimately ideological, so I have clarified what I think here. However, just because I think something is bad doesn't mean I won't vote on it nor will it bias me against it (ideally).

Creativity: I like it when people demonstrate that they have kept up with the lit on a subject instead of simply relying on what are now basically ancient blocks. Kritiks and phil FWs with recent evidence, are proof of this, as are up-to-date impact turns or defense. Novel Ks and FWs, those that are outside of the established Kant/Hobbes/Baudrillard/pessimism "canon" are also very good, and such venturing into unexplored territory combined with recent evidence will make me a very happy camper.

I think also that arguments tailored to the arguments being read are also quite nice, like an aff-specific counterplan or K link. Some topicality or theory shells may also be somewhat aff specific, but obviously no shell will be completely germane to the aff, otherwise it wouldn't establish any real rules or limits. Combo shells are an exception, but in my personal opinion their interp texts are overcomplicated and could be simplified considerably into a generalized shell - they're only specific in name.

Specificity is also a good thing for on-case stuff. For policy stuff, answers that are specific to the advantage being read or some deficit to the specific plan text is always better than just reading generic impact defense constantly. For responding to a K or K aff, I should note that the lit used in Ks is by its nature controversial and thus, barring the field or idea being completely new (which is very unlikely), there will be a healthy amount of works arguing against it. I will enjoy responses that indicate you have actually gone across the library and read about why the specific author or thesis is wrong rather than a generic "politics is good" defense.

Speaking of Ks, I also like it when multiple different fields of critical scholarship are merged into a coherent argument. Exploring intersections between, for example, cybernetics and race, demonstrate a good grasp of the fields, though obviously it must be argued well or I will not be convinced you truly understood it.

Phil debate is weird to me not because of the tomfoolery it is associated with (which I will mention in the "bad strategies" section) but because it, in my experience, has had a lot of the specific argumentation I praised earlier - for example, answers to Kant tend to be only applicable to Kant - yet most of it is analytical. I think that there is potential for phil debates to center more around evidence and I will reward people who have more (good) cards: I think that much of the understanding of phil debate as a "blip-storm" would not exist had the style cited more scholars.

I enjoy weird counterinterps to T shells as long as they are backed up by definitions or some way of understanding words in the resolution. While this is mostly meant for K affs, there are many policy affs that push the boundaries of what the topic includes, and when those affs have viable counterinterps with definitions, they often are more impressive than the K affs. On that note, Nebel T is boring and I will look more favorably upon any T definition that can achieve a similar effect (that is, exclude nearly all advocacy texts save for one or perhaps two) without using the phrase "bare plural".

Theory (not topicality) is in a strange position for me. I think that right now theory debate is a bit too bound to fairness. While certainly theory debaters love to harp on about the value of the game and equity and such and such, perhaps some more creative (or perhaps more absurd, for theory's critics) interps can be revealed by building shells around standards like education (and its subtypes e.g. phil ed, critical ed, real world, etc.) or norm-setting, or some part of the game we call debate outside of raw procedural fairness.

Bad strategies: I believe personally that debate's competitive nature encourages the above things: creativity, novel scholarship, and good research in general. However, the need to extract concessions from the opponent, often also encourages some nonsense, like obscene amounts of non-topic-specific NIBs and a prioris (three's pushing it) and buzzword vomit extensions that explain nothing. I will dock points for such strategies. There are also some obvious blunders that I will decrease points for, like reading multiple disclosure shells or dropping something that clearly blows open your whole contention like a case turn.

Being an [redacted for tabroom] gets your speaks tanked and coach+tab informed. Debate's community is rather toxic as it is right now and I do not wish the problem to continue. Ethos is one thing, but harassment is another.

NOVICES AND TRADITIONAL:

If you are debating a novice or a traditional debater and you are not either of those you should try to make the round more accessible. That does not mean you should change your strategy significantly, but I will expect you to do the following or else suffer low speaks:

1. Send analytics and extensions. This is thousands of times more important than anything else. If you are reading something dense, you should send analytics even if you don't spread.

2. Be very clear in cross-x. Do not try to pull any "what's an apriori" stuff or other tomfoolery. Get to the point.

3. Explain things more and slower than you usually would. Make sure the round is educational. Ideally, the opponent should be able to understand what you have said, and, in theory, could beat it back. Is it Kant? Make sure they exit the round knowing what the categorical imperative is. Baudrillard? Both sides should get the gist of the hyperreal by the time everything's done. Obviously, this is wishful thinking but please try.

BACKGROUND:

I have put this second to last because I don't believe it is important - the only thing you should take away from this was that I dabbled in many styles but did not master any.

I debated in LD for Lexington from 2017 to 2021. I was a trad debater as a freshman, a phil debater as a sophomore, a policy/phil debater as a junior, and fairly flexible my senior year - I read Ks and K affs whenever I could with occasional policy, theory and phil strategies. As a debater, I leaned more towards high theory (e.g. Paul Virilio, Giorgio Agamben, Yuk Hui, Ingrid Hoofd) than identity, though I did read an identity aff my senior year.

It should be noted that "fairly flexible" does not mean "circuit success" - I was in fact a very subpar debater and rarely cleared.

I am not debating in college.

FOOD:

I never understood why people gave judges food, but I had at least one teammate who was given food by a debater they judged so I will note some things down if you decide to do this.

1. Usually, I am not hungry. I will reject offers of food under nearly all circumstances. Do not be offended if your offer is for naught.

2. I despise eggplant dishes, most soy products (e.g. soymilk, tofu, edamame, etc,), and apples. The latter two cause my throat to itch and swell up a bit (not anaphylaxis, just a minor, if very unpleasant reaction). I have never eaten the former without literally gagging.

3. My spice tolerance is absurdly low. Shin black instant ramen has made me cry before. I wish this was a joke.

Login to Tabroom

Barkley Forum for High Schools

2022 — classrooms.cloud, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges