GMU'20. WFU'22. Email chain, please put all three: biba.a.t@gmail.com, wfudbt@gmail.com AND debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Anti-trust: don't know much about it :)

—I will do my best to be as flow-centric as possible in every debate. Tech over truth as long as your argument makes sense.
—Respect your competitors, partner, and the time everyone in the room puts into this activity.
—I enjoy substantive and topic grounded arguments and prefer them over cheap shots/run and gun strategies.
—I realized that good impact calc is where I end up deciding many debates, especially when it is close.
—I tend to think link determines the direction of UQ, but just tell me how to vote.
—Revisionism ends up mattering a lot less than you think, regardless of whatever spin you attach to it.
—Topicality: I will default to competing interps. Explain your vision of the topic and model of debate under your interp.
—Overall neg leaning on theory. Infinite condo is good. Can you convince me otherwise? maybe/gut feeling. Things that will increase my likelihood to vote on condo bad: contradictory worlds, and a million unsupported conditional planks.
—Insert rehighlighting? No/maybe (just don't do it excessively)
—Highlight full sentences, seriously. Fragmented, ungrammatical sentences are not arguments and do not make sense.
—Gimme my pen time....beware of the technical implications of online debate and slow down. I flow on paper. Do not start your speech until you get visual confirmation from me. I will always have my camera on unless I am not there.

Policy vs K things:

I have realized that impact calc/clearly articulated impacts is where I start to evaluate a lot of these debates, then I work my way backward to the link and mechanism debating. I would highly encourage both teams to forefront their offense and solvency explanations in the 2nr/2ar and do comparative impact calc.

—Hard to convince me to disregard the 1AC and not let it be weighed as a source of offense.
—You should have k specific links to the aff.
—The more you can explain how the affirmative makes the status quo worst, the better off you will be infront of me.
—Fairness/clash/research are all impacts. I think some are harder to win against certain affs than others but I do not have an ideological preference toward either.
—I appreciate K affs that are grounded in topic literature. If your aff can be read in its exact format on a different topic, that's probably bad.
—My understanding of K literature is limited. Although I am slowly trying to broaden my knowledge of critical scholarship, you may need to communicate your arguments differently for the sake of my comprehension. This means I will want examples and specific link debating from both sides.
—Both sides should slow down while speeding through their blocks. I flow on paper.

Hey y'all. My name is James Allan. My email is jpa6644@gmail.com if there's anything here that's not clear. Please put me on the email chain.

Experience:

4 years at Lakeland Central School District, 4 years at Binghamton University, 2 years of grad fellowship at Baylor University, 1 year coaching Desert Vista, third year coaching for the University of Houston.

I received a first round at large bid to the NDT my senior year, the first in binghamton university history.

Previously coached at/conflicted with: Lakeland, Binghamton University, McQueen, various ADL debaters, Baylor University, Desert Vista, University of Houston.

how i make decisions

I used to flow on paper but have transitioned to flowing on my computer. it is still in your best interest to go at about 85% of what others would consider "top speed" in front of me so i can catch more warrants, examples and analysis for your argument.

i like judge instruction, i like well engaged framework debates that tell me how to view how the debate is going down, i like rebuttals that start with "vote (aff/neg) to (explanation of what the aff/neg ballot does/means/signifies) which solves these impacts. these impacts outweigh and turn my opponents' impacts because..." you catch my drift.

i determine the competing thesis-level/key/framing/whatever-you-want-to-call-it questions presented and determine which team sufficiently answered theirs/their opponents' framing questions and work backwards from there.

i generally give more weight to dropped arguments if the impact to the argument is adequately contextualized (you can say i lean towards tech over truth but it's debatable obviously).

randomly how i feel about different arguments

k aff v. framework: debate is cool because you get to actively debate about the rules

i am indifferent about framework as a strategy to negate affs that don't hypothetically defend a topical plan text. in my mind, if negatives don't successfully insulate the framework page from case offense (win a convincing "framework comes first" arg, in other words) or use standards to turn the aff method or impact, i very rarely vote negative in those debates. i like standards that defend the topic, not just topical debate in the abstract. i am pretty sympathetic to the very simple argument "don't maintain fairness, if fair debate produces X bad thing". both teams should point out that the other team is grossly misrepresenting how their model of debate actually doesn't go down the way it is described.

k aff v. k neg: debate is cool because you get to test different explanations of how power is distributed and how it operates

presumption is an underutilized neg argument in these debates and too easily dismissed by affs. how does competition function and why should i care/not care about it? what is your theory of power and how does it differ/overlap with your opponents'? explain, analyze and develop in your constructives but you should be crystallizing your big dense words for me in your rebuttals in terms of impacts and impact comparison. what is your method/theoretical approach/critical approach/alternative and how should i think about "solvency".

policy aff v. policy neg: debate is cool because even seemingly hyperbolic and contrived internal link chains teach the participants about logic processing and decision-making

show me unique, topic research that is specific and interesting. i'm slowly gaining more sympathy for cheaty counterplans. i have a low threshold for voting on presumption or inherency, with smart, warranted analytical arguments even without cards. i like politics disads. i don't like cp's that randomly first strike asian countries. i like T.

policy aff v. k neg: debate is cool because forms of rhetoric and knowledge employed by the debaters is up for debate.

neg teams usually win debates by impact turning the education/worldview/representations/justifications introduced by the affirmative (framework) or by winning that the plan emboldens/worsens/justifies the impact/social system that outweighs and turns the affirmative. i very much make sense of the world of policy aff v. k neg debates in terms of pre/post fiat debates. policy affs should be ready and willing to defend the scholarly underpinnings of their affirmative. i am very susceptible to aff tricks (util, negative state action link turns, alt solvency presses). i am very susceptible to neg tricks (floating pik, framework turns, epistemology indicts, serial policy failure). judge instruction is a necessity in these debates.

random list of great debate minds i have learned from, competed against, was judged by, worked with:

(basically who shaped the way i think about debate to give you a better insight into how i make decisions)

Amber Kelsie, Vida Chiri, Tj Buttgereit, Jeff Yan, Geoff Lundeen, Ben Hagwood, Stefan Bauschard, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Kevin Clarke, Jesse Smith, Reed Van Schenk, Brianna Thomas, Michael Harrington, Jacob Hegna.

I really like debate

this is my tenth year in the activity and i love participating and learning and teaching in every individual debate. what i am now realizing from the grad student side of things is how much the community is dependent on unrecognized and uncompensated labor from grad students, mostly feminized bodies, people of color, black people and disabled people. be nice to grad students, we are trying our best lmao

If you are unable to come up with a better name for me, then you should just call me Andrew.

I debated for the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I have coached for Kansas State University and the University of Pittsburgh. I am currently a Visiting Lecturer in Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies at Bates College. My undergraduate studies were in Philosophy and Political Science. My graduate work has been in Communication (MA) and Rhetorical Studies (PhD).

I am most familiar with critical and performative approaches to policy debate. I have no problem voting on framework, topicality, etc. in clash debates. I am comparatively less skilled at adjudicating traditional policy debates.

In a bygone era of debate (c. 2013-2017), I wrote a judging paradigm that you can find at the bottom of this page. In retrospect, it appears quaint and mildly amusing. In all likelihood, it is not all that helpful any longer. Below, I have provided an update for your consideration. Oddly, this update is less specific but perhaps more useful for determining whether you would like to have me adjudicate your debates.

Generally speaking, I hold the following presuppositions about debate:

(1) policy debate is a mode of inquiry that uses competition to motivate participants to develop divergent lines of argument in their pursuit of knowledge that is related to a predetermined resolution

(2) the intellectual, social, and civic benefits of policy debate accrue primarily through sustained engagement with dynamic points of clash that emerge from the articulation of conflicting propositions and/or performances

(3) the outcome of any individual debate only reflects the extent to which a judge can justify the claim that the winning team was able to establish the persuasiveness of their arguments relative to those of their opponents; such decisions do not determine whether any particular argument reflects the truth of some matter

(4) the value of a proposition and/or performance is not intrinsic to untested arguments any more than it is tied to the outcome of a particular debate; it, instead, emerges as a consequence of its iterative development and refinement through practices of research, revision, re-articulation, and revaluation

(5) your value as a person and your contributions to this community are not determined or measured by your ratio of win to losses; much less does either of those things have anything to do with the way that a judge casts their ballot

As such, I tend to judge debates with preference for the following:

The affirmative should provide and defend a proposition and/or performance in support of the resolution. I would prefer not to judge debates that have nothing to do with the topic.

The negative should provide and defend compelling reasons to reject the proposition and/or performance advanced by the affirmative. I would prefer not to judge debates where negative strategy does not involve direct engagement with the affirmative.

Competition between affirmative and negative arguments should develop by way of clearly identifiable points of clash. I would prefer not to judge debates where the primary inclination is to avoid or eliminate clash.

Participants in the debate are responsible for identifying the points of clash that they would like me to evaluate. I would prefer not to judge debates where clash is assumed, embedded, implicit, unstated, or otherwise unclear.

The quality of a debate is largely correlated with the ability of its participants to identify and address the most significant points of clash by developing reasonable lines of inference in response. I would prefer not to judge debates where it is unnecessarily burdensome to track the ways that the participants determine and interact with divergent lines of argument.

The use of evidence to substantiate a claim or resolve a point of clash is often the best way to qualify the persuasiveness of arguments relative to those of an opponent; as a bonus, establishing reasons why argument evaluation should be guided by appeals to supplemental experiences, perspectives, expertise, and/or external standards of methodological rigor is pretty neat too. I would prefer not to judge debates where little-to-no value is placed in the use of evidence to substantiate arguments.

While I’m at it, here is some thinly veiled advice in a couple of ineloquently formed conditional statements:

If you would like to have me read the evidence that you have introduced in the debate, the likelihood of that happening increases dramatically if you include me in the email chain (aallsupgmail.com).

If you include me in the email chain with the presumption that I will read the evidence that you introduce in the debate, you should also know that the chances of me reading said evidence decreases dramatically when you include an unreasonable number of cards that end up not being read in your speech.

If you make me stare into the abyss (e.g., a “card doc” including cards that were not referenced by name in the rebuttals), I will entertain the possibility of letting the abyss star back at you (e.g., my blank stare when you ask how I evaluated x piece of evidence; I probably didn’t read it).

If you are worried that you are speaking too fast or that your words are too unclear for me to understand, you’re probably right. If you never question whether you are speaking too fast or whether your words are unclear, you should probably give questioning it a try.

If you consciously and willfully use discriminatory, prejudicial, and/or bigoted language to characterize, substantiate, or advance an argument (including, but not limited to, those pertaining to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, disability, class, income, language, heredity, etc.), you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.

If you attempt to leverage the competitive nature of this activity to try to justify some right to express and/or advance arguments that create to a hostile or otherwise discriminatory environment for members of a protected class, you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.

If your strategy relies on the expectation that you ought to be evaluated favorably for cruelty, humiliation, threats, or otherwise demeaning remarks that you’ve directed toward other debaters, judges, coaches, directors, etc., you shouldn’t expect me to recount much from the debate because I probably stopped listening and found a better use for my time.

Since nobody asked, here is a long-winded series of remarks on flowing, adjudicating, and RFD’s.

I will do my best to fairly adjudicate debates based on the arguments that were presented in the round. I do so, primarily, by referencing the record of those arguments as they appear on my flows. I have been flowing debates since I started debating in 2004. I’ve been using flows to reconstruct and evaluate debates since I started judging in 2013. I still occasionally miss arguments that my fellow judges happen to catch on their flows. Sometimes arguments which seem unclear on my flows end up appearing completely transparent on those of others. There have been many times where I did not record the same connections between arguments that those presenting them believe themselves to have expressed in the debate. I imagine that it has often been the case I may have decided a debate differently were I given a full transcript and the leisure to evaluate every detail, so as to avoid the possibility of having missed or misinterpreted something. Nevertheless, a flow is not a transcript and even the sometimes-indefinite delay in decision times when Harris is assigned to judge a debate is not sufficient to consider every detail of a given debate.

This is all to say that you should bear in mind that I perceive your arguments by both listening to your speech and recording them in writing; the latter serving as the primary basis upon which I will reconstruct arguments in the debate and determine who has won. You should be constructing and presenting your arguments in a way that is fitted to the various processes that are typically involved in judging this format of debate: listening, writing, reconstructing, and evaluating. For those of us who flow debates, we are listening to a constant stream of new information while simultaneously attempting to efficiently record, in writing, what we can recall from our immediate and longer-term memory of the debate. In that same process, we are trying to manage a number of considerations: how different claims relate to each other, the quality of evidence and the ways it is being applied to the debate, we consider lines of inference as they related to those uses of evidence while also comparing them with those that were presented in other speeches, we look for strategic options and anticipate the consequences of those choices relative to others, and so on. The threshold between listening and writing involves a significant degree of information processing that can easily go awry when claims are unclear, speeches are disorganized, connections between claims are unstated, evidence is missing or unhelpful, etc.

This is all to say that, for me, the best thing a debater can do to maximize the likelihood of success is to observe the following maxim: debate in such a manner that you are directing how I should be navigating the threshold between the information that you have presented orally and the record that I am constructing on my flow in writing. In all the time that I have been judging debates, the teams that have been most successful are those who find ways to make these processes work for them rather than against them. This means resisting the temptation to convince yourself that you will win so long as you simply state “x, y, and z.” In addition, you should consider how to communicate “x, y, and z” in such a way that they not only find expression on the flow but, also, that I know what to do with those claims/arguments and how they affect the other elements of the debate. There is no formula to ensure that, in each instance, you will resolve every contingency that arises at this threshold between listening and writing, but there are basic practices that you can do to help me manage it in potentially favorable ways.

(1) The most important practice is to ensure that your strategic choices (including any conditional sub-strategies; e.g., “if we lose this argument, you can still vote for us because…”) are absolutely clear, preferably from the start of a speech and/or the top of a flow. If your strategic choices only become transparent when I’m being post-rounded, that’s obviously a problem. Thankfully, it is easily fixable.

(2) Next, identifying and defining the key points of disagreement or clash can establish the foundation for my decision-making. I would rather take directions from you when it comes to the key issues that require resolution in order to render a judgment about the debate. This is an extraordinarily underused technique, yet it tends to reap significant results when done well. There should be debate over the issues that I must ultimately resolve, the sequence with which they should be resolved, and how I should go about resolving them.

(3) You should be making use of clear comparisons between arguments throughout the debate. Speeches in a debate should involve, well, debate. If I’m comparing one monologue against another monologue—each of which contains some self-serving and otherwise incommensurable criteria for evaluation—my decision will likely be no more informed than a choice that is based on the flipping of a coin.

(4) Building on this discussion of comparison, you should be developing evaluative criteria to help me determine the way that I should adjudicate those comparisons. Refutation is not just about saying something that is different or opposite than your opponent but give clear standards for how to evaluate divergent perspectives, inferences, items of evidence, etc.

(5) Regarding evidence, I will typically only scrutinize or compare evidence when explicitly directed to do so in accordance with some definitive question about it that needs to be resolved. I won’t use your end-of-round “card doc” to reconstruct the debate. If you would like me to review pieces of evidence from the debate, there needs to be a clear reason for doing so. When I review it, what am I likely to find? Why is it significant? How should I use that information? What does it mean for the debate? Keep in mind, I’m not evaluating the arguments being made in the evidence that you provide. I’m evaluating the arguments that you are advancing, often with the utilization of evidence as support for them.

Alright, some final notes on RFD’s. In the event that you believe that I have incorrectly decided a debate, you’re always welcome register your disagreement in person or in writing. I only ask that you engage those discussions with the understanding that my decision reflects the best justifications that I could surmise within the decision time and based on the information on my flow (and, to a lesser extent, what I can reliably recall from memory). We may not see eye-to-eye on a decision, but helping me see the debate from your perspective may have beneficial effects that extend beyond the specific debate in question. Nevertheless, it’s worth recognizing from the outset that I will not change a decision based on a post-round conversation. I will, however, listen intently to your perspective with the goal of learning from it. If necessary, I will offer additional details about my decision with the hope that I can provide further clarity as to the reasons for my decision. In these conversations, however, my inclination will be to diffuse conflict because I don’t believe that RFD’s and post-round commentary ought to be an extension of the debate (let alone its own separate debate). Instead, I believe that they should be reciprocal, dialogical, and ultimately pedagogical opportunities to reflect on the debate while simultaneously participating in an ongoing and iterative effort to determine the value (or lack thereof) of divergent and conflicting propositions and/or performances as they are shaped over the course of a debating season.

When debaters utilize post-round conversations to help others learn more about their arguments and to help those involved in the debate to understand the ways that they think their arguments ought be evaluated, I often find myself more likely to perceive and consider argumentative subtleties and nuances that I didn’t notice initially when evaluating debates in the future. Generally speaking, I am unlikely to engage as openly or be receptive to post-round commentary that is demeaning or otherwise aimed at diminishing me or anyone else involved in the debate. Such conduct is not necessary to get me to admit to my own ignorance or to compel me to confirm that I may have made a mistake. I am quite willing to do so upon recognizing the error of my ways. If our differences in perspective are impossible to reconcile through constructive dialogue, in the absence of intimidation and bullying behavior, then the best remedy is to strike me in your judging preferences. Ultimately, none among us is immune to charges of ignorance and error; everyone involved debate (myself included) still has much to learn about whatever issues happen to be at stake in a given dispute. If we can’t find ways to resolve those issues without cruelty, humiliation, threats, and the like, then I’m not convinced that we can sincerely champion the virtues of dialogue, deliberation, and debate that supposedly drive our commitment to engage our disagreements in this activity.

That all being said, I realize that wins and losses do often function as a kind of social currency in debate. I also realize that there is no way to completely avoid using them, consciously or unconsciously, as a way to measure our own sense self-worth or to determine whether we are meaningfully contributing anything to this activity. I felt those pressures when I debated, at least. Mixing competition with education and advocacy is often a dangerous proposition. It can be downright destructive to self-esteem and the bonds of community and belonging. The optimistic promises of a platform for creativity, expression, and advocacy meets its limits when evaluation and judgement can have the effect of limiting opportunity and access (whether that involves the ability to participate in elimination rounds, denying enjoyment of the social currency that comes with it, etc.). I can’t claim to know how to resolve these effects and preserve the competitive structure of the activity. The best I can offer is to adjudicate debates transparently and to communicate the reasons for my decisions with honesty and care. My hope is that none of my decisions have the effect of diminishing your sense of self-worth or your value in the debate community. If my RFD has the effect on you, I encourage you to either tell me directly or ask a mutual friend or colleague to relay that sentiment to me. My preference is to, hopefully, find a way to make amends. Barring those (hopefully) exceptionally circumstances where there is a need to have difficult conversations about offensive language, objectionable lines of argument, or unacceptable conduct, my goal is to communicate both wins and losses in ways that demonstrate the respect that you deserve and the consideration that your arguments are owed.

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

Below is my expired paradigm

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

I. Biographical Information:

I am in the second year of a doctoral program in Communication and Rhetoric at the University of Pittsburgh. I helped coach at Kansas State University for two years while earning an MA. I debated for 5 years at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

II. The Big Picture

Evidence:

First, this is a competitive academic activity and I expect the evidence you introduce into the debate to meet a certain level of intellectual rigor. This does not mean that every piece of evidence needs to be from a peer-reviewed source (although it is often preferable) but it should contain a coherent argument (i.e. claim and warrant). Hint: one line cards rarely (read: never) meet this standard.

Second, quality always trumps quantity. The “strategic” decision to read a bunch of cards that either come from questionable sources or fail to make a coherent argument will never beat one well-warranted card. This shouldn’t be controversial yet somehow debate has conditioned otherwise intelligent people to think otherwise.

Third, question your opponent’s sources. This is a quick way to get favorable speaker points from me. Do your opponent a favor and tell them that their sources are unqualified. Do me a favor and explain why I should disregard certain pieces of evidence because they aren’t academically credible and unfit for this academic community. Bottom line: read unqualified/bad evidence at your own risk.

Paperless Information: Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive/send the email. If you are doing an email chain then you should include me in it (my email is aallsup[at]gmail.com).

Good Speaker Points 101:

1. Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
2. Clarity: If I cant hear/understand your argument I will not flow/evaluate it
3. “Extinction” or “Nuclear War” is not a tag. Tags include claims AND warrants
4. Author name extensions are insufficient. Don’t do it. Make an argument and use the evidence to support it
5. Cross-X is a speech and it will factor heavily in speaker point distribution. I reward good questions and responses.
6. Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate

III. Argument Specific:

Topicality/Theory:

First, I am not the judge for you to stake the round on arbitrary interpretations. You need to be able to defend that your interpretation presents a useful norm that should be universalized within debate. That being said, I default to competing interpretations but have a decently low thresholds for critiques of topicality/theory when interpretations are wholly arbitrary.

Second, if you want to win a critique of topicality/theory you must prove that the exclusion of the affirmative is worse than the negatives ability to expect a fair, limited, or predictable debate.

Third, I tend to side with the idea that conditionality is a beneficial and educational tool in debate. The affirmative will have to win a decisive and tangible impact in order to get me to vote against conditionality. That being said, there is a point at which conditionality can be abused and that abuse trades off with good scholarship. I’m not the person to read nine conditional advocacies in front of. At a certain point there is an inverse relationship between number of advocacies and good arguments that demeans the purpose of engaging each other in this competitive academic forum.

Fourth, you can read your agent/actor counter plans and I will evaluate them fairly but I certainly will not be happy about it. My belief is that the negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. I don’t think competition based on the “certainty” of the plan is productive or interesting.

Fifth, my default is that most theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you think you can win a reason to reject the team then go for it. I guess we will find out what happens.

Counterplans: I’m not a fan of conditions/consultation counterplans. I think they should be both textually and functionally competitive. The negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. If you’re affirmative, don’t be afraid to go for theory. However, as mentioned before, I often find theory to be a reason to reject the argument not the team. As a former 2a I am not even in the ballpark when it comes to word pics/floating pics. Reading it as a critique solves your pedagogical net benefit. QED.

Disadvantages: Higher risk almost always beats a higher magnitude. You should always make disad turns the case arguments. You must provide some sort of impact calculation in order to have me interpret your strategy favorably.

Politics:

First, the story has to match. Please don’t make me listen to a scenario that doesn’t have matching parts. If the uniqueness and link evidence don’t assume the same politician/group of politicians then you lose.

Second, explain the implication of core defensive arguments. If Obama has no political capital or if the negative is missing a crucial internal link then you need to explain how that affects everything else they are saying.

Third, surprisingly I find myself enjoying politics debates more and more. Don’t hesitate to go for it when I’m judging. Just be smart about it – put your logical-analytic skills to work and make the debate worth listening to.

Critical Affirmatives and Framework:

First, I don’t think framework is a voting issue. Framework is a means by which I determine how to evaluate the round.

Second, topicality is absolutely essential to winning a framework debate when you’re negative.

Third, you need to prove that your interpretation can offer the possibility for the same education as the affirmative has provided to emerge. The best way to do this is to offer a topical version of the 1ac. Another way to do this is provide other topical examples that produce the same pedagogical effect as the 1ac.

Fourth, you also need to prove some competitive reason why the negative has been disadvantaged by the affirmative. More importantly, you need to prove why this violation of competitive equity impacts or implicates their education impacts.

Critiques:

First, the worst thing you can do is read a critique that you have little-to-no knowledge about or practice debating. Critiques are hard to win. I loved debating them. They’re all I debated. However, my experience has led me to conclude that I should have a high standard for those who wish to read critical arguments. It’s better for you (because you learn more about an absolutely fascinating literature base) and it’s better for me (because I don’t have to listen to bad scholarship).

Second, framework against the negative critique is rarely a winning strategy. Reading a bunch of cards is rarely a good strategy. Find the 2 or 3 crucial issues you need to win and win them with good arguments. For example, instead of telling the negative they need to provide a policy option, why not just win that policymaking is the best way to solve the impact to the critique?

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Debated: Norman High School (2005- 2009), University of Oklahoma (2009-2014)
Coached: University of Texas at San Antonio (2014-2015), Caddo Magnet High School (2014-2015), Baylor University (2015-2017), University of Iowa (2017-2022), Assistant Director of James Madison University 2022-2023

Currently: Assistant Director of Debate at Baylor University, Assistant coach at Greenhill High School

email: kristiana.baez@gmail.com

Updates- Feb 2023

Think of my paradigm as a set of suggestions for packaging or a request for extra explanation on certain arguments.

Despite the trend of judges unabashedly declaring themselves bad for certain arguments or predetermining the absolute win condition for arguments, I depart from this and will evaluate the debate in front of me.

*Judge instruction, judge instruction, judge instruction!*

Sometimes when we are deep in a literature base, we auto apply a certain lens to view the debate, but that lens is not automatic for the judge. Don’t assume that I will fill things in for you or presume that I automatically default to a certain impact framing, do that work!

*Argument framing is your friend.*

“If I win this, then this.”

"Even if we lose ontology, here is why we can still win.” This is important for both debating the K and going for the K.

Zoom debate things:

Don’t start until you see my face, I will always have my camera on when you’re speaking!

Clarity over speed, please- listening to debates over zoom is difficult, start out more slowly and then pick up pace, but don’t sacrifice clarify for speed.

Ethics violations-Calling an ethics violation is a flag on the play and the debate stops. Please, please do not call an ethics violation unless you want to stop the debate.

---

Top level thoughts: This is your debate, so above all-- do what you do, but do it well!
My debate career was a whileee ago. I primarily read Ks, but I have also done strictly policy debate in my career, so I have been exposed to a wide variety of arguments. I like to think that I am a favorable judge for Ks or FW. I have coached all types of arguments and am happy to judge them.

I judge the debate in front of me and avoid judge intervention as much as possible. In this sense, I am more guided by tech because I don't think you can determine the truth of any debate within the time constraints. HOWEVER, I think you can use the truth to make more persuasive arguments- for example, you can have one really good argument supported by evidence that you're making compelling bc of its truthiness that could be more convincing or compelling than 3 cards that are meh.

FW/T

I judge a good number of T v. K aff debates and am comfortable doing so.

Sometimes these debates are overly scripted and people just blow through their blocks at top speed, so I think it's important to take moments to provide moments of emphasis and major framing arguments. Do not go for everything in the 2NR, there is not enough time to fully develop your argument and answer theirs. Clearly identify what impact you are going for.

Internal link turns by the negative help to mitigate the impact turn arguments. Example- debating about AI is key to create AI that does not re-create racial bias. TVA can help here as well!

The definitions components of these debates are underutilized- for example, if the aff has a counter interp of nuclear forces or disarm, have that debate. Why is their interp bad and exacerbate the limits or ground issues? I feel like this this gives you stronger inroads to your impact arguments and provides defense to the aff's impact turns.

K aff's- It is way less compelling to go for impact turns without going for the aff and how they resolve the impact turns. You cannot just win that framework is bad. It is more strategic for the aff to defend a particular model of debate, not just a K of current debate.

Kritiks:

Updated- It’s important to find balance between theoretical explanations, debate-ification of arguments, and judge instruction. More specifically- if you have a complex theory that you need to win to win the debate, you HAVE to spend time here. Err towards more simple explanation as opposed to overly convoluted.

Think about word efficiency and judge instruction for those theoretical arguments.

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.
The 2NR should CLEARLY identify if they are going for the alternative. If you are not, you need to be explicit about why you don't need the alt to win the debate. This means clear framework and impact framing arguments + turns case arguments. You need to explain why the links are sufficient turns case arguments for me to vote negative on presumption.

CPs- I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PIKs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIK. However, make it clear that it is a PIK and explain why it solves the aff better or sufficiently. Explain sufficiency framing in the context of the debate you're having, don't just blurt out "view the cp through the lens of sufficiency"--that's not a complete argument.

Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

DAs- I find it pretty easy to follow DAs. However, if you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc.

Make the story of the DA AND your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Theory- I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Other notes: If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.
Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.
Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.
The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

Accomplish something in your cross-x time and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Rowland Hall-St Mark's '17

Georgetown University '21

Berkeley Law '26

Put me on the email chain: dwbdebate@gmail.com

Judging Habits of Mine:

--Treat me like a stock issues judge that can keep up with speed and is in the weeds on topic literature. Only caveat to stock issues is I’m fine with CPs, conditionality, and Ks. But that K has to address at least solvency and harms.

--Quality of arguments matters more than quantity of arguments. Debaters win in front of me when they slow down and thoroughly make strategic arguments with clear implications for my decision, rather than throwing out inconsequential arguments and hoping I will put the pieces together for them.

--I tend to follow the Dallas Perkins view of evidence: "If you can't find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me." I am going to start more aggressively enforcing this premise. If I decide your card is gobbledygook from the highlighted words, I will not evaluate it. Similarly, you don't need to answer a card if you point out that the card says nothing as currently highlighted. That can have significant impacts for the round when unpacked, such as a 1NC failing to read a coherent link card to a DA.

--Relatedly, evidence quality is paramount. Please flag if your authors are writing in peer reviewed journals, if your opponent's authors have clear partisan affiliations that impact their scholarship, and the degree of specificity of your evidence.

--Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue. This is especially true when refuting contrived CPs and silly impact arguments.

--Debaters tend to rely on "extinction outweighs everything" far too much. I am not likely to vote for you simply because you are the only one to have a tenuous connection to an extinction level impact; I am likely to vote for you if you acknowledge relative degrees of risk and recognize that many impacts (e.g. poverty, disease, unemployment, regional conflicts with great power draw in, etc) are bad regardless of whether they will potentially lead to nuclear annihilation.

Operating Procedure:

--I flow on paper.

--I flow cross examination and will refer to that flow when making my decisions.

--I will not be following along closely enough with speech docs to enforce any sort of clipping violations by myself. Debaters should record debates and provide that recording when accusing the other side of an ethics challenge.

--Each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. If it is not your speech and you say something, it will not be on on my flow.

--Not interested in arguments about issues from out of round. Also not interested in hearing arguments about how former debaters are either good or evil people (may make an exception if you actually know the person and can speak to their character, but I'm not interested in hearing you insult someone you don't know).

Theory Issues

--Conditionality is good. I will still vote aff on conditionality bad if debated well.

--I am very open to voting neg on plan vagueness arguments.

--Limited intrinsicness can be very good.

CPs

--I'm increasingly in the camp that CPs need solvency advocates (albeit not hard and fast with that rule). CPs grounded in opponent's solvency advocates are frequently an ideal 2NR in front of me.

--I'm getting bored of the States CP, especially in the iteration of "all 50 states uniformly do the plan" and/or "all 50 states should uniformly force the federal government to do the plan." I am open to consider 50 state action (if debated decently), but I don't see why the affirmative shouldn't be able to make solvency deficits about non-uniform implementation.

--I judge legitimacy of CP's on a case by case basis. In the magical world of fiat, it feels tough to categorically exclude specific varieties of CP's.

--Literature determines predictability. If your "cheating" CP is clearly in the lit, I will be more likely to listen to it and allow it in the debate. That also necessitates the literature clearly distinguishing it from the plan.

--If no one says a word about it, I will judge kick for the neg.

Ks

--I heavily prioritize framework in these debates, especially when framed in terms of the "win condition" for both teams. Generally, I find that assumptions/justifications underlying the 1AC are fair game for both aff and neg offense; however, I still require clear framing devices for how to determine who wins the debate should those assumptions be the primary consideration.

--I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the plan or other arguments that may be considered theoretically illegitimate by many. Just be up front about it (preferably in the 1nc) so the aff can respond and so you can have a real debate.

T

--T debates are fun when they focus on evidence, rather than purely abstract discussions of limits or ground.

No Plan/K Affs

--I like it when the aff has a robust defense of what debate looks like in their model, particularly a clear role for the negative team.

Misc:

--Do NOT read evidence written by undergraduates. I will not evaluate it.

--Tweets from experts can be effectively used as evidence in front of me. Two illustrative examples:

1. In response to evidence that says the Russian invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by NATO expansion, a debater reads this thread from a University of Chicago International Relations Professor: https://x.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1630305966674640896?s=20
2. A 1AR responding to a politics disadvantage reads a tweet from a Senior Congressional Correspondent to indicate the current state of negotiations on a bill and its prospects of passing.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

paradigm writing is confusing bc it ultimately will not tell u much abt how i evaluate debates.

i flow and pay attention to concessions (unless told not to by debaters AND offered an alternative system of evaluation). i wouldn't call myself a flow-centric judge but the flow is important for my decisions bc coverage and the interaction of arguments dictate who gets what offense. my decisions are almost always premised on an offense/defense paradigm (tho this can become complicated in models of debate where people don't 'solve' per se).

i don't believe that judges get rid of all our preconceived assumptions (or any of them tbh) prior to entering the debate but that doesn't mean i'll refuse to listen to ur argument if it's different from how i feel abt debate or the world.

framing and argument comparison is more important than (is also the same thing as) impact calculus-- ur blocks will not tell u much abt how arguments interact but u in the round can take note of their interaction. argument interaction is crucial for both aff and neg. how much of the aff does the alt solve, and vice versa? what disads to the aff/alt are u going for and how do they interact w the offense the aff/alt is winning? if u win ur theory of power, what does that mean for the debate abt aff/alt solvency? etc...

i like good cx. it doesn't happen often, but debates can be won and lost in cx. what does happen often is that arguments can be dismissed or proven in a good cx. strategize. if redirecting or diverting the question is ur style, do it, but please do it well.

ONLINE DEBATING— clarity and slowing down are critical to deal with internet lag. ur judges no longer have the same cues bc of the limitations of the screen. plz account for this when debating in front of me. be willing to sacrifice a little speed so that i actually know wtf u are saying.

Adrienne F. Brovero, University of Kentucky

Closing in on 30 years coaching
adri.debate@gmail.com

Please label your email chain subject line with Team names, tourney, round.

Your prep time does not end until you have hit send on the email.

❗Updated 3-27-24 - I am REAL serious about the highlighting thing below - many cards are literally unreadable as highlighted and if I find myself struggling to read your evidence, I will cease to do so.

❗This is a communication activity.❗

Clarity - Cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is, whether online or in-person.

Highlighting - Highlighting has become a disgrace. Highlighting should not result in anti-grammatical shards of arguments. Highlighting should not result in misrepresentation of the author's intent/ideas. Quite frankly, some highlighting is so bad, you would have been better served not reading the evidence. When highlighting, please put yourself in the judge's shoes for a moment and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable deciding a debate based on how you've highlighted that card. If the answer is no, reconsider your highlighting.

SERIOUSLY - LINE-BY-LINE. NUMBER.

If you like to say "I will do the link debate here" - I am probably not the best judge for you. I would prefer you clash with link arguments in each instance they happen, as opposed to all in one place. Same is true for every other component of an argument.

• Qualifications - read them. Debate them.
• Line-by-line involves directly referencing the other team's argument ("Off 2AC #3 - Winners Win, group"), then answering it. "Embedded" clash fails if you bury the clash part so deep I can't find the arg you are answering.
• Overviews - overrated. Kinda hate them. Think they are a poor substitute for debating the arguments where they belong on the line-by-line.

Things that are prep time:

• Any time after the official start time that is not a constructive (9 mins), CX (3 mins), rebuttal (6 mins), or a brief roadmap. Everything else is prep time.
• Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
• Asking for cards outside of CX time. ("Oh can you send the card before CX?" - that is either CX or prep time - there is not un-clocked time).
• Setting up your podium/stand.
• Putting your flows in order.
• Finding pens, flows, timers.

Debate like this: http://vimeo.com/5464508

MACRO-ISSUES
Communication: I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

Paperless/Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your un-clocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX. I carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.
• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 19” evidence.
• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). If you are fond of saying things like "Now the link debate" or "Group the perm debate" during the constructives, and you do not very transparently embed the clash that follows, do not expect me to follow your arguments or connect dots for you. Nor should you expect spectacular points.

Evidence:
• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).
• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.
• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.
• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.
• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

Decision calculus: Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

MICRO-ISSUES
Topicality & plan-related issues:
• The aff needs to have a written plan text.
• It should be topical.
• T is a voter. Criticisms of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.
• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.
• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how nontraditional advocacies or demands are meaningfully different from plans, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.
• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a performance or demand renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.
• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

Critiques/Performance:

Adjudicating critique or performance debates is not my strong suit. Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read very much in the advanced political philosophy or performance studies areas. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the critique turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff many years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the critique means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the critique to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the critique indict, with what impact on those harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the critique turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

Counterplans:

I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. The status quo could remain a logical option, but growing convinced this should be debated. [NOTE THAT IS A FALL '18 CHANGE - DEBATE IT OUT] Additionally, another shout-out for communication - many theory debates are shallow and blippy - don't be that team. I like theory, but those type of debates give theory a bad name.

Other:

I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”.

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

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 an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Jared Burke

Bakersfield High School class of 2017

Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021

2x NDT Qualifier

NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021

CEDA Semifinalist - 2021

Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present

Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present

Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran

Other people who have influenced the way I have thought about debate: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: jaredburkey99@gmail.com debatecsuf@gmail.com

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

If you have any questions feel free to email me

Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared

I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)

New for 2023-2024:

Fiscal Redistribution: 11

Nukes : 13

LD Total: 89

NDT Update: I have been more involved in coaching Cal State Fullerton toward the second half of the year, this is not to say that I will know every intricacy of every aff, but from research I have done, I think I have a decent grasp on the topic.
If you are a senior,-and this is your last debate, congrats on an amazing career, but if you don't want to hear the RFD please feel free to leave.

Ramblings:
Gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose. If the 2NR is the fiat K I am not the judge for you.

If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debate matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks

3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st

4. on T most times default to reasonability

5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. Frame subtraction bad, one PIC good, 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes. Other T things - fairness is an impact and an internal link - role of the negative has been one of the most persuasive framings to me when comparing aff vs neg model of debate - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs - TVA are sure-fire ways to win these debates for the negative.

6. No plan no perm is not an argument

7. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

8. Theory debates are boring --- neg condo probably good --- I've been increasingly suspect of counterplans with conditional planks just because of how egregious they are

Ideal 2NR strategies

1. Topic K Generic

2. Politics Process CP

3. Impact Trun all advantages

4. PIC w/ internal net beneift

5. Topic T argument

Specifics

K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.

T-USFG:I think the stuff that I have said on the clash of civs section applies a lot here - fairness is an impact and is an internal link - role of the negative as a frame for your impacts/TVA etc has been pretty persuasive to me - 2ACs that go for only this debate matters doesn't make sense to me

DA:I think in these debates (also almost every debate) I just come through cards --- which is also why my RFDs take forever because I sift through a bunch of cards --- impact turns good --- absurd internal link chains should be questioned

CP: Process CPs good, judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, multi-plank conditional counterplans I am somewhat suspect of just because they are sometimes are egregious --- permutations are tests of competition not new advocacies

LD Specific:

I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.

1 - Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil

If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Email: timothyabyram@gmail.com

First off, do you. If my judging philosophy meant that you were put at a disadvantage for any particular style of debate, that would be indicative of a larger problem.

I am a Junior at Liberty University. I have done traditional policy, critical, and performative debate, though recent experience has drifted heavily toward the latter end of the spectrum. I am decently well-versed in most forms of critical literature. However, my level of familiarity with a topic should be largely irrelevant to the way you debate. I view debate generally as a format established for the clash of pedagogies. This clash can take place on the macro level or the micro, and applies to both policy and critical debate. The key is to explain which premises of your opponent’s arguments are in contestation and why. In other words, it can be as broad as a discussion on the merits or demerits of proximate state action, or as specific as the effectiveness of China deterrence to maintain US hegemony. This principle can be applied to virtually all arguments:

Ks: Isolate what the affirmative has done, explain how their particular methodology/epistemology perpetuates structural violence, and give me a clear explanation of how to avoid those harms. In debate-speak, spell out the link/s, draw a story between that link and a particular impact, and explain to me how your alternative avoids said link/impact story. The debaters who do this best are the ones who can relate the structural to the specific (ie, the aff’s use of x term/methodology/analysis leads to y structural impact writ large through z process). K affs function similarly: Tell me what systems of behavior or thought are perpetuated in the status quo, how this is done, why it is bad, and what you do about it.

FW: Framework can be run in many different ways, and should be contested in accordance to the specific argument run. For the team running it: Tell me the specific violation of the affirmative, and give me palpable reasons why the aff perpetuates a model that is harmful for debate/why your model is relatively better. Central to this argument is an explanation of why your version of debate is good, or at least better than that of the affirmative. Contestability is important, but it must ultimately be tied to the specific impacts of the model you are offering. For the team answering it: tell me in what ways you meet their interpretation, or in what ways that interpretation is bad. On both sides of the debate, blanket statements are insufficient. Tell me specific reasons why your opponents’ framing is bad. This involves an interplay of tech vs. truth that I will attempt to balance depending on the arguments made in the particular round.

DAs & CPs: My assessment of the risk of the DA happening as a result of the aff is dependent on the specific details offered as part of the negative strategy. Give me a clear line of reasoning between that link and the impact. Specificity is also important for Counter Plans, in that you must show me how the Counter Plan is competitive with the aff. Don’t assume I am familiar with the jargon.

T: I like T but I am not particularly well versed in the area. Be creative, slow down a bit, and give me well-reasoned applications to the aff.

Email chains: hcall94@gmail.com

Coach at Mason (2016-Present)

If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please do not start your speech yet or I will likely miss things. Thanks!

Top Level Things:

Tech > truth (most of the time)

Depth > breadth

Strategic thinking/arg development/framing of args > 10 cards that say X

I won't take prep for flashing/emailing, just don't steal it.

If a paradigm is not provided for me to evaluate the round, I will default to util.

I don't keep track of speech time/prep. Please keep your own.

Unless I am told not to judge kick by the 2AR, I will default to judge-kicking the CP or alt (in open).

I won't vote on things that have occurred outside of the round (ie pre-round misdisclosure).

Do not include cards in the card doc if they were not referenced in the 2NR/2AR but they do answer arguments your opponents made in their speech. If you didn't make the arg, I'm not going to read the card.

2:15 judge time is the bane of my existence. I apologize in advance for going to decision time in nearly every open debate. I like being thorough.

Online Debate:

Please. Please. Please. Start slow for the first 5 seconds of each speech. It is sometimes so hard to comprehend online debate, especially if you are even slightly unclear in person.

Make sure to occasionally check the screen when speaking to make sure we aren't frozen/showing you we can't hear you.

I am very understanding of inevitable online tech failures.

Cards:

Main things I end up looking to cards for:

- To clarify questions I have about my flow based on arguments made in the 2NR/2AR.

- To compare the quality of evidence on well-debated arguments. If both teams have done a good job responding to warrants from opponent ev + explaining their own ev, I will look to evidence quality as a tie breaker for those arguments.

- To determine if I should discount a card entirely. If a card is bad, say that. I will then validate if the ev is bad, and if it just doesn't make arguments I will not evaluate it in my decision. If I'm not told a card is bad and the arg is dropped, I'll give the other team full weight of it regardless of ev quality to preserve 2NR/2AR arg choice on arguments dropped by the other team.

•  
• I will NOT use evidence to create applications that were not made by debaters to answer the other team's arguments. 

Theory:

2021 update: I'm fine with unlimited condo. I am very unlikely to vote on condo but will if it is certainly won.

Other theory stuff:

If theory comes down to reasons that the specific CP is a voter, I view it as a reason to reject the arg and not the team. To be clear, I will not vote someone down for reading a certain type of CP or alt based on theory args alone. Independent CP theory args are highly dependent on whether there is quality evidence to substantiate the CP.

DAs:

There can be 0 percent risk of a link.

Bad DAs can be beaten with analytics + an impact defense card.

Uniqueness isn't given enough credit in a lot of 2NRs/2ARs.

Link typically precedes uniqueness. You should do framing for these things.

DA turns case/case turns DA gets dropped A LOT. Try not to do that.

I miss judging politics debates.

Ks v Policy Affs:

I prefer line-by-line debates and very much dislike lengthy overviews and convoluted alt explanations. I will not make cross-applications for you.

I prefer Ks that have specific links to the topic or plan action significantly more than Ks that have state or omission links.

It is important for you to win root cause claims in relation to the specifics of the aff rather than sweeping generalizations about war. This is especially true when the aff has arguments about a certain countries' motives/geopolitical interests or reasons behind corporate/governmental actions.

Outside of something that was blatantly offensive, I believe that all language is contextual and words only mean as much as the meaning attached to them. Thus, args like "we didn't use it in that context" are convincing to me. I can be persuaded to vote them down, but I am going to be more biased the other way.

Some of the below section is also relevant for these debates.

K affs v Policy Team:

The aff should at minimum be tied to the resolution. Novices should read a plan during their first semester.

Honestly, I would just prefer to resolve a debate that is aff v. case defense + offense specific to the aff (reform CP w/ net benefit, etc) over framework. If you go for framework/if you're giving a 2AR v it, below are some random things I think about clash debates. This is not exhaustive, nor does it mean I will automatically vote on these arguments. I will vote for who I think wins the flow, but in close debates, these are my leanings:

- I dislike judging debates that solely come down to structural v procedural fairness. I find them nearly impossible to resolve without judge intervention.

- Fairness is an internal link. There are multiple impacts that come from it.

- K affs are inevitable and we should be able to effectively engage with them in ways other than fw/t when they are based in discussions of the resolution.

- Ground and stasis points in debate are important for testing and arg refinement.

- Arg refinement can still occur over the process of the aff even w/o a plan if it's in the area of the resolution. Everyone should have X topic reform good cards to answer these affs/go against the K.

- Being topical is not the end of debate.

- Affs that are directly bidirectional are not a good idea in front of me and T should be the 2NR.

- Creativity can exist with plan texts and is not precluded by defending one.

- Affs garnering solid offense from sequencing questions is one of the best ways to win my ballot in these debates.

- Debate itself is good. Gaming is good. W/L inevitable. The goal of a debate is to win.

K v K:

If you happen to find me here, give me very clear judge instruction. 

Speaker points:

They're arbitrary. I've given up trying to adapt to a scale but I do try to give speaks based on the division and tournament. Here's some important things to note:

- Confidence gets you a long way.

- If you prevent your opponent from answering in cross ex, that won't bode well for speaks and I will be annoyed.

- I will not give you a 30 because you ask for one. Though I will give birthday and Senior last tournament boosts.

- If I'm not flowing something, and you notice I am staring at you, you are being redundant and should move on.

Put me on the chain email: mrkainecherry@gmail.com

Also, my sister is a film student at UCSF and is in the process of fundraising for the production of her short film Through the Woods to complete her senior thesis if you are able to donate you can do so here and if you are not able to do so if you could at least share the indiegogo link I would deeply appreciate it. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/through-the-woods-post-production-fundraiser#/ If you donate will raise you speaker points to the max of .3

Updates as of 11/28/23

Things to know off the top:

1)Please don’t call me judge but if you need to use a title feel free to use "Honored One" and if that is too much/odd you can call me by my name.”

2) I am not persuaded by new affs bad theory arguments, and while I appreciate open source and disclosure those things are norms that are practiced by the community, not rights guaranteed by the activity.

3) I've been in the activity since 2006 and competed both in High School(UDL and nationally for Baltimore City College HS) and College (2-time NDT Octofinalist/10th Place Speaker, 2015 CEDA Semifinalist) So I'm generally comfortable judging all styles of debate.

4) While old the information below is still mostly relevant. If you need me to clarify anything either shoot an email or ask before the round.

5) Presumption > Ballot "PIC/K" no seriously if you have to choose one presumption is generally more persuasive to me.

6) Highschool Stuff- the Longhorn will be my first tournament on this years resolution, however I did coach LD when they had their UBI rotation a few years back so I do have some familiarity with the content of topic. Regardless of debate styles I evaluate what happens between the students, I have start to judge more policy v policy debates since coming back to college policy debate even if its not what I debated when I competed. Please keep track of your time, it's a resource in the game of debate and youth should start to learn time management skills. If you are a novice I will gladly time with you to help you get into groove of things. Open/Varsity you are on your own. I'm not a particularly formal person so please don't call me judge(see #1) and I won't dock speaker points for using particular words etc. The more relaxed everyone is the better the round will go for everyone :3

Online Debate Stuff: While I will try to do my best to listen and follow along with the round, if you insist on spreading, I would like it if you include analytics in the speech doc(I watch everything with subtitles. I've noticed slight audio processing/latency issues listening to people talk fast in the few online debates I have either watched or judged. If you choose not to do so, I will in no way hold it against you. But "YMMV" in terms of what I get on my flow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Feel free to debate, just make it interesting although I specialize in critical arguments I am familiar with the fundamentals of debate across styles. Don’t call me judge.( see #1 above for suggestions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking: General Clarity over speed paradigm that most people have, It is a good determinate of speaker points and important for effective communication. When you make an argument clearly I'm more likely to follow its development and depending on how the round goes works well for you. Versus If I miss and important argument and it costs you the round and then you ask "What about x argument" then people are sad.

Style: Is also very important and I think that can become lost in debate rounds, although some people shoot arguments as if they are a machine they still have personalities that I believe should be shown in a debate round. If you are funny, show it, if you can make being "assertive" work more power to you, if you are a geek I'll probably get your references, and so on. Style is not mandatory and should come naturally, but if shown will definitely improve your speaker's points.

Cross-X: Can be a very useful tool and can be both a fun and entertaining experience for me as a judge and a place for people to express some aspects of "style". Cross-X belongs to the person asking questions, so if it seems like someone isn't asking a question let them ramble it really isn't your concern. Of course, there is a threshold that will become really clear, in that I'll probably stop paying attention and start finding something else interesting to pay attention to.


Evidence: Pieces of evidence are like a bullets to a gun. They can be devastating only when aimed properly, I think evidence is a tool to support your arguments and the way you articulate them. So if you extend evidence with little to no explanation to how it functions you are shooting blanks that can probably be easily refuted, evidence comparison is also really important in this regard as it allows you to control the framing of the debate which leads us into. . .

Macro-level issues and Framing: I think these are very important in both debate as they ultimately determine how i look at the flow(s) and situate who is controlling the direction of the debate. So if someone has an overview that contains an impact calculus,framework, "politics" or frontloads an argument on the flow and it doesn't get answered either directly or somewhere else on the flow then it becomes damming to the other team. This is even more essential in the last two speeches that ultimately determine how i should look at the round. Good framing also should happen on the line-by line as well and will also help me write the ballot.

Theory: As someone who's into competitive games I've grown to like theory a lot. It's probably something that should be argued in a CLEAR and COHERENT manner, which means you probably shouldn't speed through your condo bad and agent cp blocks as if you are reading cards, I'll vote on dropped theory arguments as long as there is a clear impact to it when extended. Otherwise, it should be developed throughout the debate. General question that should be resolved in theory debate for me is "What does it mean?" i.e If you say best policy option, what does that mean in terms of what a policy option is and how does it work in terms of debate?

Specific Stuff

Topicality: Its very situational depending on the violation and how the definitions play out. I think a lot of T interpretations can be contrived especially if they are not grounded in codified law or precedent. Interpretations that come from legal academics serve to help lawyers in the event in which they feel they must argue a certain interpretation in front of a particular judge and may not necessarily good for debate(although a certain level of spin and framing could convince me otherwise). Topicality comes down to clash and ground, and is normally resolved by several questions for me; "Is there clash in round?" "What ground does BOTH sides have?" and "How does ground function to create educational debates?" I tend to have a very high threshold for fairness. Just because a K Aff makes a no link argument to you politics disad doesn't mean that it's unfair, negative ground isn't something that is so clearly drawn out. I think there are better arguments that can be made in those situations. That being said I am very sympathetic to aft weighing their case against topicality and see k's of topicality as substantial arguments on the flow.

Just saying you are reasonability topical isn't an argument and makes their competing interpretation claims all the more legitimate. Like all things you have to make a warrant to why you are reasonably topical, may it be that you are germane to the resolution or that you still allow for alternative ways for the neg to engage the aft.

Counter Plans, PICs, and DA's: Not really a generic counterplan person, I think counter plans when researched properly and specific to the aff with a good net-benifit can become a good interesting debate that I would love to see. I don't really like silly "PIC/Ks" and think people can make very convincing, smart arguments about how stupid they are, but I'll still vote for them. It's a question of how the counterplan competes with the aff and makes better room for theory arguments on the aff. I really don't like the politics DA and generally think the link arguments are contrived, strong attacks on the link story of the DA are very convincing and will probably help you on the CP debate.

"Performance": **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_n1FHX3mBw** Just do your thing- by this I mean I'm in no way hostile to performance debate, but that does not mean negatives can't make arguments as to why that performance is potentially bad or problematic.

K's: I would love seeing a good critique debate more than seeing a bad one that does surface-level work. A good K debate includes specific links to the aff that go beyond " you do state action dats bad judge" or "you sed observation= ablest discourse" as it allows affs to use simple questions to make your links seem stupid and their framing arguments stronger. A strong defense of the alternative, and realistic impacts that are explained and benefit the neg. I really like K's that deal with politics and how we formulate political action and agency in relation to institutions or the State, a good framing of the alternative politics and how that politics can function through the debate round and the ballot is very. Smart questions and simplification of the alt/ K will probably allow it to be more persuasive and stop the k from becoming the blob it normally becomes.

Have fun!

~Kaine

Korean-American born and raised in Iowa

Current Student at The University of Iowa with a double major in Psychology and English and Creative Writing

Iowa City West High School Alum

cho3104026@gmail.com -- put me on email chain pls

Quick Overview

This is my first year judging at the collegiate level.

I will always try my best to understand your arguments and figure out how everything works.

I'm down to vote for any argument

Unfortunately, I was never the best with the technical side of debate. I was always a big picture person who favored truth over tech. Thus, I probably need more explanation than the average judge when it comes to T and Framework debates.

I like to read evidence whenever I can, but I'll value my flow and what's being said over whatever I read in your evidence.

I have a solid foundational understanding of most critical arguments in debate, but I wont be too familiar with any topic specific evidence about anti-trust laws.

I'm not great when it comes to Theory debates. IE: Condo Bad, Vague Alts Bad, etc. I'm willing to vote for them, but there needs to be substantial proof of in round abuse and an impact.

Debated

4 years of CX at Moore High (OK)

4 years CX at UCO

Qualified to the NDT 3 Times

CEDA Finalist my last year

Basically, all that time has been spent as a 2N/1A going for the K and reading an AFF without a plan. With that said I think that debate is for the debaters, do what you do best and do it well. By all means don't let my (perceived) preferences sway you from doing what you want to do.

If you have any questions before or after the tournament feel free to email me at grantcolquitt87@gmail.com

Also add me to the email chain if there is one.

I flow on paper so I may need slightly more pen time than some, so clarity > speed for me. I can still handle speed, but clear transitions are really important to me, and all the more true in an online setting.

I evaluate debates almost entirely on the flow, so my preferences matter less than doing what you're best at and impacting that on flow. Given that impact framing arguments (impact calculus), are almost always the most important factor of my decisions.

A few thoughts on particular issues:

Framework- most of my ballots on this question come down to the impact of competing models of debate. I think AFFs are often ahead in this debate when they advance a counter interp that solves the limits DA. NEGs tend to be ahead with a TVA that solves the AFFs offense (note not the AFF but their offense). I’m here for the impact turn and procedural fairness respectively (though more as an internal link to education than an independent impact). But that is my light default, I can and have been convinced otherwise.

K v K debates- Most of this works like any other debate, explain why you’re right and what the impact to that is. Only specific comment, I have never understood the notion that “method debates” mean the AFF shouldn’t get a perm, this isn’t intuitive and while I am open to being convinced I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Also, you just need a link to your K anyway so maybe use that to beat the perm?

Policy v policy debates- this is by far the debate I’m the least familiar with but that doesn’t mean I’m not open to it if that’s your jam. Just explain how your impacts turn or outweigh your opponent’s arguments and you should be just fine.

please put me on the chain! - amcalden@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at Niles West

Argument Coach at Baylor University

5 years at Baylor

4 years at Caddo Magnet

In general i'm fine for you to do whatever you want to do. I've read and coached both policy and K things from variety of literature basis so do what you do best and I'm sure to enjoy it! Please don't be overly aggressive, rude, or dismissive of your opponents or speaker points will reflect it

if a timer isn't running you should not be prepping.

if the aff isn't clearly extended in the 1AR i will not give you the 2AR case rants

Framework v K affs: More of an uphill battle given the arguments i predominately read and coached but fairness is an internal link to the integrity of debate which still requires you to win the value of maintaining debate as it currently exists. Clash is by far the most persuasive standard, TVA's don't need to solve the entire aff if there are framing arguments in place or additional tools such as switch side debate to deal with what it doesn't solve, examples of ground, either lost or enabled is helpful on both sides!

K: Links to the plan are nice but not necessary, Alts don't have to solve the link if they are able to avoid them and solve the aff. I do not think you need an alt to win a debate if you have the appropriate framing tools however I need instruction on what to do with offense related to the alternative in a world you are not extending it.

CPs: Comparison between deficits/net benefits is key, can be persuaded for or against "cheating" counterplans, solvency advocates are preferred but not needed if pulling lines from the aff.

DAs: Nothing incredibly innovative to say here! I enjoy internal link comparison, and speaker points will reflect great impact debateing

Theory: Condo is fine, argumentative tension is okay but can be convinced on contradictions being bad.

David Cram Helwich
University of Minnesota
28 years judging, 20-ish rounds each year

Quick version: Do what you do best and I will try to check my dispositions at the door.

Topic Thoughts: We picked the wrong one (too narrow, needed at least sole purpose). Aff innovation is going to require NFU-subsets affs, but I have yet to see a good argument for a reasonable limit to such an interpretation. "Disarming" creates an unanticipated loophole. Process counterplans that are not directly related to nuclear policymaking seem superfluous given the strength of the negative side of the topic literature.

Online Debate: It is "not great," better than I feared. I have judged quite a few online debates over the past 3 years. Debaters will benefit by slowing down a bit if that enhances their clarity, avoiding cross-talk, and actively embracing norms that minimize the amount of "null time" in debates--watch for speechdocs and download them right away, pay attention to the next speaker as they give the order, be efficient in getting your speechdoc attached and sent, etc.

Evidence: I believe that engaged research is one of the strongest benefits of policy debate, and that judging practices should incentivize such research. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence quality is marginal—sources, recency, and warrants/data offered. I reward teams who debate their opponent’s evidence, including source qualifications.

Delivery: I will provide prompts (if not on a panel) if I am having trouble flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that I could not originally flow.

Topicality: I vote on well-developed procedurals. I rarely vote on T cheap shots. T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Debaters that focus interpretation debating on caselists (content and size), division of ground, and the types of literature we read, analyzed through fairness/education lenses, are more likely to get my ballot. I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as a “definition”—intent to define is important, whereas proximity-count “definitions” seem more valuable in setting the parameters of potential caselists than in grounding an interpretation of the topic.

Critical Arguments: I have read quite a bit of critical theory, and will not dismiss your argument just because it does not conform to ‘traditional’ notions of debate. However, you should not assume that I am necessarily familiar with your particular literature base. I value debating that applies theory to the ‘artifact’ of the 1AC (or 1NC, or topic, etc). The more specific and insightful the application of said theory, the more likely I am to vote for you. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is vitally important, for both “policy” and “K” teams. Absent contrary guidance, I view ‘framework’ debates in the same frame as T—caselist size/content, division of ground, research focus.

Disadvantages/Risk: I typically assess the ‘intrinsic probability’ of the plan triggering a particular DA (or advantage) before assessing uniqueness questions. This means that link work is very important—uniqueness obviously implicates probability, but “risk of uniqueness” generally means “we have no link.” Impact assessments beyond shallow assertions (“ours is faster because I just said so”) are an easy pathway to my ballot, especially if you have strong evidentiary support

Theory: I will not evaluate theoretical objections that do not rise to the level of an argument (claim, data, warrant). Good theory debating focuses on how the operationalization of competing interpretations impacts what we debate/research and side balance. Thought experiments (what would debate look like if the neg could read an unlimited number of contradictory, conditional counterplans?) are valuable in drawing such comparisons. I tend to find “arg not team” to be persuasive in most cases. This means you need a good reason why “loss” is an appropriate remedy for a theory violation—I am persuadable on this question, but it takes more than an assertion. If it is a close call in your mind about whether to go for “substance” or “theory,” you are probably better off going for “substance.”

Counterplans: The gold standard for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I am more suspicious of multi-conditionality, and international fiat than most judges. I am probably more open to condition counterplans than many critics. PICs/PECs that focus debate on substantive parts of the aff seem important to me. Functional competition seems to make more sense than does textual competition. That being said, I coach my teams to run many counterplans that I do not think are legitimate, and vote for such arguments all the time. The status quo seems to be a legitimate voting option unless I am instructed otherwise. My assumption is that I am trying to determine the "best policy option," which can include the status quo unless directed otherwise.

Argument Resolution: Rebuttalists that simply extend a bunch of cards/claims and hope that I decide things in their favor do poorly in front of me. I reward debaters that resolve arguments, meaning they provide reasons why their warrants, data, analysis, sources etc. are stronger (more persuasive) than those of their opponents on critical pressure points. I defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think your argument is interesting.

Decorum: I believe that exclusionary practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist etc. acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”

Use an email chain--establish one before the round, and please include me on it (cramhelwich@gmail.com) . Prep time ends once the speechdoc is saved and sent. Most tournaments have policies on how to deal with "tech time"--please know what those policies are. I do not have a strong opinion on the acceptability of mid-speech prep for other purposes.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

I debated five years at the University of Minnesota, graduated in 2015. I have always been a 2N.

Pre-round synopsis: Bad for Ks, conditionality is good, enjoys impact turns, dislikes aff vagueness, good for reasonable/less than extinction impacts, zero risk and presumption are things, better than average for the aff on theory vs questionable CPs, better than average for the neg on T (limits are good). On the 2023 topic I've only judged one tournament pre-NDT, so be aware.

Post-2022 NDT notes:

1. I never really went for process CPs as a debater, so I have much less well developed thoughts on competition than people who have debated recently (2021/2022 seemed to have a lot more of those).

2. After a doubles debate I judged + watching finals, I thought I should mention that 1) I enjoy impact turn debates a lot 2) If the 1AC says they solve something then tries to do take backs I'm not very likely to be sympathetic and 3) warming good was my favorite impact turn as a debater and holds a particular place in my heart, though I recognize the evidence has gotten worse since 2014.

**Extended Thoughts**

Kritiks:

Topshelf: I find it very difficult to vote on something which is not an effect of the implementation of the plan. I have no idea how to compare things like ontology to the aff saving people. It is possible to convince me otherwise, but the amount of work you will have to do will be so high that nineteen out of twenty times you would be better off doing something else. I won't hold it against you if you like Ks, and am not going to feel like my time was wasted or you are destroying debate or anything - I am just genuinely very confused about how kritiks answer the aff. I recognize I am way outside of the community norm on this - something just doesn't click for me with kritiks and I want to make sure that no one is caught off guard.

Aff arguments I like:

- Theory: the neg only gets the status quo or fiat from a resolutional actor

- Perm double bind

- New arguments are OK because the neg changed their argument/explained the alt/stopped being vague in the block/2NR

T-USFG note: For whatever reason, I’m mildly friendlier to no plan affs vs framework than I am for kritiks on the neg.

Conditionality:

It isn't impossible to get me to vote on, but one of two things need to happen:

1) the aff explains why something actually bad happened ("they read 6 counterplans" is an FYI, not an arg). For example - Harvard CM counterplaned out of straight turns to disads Wake MT could have read in doubles at Northwestern in 2018. That seems to hurt the aff’s ability to debate. It might be fine! But there's an argument there.

2) the aff goes into depth on why either the neg's model puts an undue burden on the aff, with many specific examples and hypotheticals, or why the neg's model produces a bad educational experience (i.e. depth on CPs > depth on the aff because topic-wide education > plan focused education). Both sides should talk about what the world of debate looks like under your interpretations. Being specific is really important.

The neg args I like the most are testing the aff, reasonability, and skews inevitable/not unique to their interp.

Judge kick I can go either way on, tell me what to do.

Theory:

Impact calc is good. Cheap shots are bad. Reject the argument not the team for everything but conditionality. Severance perms will never be a reason to reject the team.

States, international fiat, and agent/process/consult/condition CPs are probably not necessary.

All of these predispositions can be modified if the literature supports a debate over a specific counterplan.

My ideal form of debate is aff reads a plan neg gets the squo and CPs with a resolutional agent.

Topicality:

I’m friendlier to limits and lit/precision than the average judge.

Disads:

Winning a higher risk of your disad is better than turning the case. I generally care more about links than uniqueness.

Vagueness:

is a real argument. I haven’t been in a situation where it has been the 2nr, but if what the aff does meaningfully affects neg strategy I will vote for it.

**Archive: Old/High School Stuff - can ignore, saved for historical reasons**

Conditionality is good: It isn’t impossible for me to vote on it but probably won’t happen. Judge kick I’m unsure about, so tell me what to do.

Extinction/high magnitude impacts: Most are silly (obvi) and I’m very open to voting on “less than extinction but really bad outweighs 1% risk of extinction). I’m less enamored with try or die than a lot of other judges. If you’re really into doing the high probability/low magnitude stuff you should look at the “K affs with a plan” section below.

Flowing: I flow on paper. I will miss things. Be sure to slow down on important things, and consider slowing down in general.

Wipeout: is not a good argument. However, it is a better argument than most K’s because at least it says the aff is bad and can’t be permed. Aliens wipeout is better than Schopenhauer wipeout.

Presumption: If there’s a counterplan/alt it goes aff and if there isn’t it goes neg but I can be persuaded otherwise. I also am willing to vote on zero risk of the aff/da if you set that framing up and are really beating them on their case/disad.

Offensive stuff: Don't be mean. But, being able to explain why things like imperialism are bad is something debaters should be able to do. There isn't any reason for you to use gendered/ableist/racist language so you should avoid it.

K’s: explain why the aff is bad. Saying “method first” without explaining why that matters is not sufficient. I am very receptive to the neg doesn’t get to fiat different actors than the aff. My problems with Ks are more with the form than with the content, so if you can make your k arguments into reasons why the aff is bad I am much more likely to vote for you.

K’s vs K affs: Read more into my section on K’s than my section on K affs without a plan. I tend to vote aff on the perm/alt does nothing in those debates, but that also might be because people haven’t been explaining links well. Despite going for Marx a lot in college I think that most identity arguments today are set up well to answer it and haven’t voted for it too much recently. Class is likely the most important thing, but other things matter too.

K v K debates: I won't know what your authors say - I'll be asking myself a) is the neg different/not perm-able by the aff and b) which is a better idea. It would likely help if you explained your stuff more than you thought you needed to, and going away from theory and towards examples would be better.

K affs without a plan: T is the path of least resistance. I think we choose topics for a reason and switching sides/some predictability is good. I don't know why reading plans requires teams to "roleplay" the USFG and also think that most of the arguments for why being forced to defend the federal government is bad are silly. The problem is how we do risk calc. If you don’t read a plan and are in front of me, the 3 scenarios where I vote aff tend to be either a. your version of debate gets more people from under-represented groups into debate and debate matters more to them than to others b. the neg team says something silly like if you win the state is bad you win and you technically win that arg, or c. there is a severe skill differential. If you are going for T against a not the topic aff, I am much more likely to be persuaded by limits/skills/stasis point than roleplaying the state makes us awesome policymakers.

K affs with a plan: I am not good for high theory k affs. I am good for affs with reasonable impacts who say they do something and say the neg’s arguments are silly. The best way to win is to take out the probability of their disads- you don’t have to read complexity/predictions cards, but make args why their stuff isn’t true/leaves stuff out. Nate Cohn’s risk calc stuff makes a lot of sense to me (http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5416.0.html) so take a look at that if you want.

**Archive: 2019 (Prez power) topic thoughts**

- T: I heard a couple of blocks on T subsets at Wake. I found them somewhat persuasive. The topic seems big.

- ESR theory: it is probably OK but I think I could be convinced to vote aff. I am concerned with the size of the topic, but prefer to limit via T than via counterplans.

- I haven't heard a very persuasive answer to "perm do both shields the link to politics" on ESR.

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com

I probably need to do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen until I'm out of grad school. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.

Experience:

MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. GA since '21. Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.

BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching

HS: LD in GA, ‘16

Misc

A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.

For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.

Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.

Overall:

Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.

2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.

This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.

Theory

Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.

Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.

Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.

Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.

RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.

Content

No huge preferences here

Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.

Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.

Silliness

Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.

he/him delphdebate@gmail.com

year 10 of debate

coach at wake

former LRCH and Kansas Debater

TLDR:

When it comes to evaluating debates, two things are the most important for me:

1. Clear judge instructions in the rebuttals of how I should filter offense and arguments made in the round. Impact and Link framing are a must. if I can't explain the argument myself, I probably can't vote on it.

2. Impact comparison and clear reason why I should prioritize impacts in the round between the neg and aff. Each argument should have a claim - warrant - impact for me to evaluate it as such.

Use these to filter the rest of my paradigm and general in round perception.

General

I consider myself to be pretty flexible when it comes to arguments that teams want to read. I debated more critically but you should read whatever arguments that you are comfortable with. Any racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc will be met with speaker points that reflect, so don't be an assho|e.

Most of my debate experience was in critical debates on both the aff and neg (I was a 1A/2N), but I’m not unfamiliar with the technical aspects of policy debates.

I’m probably not the best for Topicality debates in general when it comes to plan-based policy debates and less likely to vote on Framework vs plan-less affs if going for impacts such as fairness/competitive equity or predictability. I generally lean more into truth over tech in most debates, but tech is important for impact comparison.

for college: still formulating how I understand and evaluate as a judge, so making sure I clearly understand what I should evaluate without intervention from me comes down to how you go for your arguments. The less judge intervention I feel like I have to do, the happier we are all in the post-round RFD.

——————————————————————————————

Truth over tech/Tech over truth? - Depends, i view myself evaluating truth before tech concessions but that isn’t always the case. I think technical concession are important for evaluating impact debates, so utilize both these to your advantage.

Framework on the Neg? - I’ll evaluate any negative arguments about the meta of debate. If you win your model of debate is good and the aff in question doesn’t access it then generally I’m pretty neutral on Framework arguments. Same for K’s with framing questions, the way you want me to evaluate a prior question should be framed as such.

10 off? I’d prefer if you didn’t, gish galloping is a fascist tactic.

Theory arguments? I believe theory arguments are heavily underutilized in high school debates. I evaluate conditionality and presumption debates as much as I evaluate K vs Framework. I have a certain threshold for certain arguments that I will vote on in theory debates, I think condo is a definite aff/neg ballot if it gets dropped in the neg block or rebuttals. I tend to vote neg on presumption, in those debates I think a lot of the perm debate and solvency portions of both sides are important to those rounds. CP contextual theory, perm text theory, textual severance, etc im all game for theory. i think theory debates get underutilized a lot

K affirmatives

I read them, I think that you should read whatever you read on the aff. I will vote for them, but I at least think they should be in the direction of the topic and a reason why the topical version doesn't solve.

Performance

If performance is your thing - go ahead go for it.

FW on the neg

I will vote on a neg FW but I think that there are certain arguments that I'm gonna have a harder time pulling the trigger on, i.e. fairness. I don't think fairness is something I would absolutely vote on but of course that all depends on the round. I also think the neg should be doing a lot of work why the state/usfg is worth it, why the aff isnt good for a model of debate, or why the judge should care. Generic args on framework aren't gonna cut it for me tbh, i need a concise way of why i should view the debate through the neg and why the aff doesnt solve etc etc.

K’s

Pretty versed in most of the lit but you shouldn't use a lot of buzzwords in front of me. I think you should say why the aff is uniquely bad and how the alternative can resolve its impacts and the squo. Why perms don't solve, links are disads, etc etc. I find alternative debates to be the most shallow, I think even if you are winning reason the links are disads you still need a reason the alt isn't the squo. Role of the ballot arguments are self-serving but it makes is a lot easier to evaluate them when they are dropped or not contested by the aff. Aff teams: FW on Ks is underutilized, I think you should make arguments about why you should get to weigh your impacts vs the K.

Any other questions just ask before the round, "If you can't dazzle me with excellence, baffle me with bullshit."

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

I have been involved with debate for a min now. All debates are performances . I believe education should be what debates are about . I read the topic paper every year( or when it stop being Throw backs). Topical education is something i consider but can be impact turned. Topicality is a method of the objective game. I will vote on conversations of community norms like predictability good , switch side , or even static notions of politics. Framework is how we frame our work. Method debates I welcome. We are intellectuals so we should be responsible for such i.e you can be voted down if the debaters or their positions/in round performance are racist, sexist, classist, or ableist . If not voted down,I still reserve the discretion to give the debater(s) responsible a 3.5 in speaker points . Do what you do and do it well.

Updated 2/7/24

Minneapolis South '17 || University of Minnesota '21

Coach at Minneapolis Edison HS Fall '17 - Spring '20 || Part-time Coach at UMN Fall '21 - Present

Email: josiahferguson3.14@gmail.com Yes put me on the email chain, feel free to email me any questions. Currently work for a city civil engineering department, was a 2A for most of my debate career.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

Cliff Notes:

HS: low topic knowledge, Judged 5 round on this topic.

College: Fairly high topic knowledge, been doing some work for UMN, judged 47 debates so far, debated NFU in '18-'19 season. I value debates that show off your knowledge of the topic.

Speed, good if clear, warrant dense and slow > fast nonsense, I flow on paper so I need pen time.

FW v. k aff, yes fairness is an impact, but often a small one. K aff can win, but probably needs some explanation of the role of the negative (and how they can reasonably accomplish this role).

Longer version:

About Me:

I debated 592 rounds (30 middle school, 275 high school, 287 college) and have judged 334 (59 middle school, 130 High School, 125 College), best result: octa-finalist at the 2021 NDT.

Debate is an educational activity. My role as a judge includes being an educator. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you feel welcome and safe.

I value clarity over speed, I still flow on paper so I need pen time and clear communication on what you want me to write down. I usually flow straight down.
Default to tech > truth, though truth often determines how much tech you need. I usually evaluate most args probabilistically on offense vs defense.

Specific arguments:

T vs K affs - Yes. Fairness is probably an impact, though fairly small, clash is about the only other impact worth saying, the neg probably needs some way to mitigate aff offense including: TVA, switch side or process over content. Aff’s should probably have a model of debate, as it is difficult to convince me that an activity that you devoted your time to is wholly bad. Having a clear role for the neg can help against fairness and clash offense. Procedure based DAs to FW are better than content ones.

K vs Policy - Cap or security probably best k options in front of me. I’m fine for some specific Ks, but I haven't read much of the lit in depth. I’m ok for identity Ks (antiblackness, gender, queerness) in that I have a base level of understanding but have a prety high threshold for ontology claims. I’m not good for Baudrillard, Bataille, D&G or Nietzsche, etc. I have a high threshold for no Ks FW on the aff, easily win that you get to weigh the aff, though what that means is up for debate, and should be explained. Please impact out what I should do if you win your interp on FW. Much prefer a push on consequncialism good to just a push on extinction outweighs.

T v Policy - Default to T a priori. Standards with warrants are needed in the 1NC. Tell me what reasonability means and why it is good beyond the generic one liner if you want me to vote on it (ie 1-2 minutes of the 2ar + 2-3 sentences in each speech before then). Think of reasonability as going for presumption, you shouldn't do it often and when you do it should be the focal point of your speech.

Theory/CP - most condo is probably good, types of CPs, and solvency advocates matter more than just the number of condo, though I will vote on condo. I have found myself voting aff on condo more than I would like - 2nr please include neg flex, fairness outweighs and dispo fails. Love a good Adv CP out of a non-intrinsic advantage. 2NC counterplans out of straight turns are probably somewhat bad (Still worth saying, just not as your only answer).
PIC/Ks - aff should be able to defend their plan/advocacy, other pics are debatable.
Perm do the CP is good against process CPs, Default to reject the arg except for condo. International fiat probably bad, multi actor is debatable. Theory args like consult bad are best used as a justification for PDCP. Perm do both needs a net benefit, often a solvency deficit, please compare this with the DAs to the perm.
Yes judge kick unless 2AC or 1AR starts the debate on this, then up for debate, but still lean neg. Neg, you don't need to tell me to kick it, I will do so if it helps you.

DA/Case - I evaluate probabilistically, so unlikely to win zero risk unless major drop. Default to uniqueness controlling link. Threshold for thumpers is determined by the broadest link argument extended, so if you have a more specific link it can backfire to extend the more general one.
Case debate good, do it more. UQ is a squo solves/solvency deficit unless paired with theory.
I follow politics quite closely, so if you mess up the swing votes on your ptx DA I will be annoyed.

Impact framing - Risk = Magnitude x Probability, so structural violence can outweigh. probability is usually determined based on how well it is debated. Lean 10% chance of 99% dead outweighs 1% risk of 100% dead, but needs an explanation.

*Updates for NDT 2022

Who are you affiliated with?

I coach for Harvard. I attended UMKC.

Email for chain?

davonscope@gmail.com & harvard.debate@gmail.com

Do I care what you do?

I do not personally care about what you do stylistically.

Should I pref you?/How do you vote in clash debates? (Because that's honestly the section of paradigms people care about these days)

Whatever the debaters at hand find important in regards to framing, I will decide the debate through that lens. If the debaters happen to disagree on what lens I should prefer (because that never happens), then I will compare the pros and cons of both lenses and make a decision on which is preferable and thus filter the debate through that lens. In helping me make that decision in a way that benefits you, levy significant offense against the opposing team's lens, while supplementing your own with some defense and net-benefits. I'll give you a hint; education is the impact/net-benefit/tie-breaker. For me, It will rarely be fairness, ground, truth-testing, etc. I have and will likely always see those as internal-links to a much larger discussion about education. Which begs the question, "how do I view debate?" Debate is clearly a game. But this game grounds itself in a degree of realism that finds its value tethered to its capacity for us to maneuver within the world the game is set to reflect. Basically, debate is a game, life is a game, and we play this debate game because we think it can inform how we go about playing the life game. So yeah, sounds like education to me.

*Other things

I flow. I won't be convinced not to. How I flow is up for debate.

Line-by-line is important but I find myself pondering the big issues often. Comprehensive overviews/argument framing with embedded clash can honestly do a lot for me. But the key word is comprehensive. In many rounds, debaters lose me when they prioritize checking off arguments on the flow and not paying particular attention to what arguments matter to a decision.

I value evidence comparison deeply. On important questions that have not been adequately resolved by debaters, I will read the evidence, including the un-underlined components to come to a greater understanding/receive necessary context for the writers intent. This has often shaded my evaluation of arguments made in relation to evidence read, moreso negatively for the reader. To insure this doesn't negatively affect you, be sure to flesh out that card...give me the context, give your interpretation of its impact on the topic at hand, and put it in conversation with the other team's evidence beyond the simple "they said, we said" formula. Display an understanding of why your evidence says what it says, its qualities, etc, and I will be more inclined to accept your description of things. I want to evaluate your arguments, not read cards at the end of the round to fill-in what your arguments are. This also means in my mind the less cards read, the better this is achieved.

I realize my points have been categorically low, and will attempt to rectify this by sitting closer to the perceived average. That said, points I give are based on my evaluation of things only. Points are the few things I have control over in a round, and reserve the right to assign them as I see fit.

Ask a question if you desire an answer not covered by the above statements.

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

2023-2024 EDIT:

**That said, the Inequality Topic has made me add an addendum to my aforementioned grievance about being on my lawn: running blatantly contradictory arguments about Capitalism, Unions, Growth, etc. are egregious performance contradictions that I will no longer ignore under the auspices of conditionality. Its not that I am changing my tune on condo per se, its that this promotes bad neg strats that are usually a result of high school students not thinking about things they should be before reading the 1NC. Its pretty easy to win in-round abuse when a Neg is defending Unions Good and Bad at the same time. I encourage you to try.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Richard A. Garner | Director of Speech & Debate | University of Houston | ragarner@uh.edu

Framework: Neg: topical version is very helpful; aff: probably okay if you defend the government doing a topical thing. One should be able to defend their model of debate. I put this issue first because it’s probably what you really care about. Everything else is alphabetical.

Case debate: Turning the case is my favorite thing to judge. Uniqueness is good here, but not always necessary with comparative evidence.

CPs/Competition/Theory: Comparisons win theory debates, along with impacts. I’m not sure that states or international CPs compete, but no one has ever put this to the test in front of me so it’s hard to say. No strong feelings about consultation or conditioning either way. K affs probably shift competition questions that rely on FIAT. Won't kick the CP unless you tell me to. Non-arbitrary interpretations are ideal.

Critiques: I understand these and am fine with them (understatement). From both the aff and neg, I enjoy narrative coherence, specific application, and alternative debates. New things under the sun are wonderful to see, but so too the old, artisanal ways upon occasion.

Disadvantages: I tend to think risk probability is never 100% absent drops, and that each internal link reduces certainty. Can have zero risk (though if the CP solves 100% of the case … probably need offense). Don’t tend to think that impacts automatically/100% turn case, or vice versa; instead, comparisons are evaluating risk probability bubbles/multiple competing worlds.

Judge Space: Judges are human beings, not argument processing machines; enjoyable debates matter. Evidence comparison is the highest art. Debaters’ flowing/line-by-line is generally terrible; embedded clash is nice, but at its root it depends on an organized approach to the flow. Drops: before the burden of rejoinder attains, there must be a full argument (claim/warrant/implication). I am displeased by a) subpoints with no b) subpoints, and by "Is anyone not ready?" because it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay). I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting: needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting (ok: United States; not: neoliberalism). If I cannot understand the highlighting, I will not read the rest of the card for context.

Logistics: Add me to the email chain. I don’t read speech docs during the debate.

*Principles: Without getting too philosophical, I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein.

Speaker Points: I approximate community norms, and adjust each year appropriately.

Topicality: I evaluate it first. I enjoy T debates, and lean more towards ‘better interpretation for debate’ than ‘we have the most evidence’.

Brief Debate CV:

South Garland (competitor): 1995-1999

NYU (competitor): 1999-2003

Emory: 2003-2004

NYU/Columbia: 2004-2005

Harvard: 2006-2015

Houston: 2013-present

*

Random Poem (updated 3/30/23):

Strange now to think of you, gone without corsets & eyes, while I walk on the sunny pavement of Greenwich Village.

downtown Manhattan, clear winter noon, and I’ve been up all night, talking, talking, reading the Kaddish aloud, listening to Ray Charles blues shout blind on the phonograph

the rhythm the rhythm—and your memory in my head three years after—And read Adonais’ last triumphant stanzas aloud—wept, realizing how we suffer—

And how Death is that remedy all singers dream of, sing, remember, prophesy as in the Hebrew Anthem, or the Buddhist Book of Answers—and my own imagination of a withered leaf—at dawn—

Dreaming back thru life, Your time—and mine accelerating toward Apocalypse,

the final moment—the flower burning in the Day—and what comes after,

looking back on the mind itself that saw an American city

a flash away, and the great dream of Me or China, or you and a phantom Russia, or a crumpled bed that never existed—

like a poem in the dark—escaped back to Oblivion—

No more to say, and nothing to weep for but the Beings in the Dream, trapped in its disappearance,

sighing, screaming with it, buying and selling pieces of phantom, worshipping each other,

worshipping the God included in it all—longing or inevitability?—while it lasts, a Vision—anything more?

*

Previously

Dunya Mikhail, "The End of the World," The Iraqi Nights (3/30/23)

Sakutaro Hagiwara, "A Useless Book" (8/1/19)

Catullus, 101 (1/4/18)

e.e. cummings, "O sweet spontaneous" (1/4/18)

&c

Contact info

akum.singh@gmail.com

Debating History

* High school: I debated for Harker from 2006-2010. Qualified for and competed in the TOC senior year

* College: I debated for the University of Michigan from 2010-2012

Judging History

Honestly, not a ton. I've been out of the scene for a few years, but am looking to get re-familiarized and contribute more to judging over the coming years. I judged a few high school rounds when I was debating in college, but not since

Preferences

* I don't need to personally like an argument or find it compelling to vote on it. Debate is about rewarding debaters who make good arguments so I'll do my best to check my biases/preferences at the door and adapt to the round. With that said, it's probably a safe assumption that I don't know the nuances of your argument unless you explain them to me. If you're going to use terms of art, I'll request that you define them or explain them so I can follow along effectively

* I have a very expressive face so it should be pretty clear when I don't really know what you're talking about

* It takes me a bit to get used to your voice so please don't just start full speed. Ease me in

* I prefer depth of argument over breadth so I don't love when one team just sandbags the other with weak arguments, but that preference is more likely to be reflected in speaker points instead of the ballot

* The neg is allowed to have multiple contradictory arguments throughout the debate, but should consolidate to one by the 2NR

* You should tell me why you're winning an argument, but also why winning that argument means you win the debate. Tell me why some arguments are more important than others

* Evidence quality matters, but I'll defer to you to point me to the most important pieces of evidence that I should be looking at to make my decision

* Be nice to each other please

* Please ask me questions before the round starts! This will help me to know what I should be adding here that isn't already clear

Professional history (probably not relevant, but in case you're interested)

I worked for Facebook from 2014 - Feb 2021. In that time, I led engineering teams working on child safety, countering/preventing violent extremism, and anti-scams. I left the company to work in scientific research for a non-profit. Because of this, I'm quite familiar with both the positive and negative effects of big tech and social media specifically on society. I don't think I have a particular bias in one direction or the other on this though.

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

University of Minnesota, NDT-CEDA 2017-2021 (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space, Alliances). Anoka High School, (lay) LD+PF 2015-2017.

For the email chain: please put the tournament and the teams in the subject line, it makes organization and scouting easier. College rounds: Please put debatedocs@googlegroups.com (not any other email address) on the email chain for me.

If you have questions: don't email debatedocs, email mjgranstrom@gmail.com. Please do not put this on the email chain: I want a clean email inbox, and I will immediately forward the email chain to debatedocs and then delete it. Please save me the effort.

You have my consent to record/stream/publish the round (and you are encouraged to do so, pending the consent of other participants). Here is my policy judging record, with a brief summary of each round and decision.

I appreciate when teams point out their opponents' mistakes in a speech, and I am reluctant to do that work absent debater instruction. I appreciate in-depth case debating. I greatly appreciate mundane arguments executed well.

I dislike time-wasting. I strongly dislike kritiks, and in general only vote on them when the risk of the affirmative's impacts is zeroed by external case defense. I dislike counterplans that do not have predetermined outcomes. I dislike argumentative cowardice: making incomplete arguments for strategic reasons, evasiveness in cross-examination, deliberate opacity in disclosure, making an argument in a speech and then walking it back immediately afterwards in cross-examination.

I am a very expressive judge -- if I look confused during your speech, you have confused me; if I look frustrated during your speech, it is probably your fault; if I laugh when you make an argument it is not because I will not vote on it or because it is a bad argument, it is because the argument is funny (i.e. counterplan texts that take two minutes to read), or because the fact that you have been forced to make it is funny (i.e. a Navy team reading "naval personnel not key to readiness"). I am bad at evaluating topicality debates, this is a skill at which I have been actively seeking to improve. I am willing to evaluate arguments other judges dismiss as jokes (warming good, aliens, wipeout, etc), but be warned: these arguments are jokes because their best answers are easy to execute. I am confident I am in the top five percent of all judges for topicality against kritikal affirmatives: I find it difficult to comprehend any of the answers I have ever heard to 'read it on the negative.'

I am more persuaded by 'elegant' theory interpretations than those that feel arbitrary: Interpretations like "2 conditional counterplans" or "one counterplan and one kritik" feel much less defensible to me than "arbitrarily many conditional counterplans," "arbitrarily many dispositional counterplans", or "only unconditional counterplans". Theory arguments premised on argumentation theory or logic are more intuitive to me than others. Theory debates are frequently lost when one side is reading their blocks at top speed and are not paying attention to the content of the other side's arguments. Despite spending half of my debate career as a 2N, I am less convinced of the value of conditionality than most other judges.

The neg block contains a constructive and a rebuttal. Corollary 1: It is very easy to persuade me to reject new arguments made in the first negative rebuttal. Corollary 2: It is hard to persuade me arguments made in the second negative constructive should be thought of differently than arguments made in the first negative constructive.

Novice/JV debate:

Novice and JV debaters are strongly encouraged to simplify the debate in late rebuttals. This will improve both your speaker points and your odds of making sufficiently complete arguments to win the debate. The best non-varsity speech I have ever heard was a novice 1AR in which the debater kicked down to one advantage and extended no more than two defensive arguments on each other page.

Unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing, your counterplans should probably be conditional -- empirics prove you are more likely to lose because the 2AC can now ignore multiple disads than to lose on conditionality.

Flow the debate -- I will be very disappointed if arguments that were in a speech doc but not read get answered.

Procedural items:

I will evaluate evidence that was inserted but not read only if the mere existence of the evidence constitutes a warrant (for instance, inserting solvency advocates in a topicality debate). I will kick counterplans for the negative only if I am explicitly instructed to do so. I will run a prep timer for teams who need things removed from a speech doc (this is distinct from asking for marks in marked evidence).

An ethics violation (evidence, clipping, etc) introduced as a voting issue will end the debate. If this occurs, I will give the team alleging the violation the opportunity to retract the allegation and proceed with the debate; their opponents may not insist the debate be staked on this issue. I have a high threshold for identifying malice or competitive advantage gained from introducing improperly cited evidence.

A forfeit will occur if one side does not wish to debate. I will consult tab, if they award a forfeit/bye I will not submit a ballot. If I am instructed to submit a ballot, the side withdrawing from the debate will recieve the minimum speaker points allowed. I will not participate in any arrangement to give sham speeches to avoid the bracket implications of a forfeit.

Competition rooms are public spaces, and spectators are welcome to watch or take notes as they see fit.

I will not evaluate either arguments about the conduct of the debaters that did not take place in the particular debate I am adjudicating or arguments about the conduct of individuals not participating in the particular debate I am adjudicating.

Nukes thoughts:

It seems like the deterrence disadvantage has gone out of style since the last time we debated arms control. That's kind of sad.

I have noticed that teams advancing arguments that Trump will win and that will cause broad US isolationism consistently underestimate the extent to which this interferes with internal links about the US being drawn into global crises.

Old personhood thoughts:

Plan texts should describe what the aff does. Plan texts should contain all of the things the affirmative wishes to fiat: If your solvency advocate calls for an insurance mandate, you probably already have enough offense against the PIC out of an insurance mandate to win without perm do the counterplan.

Old antitrust thoughts:

I have noticed that topicality interpretations seem exceedingly contrived and largely silly, and I don't know what is limiting this topic. I have noticed that in case-DA or counterplan-case-DA debates I vote negative an astounding amount of the time. This tells me that affirmative teams need 1) better 1ac answers to states and regs, 2) offense against net benefits, and 3) better case coverage in the 2ac.

Pet peeves:

The number of conditional worlds is two to the power of the number of advocacies, not the factorial of the number of advocacies.

All of the evidence you read in a debate should be formatted in the same way.

Put arguments in a useful order: If the first advantage has two scenarios, answer scenario 1 then scenario 2. If the 1AC has a solvency page, put circumvention there rather than on whichever advantage you take first.

A performative contradiction is never an independent voting issue -- it is either a double-turn (in which case a team can concede both halves and win) or a consequence of the introduction of a conditional advocacy (see above).

The speech doc is not a record of what happened in the round, it is a tool to share evidence. Failing to send evidence you read is a problem, failing to read evidence you sent is not.

No current competitors debated on either the healthcare or executive authority topics, don't act like you were there in T debates. Even I hardly remember those topics.

Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region
Judged multiple College rounds this year.

Please add me to the doc chain: hallsherry2@gmail.com

I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument." This means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is to act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I also think that teams which are employing innovations, such as a “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected.
1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy.
2. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

3. I have a mixed voting record in "race" and "identity" debates. I am open to the arguments that they deserve a place in debate. However, I am not familiar with a lot of the literature, and I can therefore feel a little lost understanding some of the vernacular. It is better to explain arguments rather than to rely on terms that I am unfamiliar with. I prefer arguments that have some nexus to the topic or the other team's arguments for the reasons I outlined above when discussing my feelings on clash.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round.
1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points.
2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents.

2022 Update- I am not longer actively coaching debate. Please do not assume that I know a lot about the topic, have any idea what some other school's aff is, or have strong feelings about what obscure topic wordings mean. 

Allison.c.harper@gmail.com. - Put me on the chain please. I will not follow along with the doc or read cards I don't think are necessary to make a decision but spelling my first name is annoying and this was buried near the bottom of my philosophy.

Here are a few ways that I think my judging either differs from others or has changed with online debate:

1) I flow and do not open your speech documents during your speeches. That means you need to try to present arguments in a way that is flowable.  Make sure tags are clear. Answer arguments in an order I can follow (such as the order in which they are presented). Add structure and signpost.  Avoid reading giant analytical paragraphs without breaking things up. Avoid jumping around the flow arbitrarily or reading blocks in places where they dont belong.  Doing these things make sure that I not only have a record of what you said, but helps me understand how you think what you are saying applies/responds to your opponents arguments.  When you don't do these things, you increase the odds that I misunderstand what you think you have answered.

2) Make comparisons.  I read less evidence during and after debates than other judges. I start my decisions by looking at my flows, deciding what the key questions are, resolving things that I can, and only then look at evidence.  Make comparisons between your warrants, quality of evidence. Draw out the interactions for me rather than forcing me to do these things for you. I see that as intervention, but the way that many debaters give rebuttals these days sometimes makes it impossible to decide without that intervention. I would much rather let you do the comparing.

3) I am not in the cult of big impacts/try or die. You need to solve for something. Your counterplan needs a net benefit. I can be convinced to vote for low risk, but presumption and zero risk exist. Not everything needs a card. Smart analytics can knock down the risk of some pretty silly arguments.  If the other team does have evidence of sufficient quality, however, a card to the contrary would go a long way.

4) I don’t think I am a bad judge for the k if you debate the k technically, especially on the neg. I am not great for any argument if you are overly relying on an overview to get things done, are speaking in paragraphs without considering flowability, or are addressing components of the debate in ways that ignore the line by line. I am better for specific links and alts that I would be able to explain back to the other team what they do based on the explanation you offered in the round.  I think 90% of the time spent on “framework” when the neg reads a k is a waste of time by both sides. The neg gets links to what the aff said and did. The aff gets to weigh the implementation of the plan. Unless another way of thinking about this is presented and dropped, this is how I end up evaluating the debate anyway. I am less of a fan of critical affirmatives that are not topical, do not relate to the topic in a significant way, etc. In K aff vs framework debates, the aff is helped if I can understand what reasonable ways the negative could anticipate an aff like yours and reasonably respond to it.

5) I would rather you make link arguments to kritiks about assumptions that the other team has made during this debate rather than ask me to evaluate something that happened other debates or outside of debates. Other debates had judges who rendered their own decisions. If there are serious concerns about a debater's out of round behavior, please take that to their coaches or tournament administrators. 

6) Process debates are boring. They might be necessary on some recent topics, but they are so boring on topics where there are great disads. They would be better with some evidence that suggest this process ought to exist/be used, even better if there are cards about the topic or aff. For example, I am far more into con-con about a constitutional/legal question than con-con to withdraw from NATO. But really, wouldn’t it be cool if we picked debate topics that were actual controversies? Wouldn’t it be cool if topics that had some controversy were limited in a way that makes some sense?

7) When you steal prep time, you are stealing my decision time. Please don’t. If you are making changes to your speech doc (deleting analytics, rearranging blocks, combining multiple docs into one, etc) you should have a prep timer running. Sending a doc is fine outside of prep but should be done efficiently, especially if you are debating at the varsity/open level. Refusing to start CX until you have a marked copy is also a big waste of my time unless you are planning to ask questions that are affected by these markings. I have yet to see that happen, so let's get on with it.

8) In online debate, you MUST make an effort to be clearer. NSDA campus makes you sound like a robot eating rocks. What was passable on classrooms.cloud doesn’t cut it on campus. I should be able to understand the body of your evidence, distinguish tags from cards, etc. I do not open speech documents when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear and understand you.

9) It is much harder to pay attention to online debates. This isn’t your fault. It is a feature of the format. I have found cross-ex in particular difficult to follow and keep in focus. People talking at once is really rough online, and I appreciate attempts to limit this by keeping answers reasonable in length and not cutting off reasonable answers. I will do my best in every debate to give you every bit of attention I have, but it would help me if you would forefront cross-ex questions that might matter to your strategy. Asking the other team what they read is cross-ex time.

Old Philosophy- I don't disagree with this:

I think I am a relatively middle of the road judge on most issues. I would rather hear you debate whatever sort of strategy you do well than have you conform to my argumentative preferences. I might have more fun listening to a case/da debate, but if you best strat or skillset is something else, go for it. I might not like an argument, but I will and have voted for arguments I hate if it wins the debate. I do have a pretty strong preference for technical, line by line style debate.

I am open to listening to kritiks by either side, but I am more familiar with policy arguments, so some additional explanation would be helpful, especially on the impact and alternative level. High theory K stuff is the area where I am least well read. I generally think it is better for debate if the aff has a topical plan that is implemented, but I am open to hearing both sides. To be successful at framework debates in front of me, it is helpful to do more than articulate that your movement/project/affirmation is good, but also provide reasons why it is good to be included in debate in the format you choose. I tend to find T version of the aff a pretty persuasive argument when it is able to solve a significant portion of aff offense.

I don’t have solid preferences on most counterplan theory issues, other than that I am not crazy about consultation or conditions cps generally. Most other cp issues are questions of degree not kind (1 conditional cp and a k doesn’t seem so bad, more than that is questionable, 42 is too many, etc) and all up for debate. The above comment about doing what you do well applies here. If theory is your thing and you do it well, ok. If cp cheating with both hands is your style and you can get away with it, swell.

I have no objection to voting on “untrue” arguments, like some of the more out there impact turns. To win on dropped arguments, you still need to do enough work that I could make a coherent decision based on your explanation of the argument. Dropped = true, but you need a claim, warrant, and impact. Such arguments also need to be identifiable in order for dropped = true to apply.

It’s rarely the case that a team wins every argument in the debate, so including relevant and responsive impact assessment is super important. I’d much rather debaters resolve questions like who has presumption in the case of counterplans or what happens to counterplans that might be rendered irrelevant by 2ar choices than leaving those questions to me.

I try my best to avoid reading evidence after a debate and think debaters should take this into account. I tend to only call for evidence if a) there is a debate about what a card says and/or b) it is impossible to resolve an issue without reading the evidence myself. I prefer to let the debaters debate the quality of evidence rather than calling for a bunch of evidence and applying my own interpretations after the fact. I think that is a form of intervening. I also think it is important that you draw out the warrants in your evidence rather than relying on me to piece things together at the end of the debate. As a result, you would be better served explaining, applying, and comparing fewer really important arguments than blipping through a bunch of tag line/author name extensions. I can certainly flow you and I will be paying attention to your speeches, but if the debate comes down to a comparison between arguments articulated in these manners, I tend to reward explanation and analysis. Also, the phrase "insert re-highlighting" is meaningless to someone who isn't reading the docs in real time. Telling me what you think the evidence says is a better use of your time

I like smart, organized debates. I pay a ton of attention and think I flow very well. I tend to be frustrated by debaters who jump around or lack structure. If your debate is headed this direction (through your own doing or that of the other team), often the team that cleans things up usually benefits. This also applies to non-traditional debating styles. If you don’t want to flow, that’s ok, but it is not an excuse to lack any discernible organization. Even if you are doing the embedded clash thing, your arguments shouldn't seem like a pre-scripted set of responses with little to no attempt to engage the specific arguments made by the other team or put them in some sort of order that makes it easier for me to flow and determine if indeed arguments were made, extended dropped, etc.

Please be nice to each other. While debate is a competitive activity, it is not an excuse to be a jerkface. If you are "stealing prep" I am likely to be very cross with you and dock your speaker points. If you are taking unreasonably long amounts of time to jump/email your docs or acquire someone else's docs, I am also not going to be super happy with you. I realize this can sound cranky, but I have been subjected to too many rounds where this has been happening recently.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thoughts on Pf and LD:

Since I occasionally judge these, I thought I should add a section. I have either coached or competed in both events. I still have a strong preference for flow-centric debate in both activities.

-You may speak as quickly or slowly as you would like. Don't make yourself debate faster than you are able to do well just because I can keep up

-You can run whatever arguments you are able to justify (see policy debate section if you have more specific questions)

-Too many debates in these events spend far too much time debating framing questions that are essentially irrelevant to judge decisions. Those frames mean little if you cant win a link. If you and your opponent are trying to access the same impact, this is a sign that you should be debating link strength not impact strength. Your speech time is short. Don't waste it.

-Make useful argument comparisons. It is not helpful if you have a study and your opponent has a study that says the opposite and that is the end of the argument. It is not helpful if everyone's authors are "hacks." With complicated topics, try to understand how your authors arrived at their conclusions and use that to your advantage.

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech timer or a prep timer isn't going, you should not be writing on your flows or doing anything else that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentary. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is bad. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit level competitor, you should have figure out efficient ways to manage allowing the other team to review your evidence.

Casey Harrigan

University of Kentucky; 14th year judging; Updated March 2021

Please add me to the doc chain: charrigan@gmail.com

2021 Alliance Topic Updates

1. Assurance is singular, not plural. Like Deterrence.

2. ‘Can I get a copy of the doc [with cards marked / with only the cards you read]?’ – Sure, if you use your prep time for it.

3. ‘Did you read X card?’ – this is CX, not untimed twilight zone

4. I am very lenient when it comes to making adjustments to accommodate online debating. If you need to stop your speech, pause your prep, stop your opponent’s speech because you can’t hear, etc., that is fine. We’re all just out here doing our best.

5. Solvency ‘advocates’ – it is not enough to have a harm and say that is existence implies the opposite, thus solvency. It is also not enough to have a card that says the MDT as currently designed is bad. You need a card that says the United States should do something different toward the alliance. Affs that don't have this have a hard time beating CPs….and solving.

6. My typical decision process:

a) If there are any theory / procedural / T arguments, resolve this first. That seems logical, and if I am voting on them, it saves a lot of decision time.

b) Move to whatever issue appears to be most decisive. Usually something like an advantage that one team appears to be far ahead on, a DA the neg seems to be winning, a CP that looks to solve a lot of the case, etc. This is also for decision efficiency – deciding one issue can clarify the overall debate.

c) Move page-by-page, deciding each. I actively try to check for and counteract confirmation bias – as humans, we want to find ways to resolve conflict and want to generate ‘easy’ decisions. It is natural to want to decide that the DA is small if the case is large or vice versa. I actively try to set aside arguments that I have previously decided when moving to the next.

d) Argument weighting is something like 50% debating, 50% evidence quality. I have spent a lot of time researching the alliances topic and sometimes find it hard to give much credence to arguments that appear to me to be factual incorrect or egregiously false. I do admit to being ‘truthier’ at times that I would like to ideally be; it’s a work in progress. 50/50 is the goal.

e) In very close debates, I do think it is helpful to ‘write a ballot for each team’. Not literally, of course. No one has time for that. But, instead, thinking through the series of decisions that are required to vote for each time and considering which has stronger justifications. The act of considering how an alternative ballot could be cast, why, and then for what reasons should that ballot not be chosen is helpful. For me, at least.

7. K vs Policy? I do not believe there is a difference between these, nor do I have any preference.

Older

-- I enjoy all types of debate and have spent a significant amount of time recently working on K stuff on both sides. I also have been deep in the space topic lit and feel ready to judge a technical debate on most of the core mechanics of the topic. It is said often by many, but I really think it is true for me: do your thing, don’t over adapt to me, don’t think that I have strong immutable beliefs about debate/argument based on what you know about me. I, like everyone, do have preferences and prior assumptions about lots of things. They are easily overridden by good debating. I have often voted for arguments that I personally believe are terrible because one team debated better than the other. If you lose to a bad argument, that means you should debate better, not that I should correct for you by suggesting to the other team that their argument is actually bad.

-- I like my paragraphs breaks uncondensed, font to be Times New Roman, highlighting to be blue, and dashes to be tripled. I prefer A2: over AT: out of habit, though it is probably a little too cool-kid-Y2K to be actually correct.

-- I am probably not who you think I am. I was the only person at MSU who enjoyed reading the T.A. McKinney DRG article on Intrinsicness, the only person who wanted to write 2NR blocks on the Fromm 64 Death K, and the only person who wrote ‘growth is bad because diversionary war against North Korea is good’. I am sure that I have opinions about debate that no one else at UK shares. People are more than the name of the school that follows their name and more than what debate’s 4-year-long institutional memories pigeonhole them to be.

-- I prefer to be on the doc chain during the debate and do read docs occasionally during speeches and especially during CX. Yes, I still flow (and I think I flow pretty well since transitioning to using a laptop – would be willing to have a flow-off with anyone. Flowing gauntlet thrown down). No, I don’t let the cards do debating for you even though I have read them. I can both know things are facts and simultaneously know what arguments were and were not made well in debate. I read all the cards in the debate because I want to provide feedback that is as helpful as possible and I want to see if you have good cards that I should go cut later, not because I need to see all the cards to decide who won or lost.

-- I prefer that plans contain a degree of specificity. To me, a plan that simply says ‘the USFG should cooperate with China on X’ does not convey enough information about the mechanism of action to produce a debate of the highest quality on this topic and I would prefer that the plan state how that cooperation should occur or by what means it would be induced. If teams do not choose to specify in the plan or CX, it seems reasonable to allow that matter to be determined by evidence that describes normal means, which either team can introduce. I believe this introduces a strategic cost that is real and should be exploited by more negative teams and could counteract trends toward non-specificity better than relying on Vagueness as a theory argument.

Harris, Scott (University of Kansas)

judgeharris59@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

I am a critic of arguments and an educator not a policy maker. I view my role as deciding who did the better job of debating and won the arguments based on what was said in the debate. I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument imaginable. I will read evidence (including non highlighted portions).

I expect debaters to be comprehensible and I have no qualms about telling you if I can’t
understand you. I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in
their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate although there is no such thing as a tabula rosa judge and some level of judge intervention is often inevitable to resolve arguments in a debate. Any argument, assumption, or theory is potentially in play. The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue. You make arguments and I decide to the best of my ability who won the arguments based on what you said in the debate. I prefer to follow along with your speech docs to double check clarity, to make sure you are reading all of your ev, and to enhance my ability to understand your arguments.

My speaker points tend to reward smart creative arguments and strategies, smart choices in the debate, high quality evidence, the use of humor, the use of pathos, and making the debate an enjoyable experience. My points rarely go below 28 but you need to really impress me to get me into the 29-30 range. I am rarely impressed.

Absent arguments in the debate that convince me otherwise I have some default assumptions you should be aware of:

The aff should be topical and topicality is a voting issue. What it means to be topical is open for debate and for anyone who wants to build their strategy on framework you should know that I often vote aff in framework debates.

The affirmative must win a comparative advantage or an offensive reason to vote affirmative.

Presumption is negative absent a warranted reason for it to shift.

The affirmative does not need a net benefit to a permutation. The negative must win that a counterplan or critique alternative alone is better than the plan or a combination of the plan and counterplan/alternative.

Permutations are a test of competition and not an advocacy.

Teams are culpable for the ethical implications of their advocacy. This means that framework arguments on K's that say "only consequences matter" have an uphill climb with me. Means and ends are both relevant in my default assessment on critical arguments.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

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

T-USFG

Impact weighing and comparisons are very important to how I decide these debates. If I think that both teams have some point of offense they are both winning, it makes it difficult to decide these debates if there isn’t any discussion of the other teams impact. If you solve their impacts, your impact turns them, or anything else related to that then please point that out. However, less is more when it comes to the number of impacts you are extending throughout the debate. One really well developed impact or impact turn is much better than three or four less well developed ones.

I also think it’s important for affirmative teams to have a clear tie or relationship with the topic. I find it harder to be persuaded to vote for affirmatives that I don’t think have a lot to do with the topic in some way. How you do this is up to you, but just make it clear to me.

In the past, I have voted on various impacts from and on framework. Personally I have been more of a fan of clash impacts than fairness, but I don’t think that should discourage you from going for whatever impact you feel most comfortable with.

Topicality

More explanation needed if you go for reasonability. Most of the debates I have judged where the aff goes for reasonability are very surface level extensions from the one sentence you said in the 2AC.

DA’s

Not much to say here. Read them and go for them when you can/want to. Where I start evaluating the debate for disad vs. case debates is very dependent on the disad and what arguments you are making a bigger deal about. If there is a lot of push back from the aff on the link and this is where you spend most of your time in the 2nr/2ar, I will probably start by evaluating the debate there. If impacts/their comparisons seem to be where a lot of time is spent, then I will start thinking about that first.

K’s

Debating case is very important. Having arguments that you think not only implicate the aff but also help your links are nice. Sometimes I feel like whenever a team goes for case arguments it feels detached from the rest of the debate on the K. IF you can make them connected somehow that would be good.

Have a reason for going for whatever framework arguments you are going for in the last speeches. This goes for the aff and the neg. So many times I have felt like people are just extending framework because their coaches told them to and not because they think there is reason why it is important for how the judge evaluates arguments at the end of the debate.

If you have a bunch of what seems to be conflicting theories in the cards you are going for and extending on the neg, please make it clear why what you are doing is okay. Alternatively, affirmative teams should be pointing out when they think the things the negative has said don’t make much sense.

CP’s

Again, read them and go for them when you can/want to. I don’t think I have very many predispositions about certain counterplans at this point in time. I think this just means that if you think a certain counterplan automatically beats an affirmative, I would prefer it if you showed it in the arguments you are making and the evidence you are reading. A counterplan that seems to be very solvent when explained, but lacking in evidence or that just generally has under highlighted cards will be harder to win in front of me.

A really good solvency deficit that aligns with whatever advantage you are going for in the 2ar is more important to me than you going for a bunch of different arguments that are less well developed.

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy, in no particular order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain America was right in Civil War.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

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

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

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

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

Keep your own time.

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

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

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

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

God bless~

I see debate as a space where what counts as reason and what is understood as reasonable is constantly under construction and contestation, which is also to say that I’m down to hear any kind of argument that you think you perform at your best.

I am most familiar with the array of K arguments. This is partly because, in my life outside debate, I am an assistant professor at Skidmore College, where I teach classes listed in our Religious Studies, American Studies, Black Studies, and Gender Studies departments. I love judging debates that draw on and theorize from the literature coming out of those interdisciplines and ones adjacent to them. I am very supportive of performance debate, because–again–I understand all debate as performance. So, if you see a performative contradiction, definitely go ahead and point it out.

I also like debates that think through the theory of debate itself. I look forward to hearing framework arguments, since they give us all a chance to think through what we are doing and to what ends. I often like judging novice debaters for the same reasons.

In the rounds themselves. Again, do you! In general, I think it is the debater’s job to tell me clearly what is in their cards (if you have cards, and I don’t assume that you will!). I flow based on what you say, not based on reading your cards (I’ll read along during the speeches but am unlikely to go back through the cards beyond that). On the neg, in most cases I would rather you debate really well on a few substantial arguments than try to cram in a laundry list of off-case positions.

One thing you might want to know about me is that I wasn’t a debater in college. I’ve been judging debates for Liberty about five years now after getting to know the activity through debater friends and through my scholarship. I realize that this is odd in a community where almost everyone else has prior experience and knows the rhythms, histories, and conventions of the activity. If this means that I am sometimes behind the curve on some of the super obscure techy arguments and need them spelled out, I think my nontraditional way into the activity and my outside work can sometimes be a superpower for strategizing with you about creative ways to synthesize literatures into arguments and strategies.

23-24 update: It's your job to persuade me. Keep that in mind. I vote for what wins but what wins is what persuades me to vote. If I am not making a decision based on persuasion - both team messed up.

2022-23 update: you can easily out tech me if you're going a mile a minute speaking. Adjust or you'll lose trying to out tech the other team. The gamesmanship is cool but persuasion and actual communication with the judge you want to vote for you is in fact necessary. Being technically right isn't gonna sway a ballot for me.

2019-2020 update: I want debate to go back to being persuasive... I think that top level speed reading is not persuasive. One of the points of the "game" of debate is to be persuasive... to persuade the judge to vote for you. I am not persuaded by a swarm of gnats sound. I'm not saying you can't talk fast or even speed read - but if there's no inflection in your voice - if you drone on and on and on - if you haven't tried to persuade me but just talked at me - you will not get good speaks from me. You may win the debate because you are strategically ahead and better - but your speaks will suffer. I'm not saying conversational pace - I talk fast in general - I argue fast - I don't sound like a gnat.

I am a Black woman who is also disabled. I debated 4 years for KState mostly running different forms of Black feminism. I enjoy listening to the ways people interpret debates and deploy their arguments strategically. If you're not bored I won't be either.

*******If you are not Black (white and non black poc) do not read anti-blackness/Afrofuturism/pessimism/optimism arguments in front of me (aff/neg) if the other team calls you out at ALL you will lose the debate.... same for other PoC arguments that the authors say are for PoC. If it is not your position you don't get to use other peoples bodies to get a ballot. ***note to PoC your existence is not negated because you have a white partner - I won't vote on "the white person spoke/is here"

DA/CP: I will vote for them. I have a high threshold for internal links. You have to be able to explain how the aff gets to the DA impact. I'm unwilling to give you the benefit of doubt, prove it.

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained. The biggest thing I was complimented on from judges was the "big picture" debate. Tell me the story of your K you will not get away with big holes in explanation.

Theory: I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. I WILL vote on dropped theory arguments- so you better answer them (even if the perm is a test you still need to answer severance). The biggest critique I got from judges was I miss the little details. I am an auditory learner I will be listening but if you speed through theory there is a good chance I won't catch it. Be Clear!

Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. However, I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to vote do outweigh. But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments not just blips. I do not necessarily believe all affirmatives have to have a plan text, however, I do believe that you should be able to defend the lack thereof. Again, it is not what you do or do not say, it is what you justify. Affirmatives, if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences you should have reasons why you shouldn’t have to defend those issues.

1) Slow down. My ears are not calibrated to the rapid delivery of policy debaters.

2) Read less cards. I will not read cards at the end of the round unless "what it says" is questioned (as in your calling them a liar). I prefer to watch and evaluate based off of what you have clearly articulated in the debate. Debate is about more than empty words, gestures, and actions. It is not only what you say/do. It is also what you justify. That matters more to me than a bunch of random cards you read to fill time.

3) Don’t rely on being tricky or attempting to “out-tech” the other team. In doing so, you will likely out-tech me and your tricks will go unnoticed. I take notes, on every speech but I don’t flow in the conventional manner of lining up argument-for-argument in columns. There is obviously a minimum of technical skills one needs to compete in debate. If a team does not address an entire position or an important nuance emphasized by their opponents then it is unlikely that they will win.

If you make a Steven Universe reference I will bump .2 speaks

Yes I want to be on the email chain jjackson558@gmail.com

Affiliations

North Broward Preparatory School (Assistant Director): 2021 – Present

University of Michigan (Assistant Coach): 2020 – Present

Northwestern University: 2016 – 2020

Email Chain (yes): gabrielj348 [at] gmail.com

Placement

The affirmative team should read a topical plan that agrees with the resolution. The negative team should defend the status quo, a competitive alternative, or a topicality violation. The ballot picks a winner and I’m not likely to be persuaded I should attempt to use it for anything more.

Debate is a voluntary academic contest. Debate rounds should be as fair as possible. I’d strike me if you disagree with that premise. I’d also strike me if your argument says debate is bad, debate rounds should be unfair, the other team/school/community is bad, or in general requires avoiding a well-prepared opponent.

Community events and historical disputes should be separate from debate rounds. If a genuine issue arises during the debate, please alert whomever you feel most comfortable with (judges including myself, your coaches, the tab or tournament staff, etc.) and we will stop the debate. I won’t decide these issues through offense/defense, tech over truth, or line by line. Adhering to debate norms like speech and decision time, spreading, and the flow seems antithetical to resolving genuine concerns and is a disservice to all involved. Please avoid ad hominem attacks, reference to out of round events, or disingenuous complaints and/or accusations. I generally will not vote for them even if dropped.

Tech over truth in most debate... see above. Any argument is on the table. I won’t reject false arguments for the sake of truth alone, even when confident about the issue. I have a low threshold for dismissing incomplete or illogical arguments, especially if you are technically proficient and on the side of truth. My goal as a judge is too avoid unpredictable intervention without giving you a change to adapt. I’ll communicate in my decision if and where I thought I had to intervene, especially if an argument makes writing a coherent ballot for either side difficult.

I default to extinction bad/util good, especially if not told otherwise.

Topicality v. Planless

If the 1AC is planless or does not defend topical enactment of a government policy I am much better for the negative. If debated close to evenly I have a hard time reconciling affirmative offense with the competitive nature of debate.

I have presumptions that debate is first a game, games should be fair, and enforcing norms is not de facto violent. The negative does not need many words to convince me those things are true. If your arguments disagree with those premises, you should strike me.

Both fairness and clash are impacts and considering reasons why they might not be requires fair adjudication and clash.

I have a high threshold for what a complete argument is in framework debates (claim, data, warrant) and labeling something as a DA does not substitute for the parts that constitute one.

I will not footnote in presumed community knowledge or events and strongly prefer debates about the current topic to debates litigating past community conflicts. Even if included I’m not automatically convinced that these are inherently impacts, that the only negative ballot disavows history or that it’s inherently violent to agree with an interpretation that past 1ACs also violate.

I’ll likely vote neg if the following arguments are included: debate is a competition/game that requires fairness, preserving fairness is a prerequisite to achieving other potential worthy outcomes, well-prepared opponents who clash over the same topic improve the quality of rounds, improving rounds is good, strategic choices and competitive desire for the ballot motive every argument, claims to the contrary are strategic choices even if genuine, I should presume them to be motivated by competition since the only certain motivation I know is that all participants currently want the ballot, competing interpretations must consider the likely and worst allowed examples under each interpretation, no interpretation is every interpretation, the resolution is the most and likely only predictable interpretation, and what matters for predictability (and what the ballot is a referendum on) is whether the negative should be able to go for topicality in future debates when faced with a similar 1AC.

Topicality v. Plan

I’m best if you have a specific violation that was clearly tailored to the affirmative ahead of time. If your violation can be read against most 1ACs on the topic I think it’s probably wrong. I’ve voted for bad interpretations but have a low threshold for calling nonsense if there’s an answer that justifies doing so. Acknowledge strategic costs and benefits of an interpretation truthfully rather than asserting it is “best” for both sides or solves everyone’s offense.

I lean affirmative especially if the interpretation is unpredictable, poorly evidence, or creates a slightly more limited topic for the sake of limits. I often find myself frustratingly reading through the unhighlighted sections of out of context definitions that I wish someone had pointed out with an implication beyond “your card is from X”.

I’m more persuaded by debatability and fairness concerns than education. Connecting your standards to impacts and differentiating them each interpretation is important.

Fine for PTIV arguments and have made peace with vague plans. I think solvency and circumvention arguments are a better remedy than topicality.

Usually, I think that arguments that the topic is broken or unworkable for one side are overstated and should be mentioned once if not skipped.

Theory

Conditionality is the only presumed voting issue. Conditional advocacies may be infinite in number and introduced in either constructive. Advantages with intrinsic internal links are my preferred recourse. Most persuaded by logic.

I’d prefer if the negative didn’t CP out of straight turns but more for cowardice than theory reasons.

States uniformly doing the plan and/or all amending constitutions is questionable.

International fiat is bad.

Counterplans

Good for most but the more it tests the plan the better I am. Not a fan of CPs without evidence but evidence may be read after the 1NC.

Fine for process and I appreciate the craft that goes into writing them. They aren’t a personal strength or research priority so try to clearly explain the mechanism, scope of fiat, and standards. Mandate, effect, function language is useful.

Competition debates should include normative justifications for both definitions and counterplan/permutation interpretations.

You cannot selectively “defend” something for a DA but not for CPs.

Disadvantages

Politics is on life support. You should let it go. I have not judged a coherent politics debate backed by quality evidence in years. Most of these scenarios are nuked by a few analytics. There’s no bill yet? Zero risk. No vote for months? Zero risk. Biden must “sign off” tagged as “PC key”? Zero risk. No cards but somehow prices in all thumpers but can’t overcome the link? Zero risk. Bill solves climate change? Probably zero risk.

The block should read additional impact mods and carded turns case arguments.

Zero risk is possible but rare.

Case

I prefer numbered 1NCs that include solvency and internal link presses, re-cuttings, and case turns over a slew of analytics and impact defense. Don’t number if you can’t correctly refer to them throughout the debate. I’ll number my flow regardless.

Impact defense and alt causes are good but you should make arguments specific to the 1AC rather than copy paste a generic block.

2As get away with murder on the case. “Yes X, that’s Y” is not a complete argument. The block should exploit light 2AC coverage. I have a low threshold for zapping case. Being present in the 1AC is not a free pass to resurrect an argument in the 2AR.

Impact turns are great, some of my favorite debates. I tend to start with sustainability/impact framing before transition. Remember to answer/exploit arguments based on the specific internal link conceded to access the impact turn.

Kritiks

I’m better for the aff than neg but went for, have researched, and am gettable on kritiks. The more they test the plan the better.

I generally think the plan should be weighed for fairness/clash reasons, the neg should engage/turn/solve the case, and that permutation double bind is a good argument. I can be persuaded not to weigh the plan at all. I can also be persuaded to say Ks should functionally be CP/DA with link uniqueness, alt solvency, etc. The negative usually spends too much time doing a little of everything without developing anything. I’m more likely to vote neg on a K that’s clearly the Fiat K, no tricks or disguises, than a K that attempts to do everything at once and fix it in the 2NR.

Framework is the most important part of the K for me. I've often sat for the affirmative when the neg was ahead on most of the page but losing framework. If case is dropped and the affirmative gets to weigh it, I generally vote affirmative.

Don’t spend unnecessary time one FW without explaining the implication of winning your interpretation for the other parts of the debate. When both interpretations are compatible with one another (this happens too often and means your interpretation is probably not serving as much utility as you think) the team that identifies that first and allocates time accordingly usually wins.

Neg teams lose me when they conflate being slightly ahead on an interpretation like "we get links to stuff other than the plan" with "we don't need to answer case/those links auto-disprove/dismiss entire affirmative".

If you want the implication of your framework to be that I shouldn't weigh the case, clearly state that in the block.

I'm most persuaded by in descending order: neg can get links to stuff other than the plan, neg can lower the threshold for alt solvency, neg needn’t necessarily solve case to win, case doesn’t matter.

My ideal compromise is the neg gets links to things other than plan implementation but must win that the implication of those links outweighs/denies the hypothetical benefits of implementing the plan.

I am not “deep” in any particular literature base so explain your theory and apply it to the case as much as possible for Ks that are more complex than Capitalism, Security, etc.

I have yet to see a compelling reason why most identity kritiks negate the desirability of the plan or why debate should be primarily about a particular group. Explaining how the kritik implicates the case is very important in these debates. If your strategy does not attempt case debate I am probably bad for it.

Demonstrating an ontology argument does not automatically accomplish that task, necessitate a d-rule framing, or substitute for specific impact instruction and/or comparison. The neg needs to include reasons that winning a descriptive claim implicates normative ones. The world might really really really suck... the plan might make it better. Absent a strong framing argument that implicates that type of thinking, I’m probably voting affirmative.

Cross Examination

CX is important and you should consider it an extension of speeches. CX is binding and starts with the first question (no “did you read” before starting the timer).

You don’t have to answer questions after the timer, after rebuttals, or during prep time and I may not pay attention to questions asked outside of CX. Be reciprocal if you want them to clarify something post timer.

The negative should almost always include questions about the plan in 1AC CX. Random questions about impacts are not going to make or break the debate.

Questions about solvency/mechanisms/links/internal links/alternatives/competition > alt causes, meh analytics, impacts, revisiting past questions.

Evidence/Ethics

Inserting evidence is fine but should preferably be read out loud before the debate ends if you think it’s important. I’m probably won’t care much about recuts if you don’t restate the important lines in final rebuttals.

Ethics "violations" are not a thing. Ethics challenges are. I will stop the round and attempt to reconcile them according to what seems most fair and/or true, best adhering to the governing rules of the tournament. If your argument is best made as a link to something else, make it as a link. Anything rising above that threshold will stop the round and include the possibility of either team losing. Practically speaking this means think hard before saying "new sheet". If you aren't willing to stop the round, I'm not flowing or evaluating it. Speaks will be capped at 28.7 if the round stops. The round will not resume after it stops. There are too many low to no cost voting issues or ethics violations that heavily favor the accusing team, especially when it is evident that pre-tournament preparation has occurred. I will not continue the debate or "draw a line" from past speeches when questions of integrity or character on made.

Speaker Points/Decorum

Treat each other with respect. If you cannot, do not expect respect from others. Put simply, ask yourself if the room would be pleasant were everyone to behave like you.

If a core component of your strategy is ad homs, out of round accusations, screenshots, or refusing questions, strike me.

29.6 – 30.0: Top 1-10 debater at the tournament.

29.0 – 29.5: Should clear/win a speaker award.

28.5 – 28.9: Above average to solid.

28.0 – 28.4: Still learning, stick with it.

27.6 – 27.9: This was tough…

27.0 – 27.5: You were rude. Being here sucked.

25.0: You cheated/clipped/etc. Coaches or Tabroom should be alerted.

LD

I coached LD at Harker for a year but was mainly tasked with policy assignments. If you get me and treat it like a policy debate, you'll be fine. I'm not familiar with phil shells or tricks and very likely won't vote on them.

I'm honestly truth over tech in this activity because so many of the things people say are nonsensical. T is not an RVI. Conditionality is okay. Aff framework choice is fake. Don't proliferate new pages.

I debated at Coeur d’Alene High school for 3 years and Gonzaga University for 4 years.

My email is mdrjohnson26@gmail.com

I haven’t been heavily involved in debate for a few years as I was working abroad.

Essentially, do whatever you want and I’ll do my best. I try my absolute hardest to pay 100% attention while a debate is happening. This means that I try to make eye contact, listen attentively, and catch all of the arguments the best I can. This also means, however, that I flow on paper. As such, please give me some pen time especially if you have a really important argument you want to get across. **This is 10x more true for theory arguments/T debates - you must slow down.

Also, I really hate interrupting a debate. I don’t yell clear, please just…be clear?

Updates as of Kentucky

1. Line by line is important to me - I understand we're on a time crunch, but I have to know what you're answering. Numbers are great, use them consistently.

2. I like research - I love this aspect of the activity a lot. That said, I think that the way a lot of teams highlight cards is odd. I'm naturally more skeptical of a piece of evidence if you've made 1 sentence from 15 lines of text by highlighting a few words. I also really don't like the size 2 font on cards.

3. Compare your cards! I think every debate I've watched in recent memory could have been improved if no one said "their card is really bad". I'm more persuaded if you first tell me what makes your evidence so persuasive and why the opponent's evidence can't meet that threshold.

4. That said, CX needs to extend beyond just evidence. Asking "where in you card does it say 'x'" for 3 minutes isn't persuasive to me.

5. There is no clarification period. If you are asking a question, that is CX.

Decorum
I don’t like obnoxious people. I have a pretty good sense of humor and I know when being funny crosses a line. I’m also not persuaded when debaters tell others to do harm to themselves or others. It won’t necessarily cost you the debate (unless I’m instructed otherwise) but I will tell you now; it’s a waste of breath that will probably lose you speaker points. I also do not enjoy debates where debaters don't defend the things they have said/read. If you read Irigaray, you have to defend Irigaray. If you try to weasel out of it, I'm either going to think you a) are unprepared/don't understand your evidence b) are a weasel c) are an unprepared weasel.

Theory
I lean neg, but everything is open to debate. This was never my favorite kind of debate and it is definitely not my strength. I don’t consider most things reasons to reject the team unless you tell me and give a good reason. I tend to lean negative on conditionality.

Topicality
Love it. Read it, but be honest with yourself. You and I know both know that T – Sub isn’t the best argument ever, but I’ve won on it and voted on it, so here we are. An important note: I find it easier to vote for/against T when I know what exactly a debate round looks like on average. What are the affs? Are they winnable? What are the DAs? Are they winnable?

Counterplans
Love them. If you’re going to have a super long, complicated text, please read it slowly. I try to write it down the best I can. If you have a lot of planks, you should probably have solvency cards for all the planks.

DAs
Love these too.

Ks
Go for them if they’re your thing. I was a philosophy student, but the K lit most kids read was never my jam. I like a specific link story and I would like to know how the alt solves or why, if it doesn’t, I still shouldn’t vote aff. Something that often confuses me about K debates is that I don’t know what to do with the things I am told, so please impact things clearly and let me know what to do with the information you provide.
I’m not a big fan of the dead-on-the-inside stuff as it all sounds like gobbledygook to me, but if it’s your thing and you want to shine, shine on, friend. I’ll do my best.

K Affs
The more about the topic they are, the happier I am. That said, I don’t hate things that have nothing to do with the topic. Just explain the aff well and try to be as clear as possible. I will say, if all of your cards have paragraph-long tags, it will be harder for me to flow.

Please don’t hesitate to ask me questions before/after the debate. I really love debate and want everyone to do well and get better.

Important Update

**Clarification questions about the speech doc are CX time**

I do want to be on the email chains: harvard.debate[at]gmail.com and kviveth [at] gmail.com

Evidence/Debating:

Dropped arguments and spin can be true/good to an extent. I tend to look more holistically at the argument even if it was "dropped".

CX ends after three minutes. You can take more prep time to ask questions, but it won't be "on the record"

"Framework" -

I think some of the most meaningful things I've learned from my decade doing policy debate have come from debating, researching, and preparing arguments that are "not about the topic".

That being said, debate is a competitive activity and the resolution is the only non-arbitrary starting point from which to begin research and preparation. If there were no equal prospect of victory and people were just showing up every weekend to talk about different things, there'd be some engagement, but the incentive to test other people's ideas with a level of rigor and tenacity that we value debate for just wouldn't exist.

The fact that there are a myriad of issues that may or may not be more important than the chosen resolution is certainly an important question we should be asking of ourselves and of the topic selection process, but the topic has already been chosen - that's when limits become important.

In general, I'm much better for aff teams that impact turn topicality / framework than teams that try to engage deeply with counter-interpretations.

Counterplans -

The plan is the focus of the debate and perms don't have to be topical.

If you have evidence that compares your CP to the plan, it's probably legitimate

I have a hard time seeing the neg winning on CPs that compete solely off of certainty and immediacy.

The "always a risk of the CP linking less than the plan" is silly.

You don't need solvency advocates especially for smart and intuitive advantage CPs and 2NC CPs out of addons.

I will kick CPs for the neg if the CP is conditional until told not to by the aff.

Critiques -

Framework is either the most important part of a critique debate or totally irrelevant. It's really helpful to me to elaborate on the what the consequence of either team winning their framework argument is.

In recent years, aff teams have radically underutilized the permutation and alt solvency arguments in favor of impact turns. If that's your strategy I'm all for it! However, given that the worst part of almost every critique is the alternative and lack of actual links this could be a good path for teams to take.

Theory -

Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

Conditionality - Neg teams are garbage at defending conditionality and the aff should capitalize.

Literature usually guides theory questions for CP legitimacy - if you have evidence that compares the CP to the plan it's probably legitimate.

SHORTEST VERSION: THINGS I BELIEVE ABOUT DEBATE

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Good -----|----Neutral Good -----|----Chaotic Good

1AC Plan Texts, ----|----- Case Debate,------|----Performance Debate,

Open Debaters -----|----Novice Debaters----|----JV Debaters

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Neutral ---|---True Neutral------|---- Chaotic Neutral

Topicality -----------|----Counterplans ------|------Dispositionality

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Evil -------|----Neutral Evil ------|-----Chaotic Evil

Framework args ---|----Standard Nuke ----|----- Baudrillard

from 1996 that ----|---- War Disad

say no K's

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

SHORT VERSION:

You are prepping and don't have time to read everything, or interpret. So this is the stuff you most need to know if you don't know me :

1) I run The New School program. The New School is in the Northeast, around the corner from NYU where I actually work full time. (CEDA has Regions, not Districts. The NDT and the Hunger Games have Districts.) I care about things like novice and regional debate, and pretty much only coach for resource poor programs. You need to know this because it affects how I view your ETHOS on certain "who are we" arguments.

2) Email: vikdebate@gmail.com. Skip the rant below about want/need to be on chain.

3)SLOW THE HELL DOWN, especially ONLINE. I flow on paper. I need PEN TIME. I am not reading along with the doc unless the connection gets bad or I have serious misgivings.

4) Do what you need to do to make the tech work.

5) Do what you do in this activity. Seriously, especially in novice, or on a panel, you are not 100% adapting to me, so change how you debate those things a bit maybe, but not what you debate. To help with that:

6) Yes, my threshold for "is there gonna be a nuclear war" is WAY higher than it is for "what we talk about in the debate round going to affect us personally". I will vote on the wars, but I don't enjoy every debate about prolif in countries historically opposed to prolif. That isn't "realism" - that's hawk fetish porn. So if this IS you, you gotta do the internal link work, not read me 17 overly-lined down uniqueness cards.

7) I am more OFTEN in K rounds, but honestly I am more of a structural K person than a high theory person. Yes, debate is all simulacra now anyway, but racism and sexism - and the violence caused by them - ARE REAL WORLD. Your ability to talk about such things and how they relate to policies is probably one of your better portable skills for the modern world in this activity.

8) Performance good. Literally, I have 2 degrees in theater. Keep in mind that it means I am pretty well read on this as theory. All debate is performance. (Heck, life is performance, but you don't have time for that now...). My pet peeve as a coach is reading through all the paradigm that articulate performance and Kritikal as the same thing. It.Is.Not. Literally, it is Form vs. Content.

9) Winning Framework does not will a ballot. Winning Framework tells me how to prioritize or include or exclude arguments for my calculation of the ballot. T is NOT Framework (but for the record I err towards Education over Fairness, because this activity just ain't fair due to resource disparity, etc, so do the WORK to win on Fairness via in round trade offs, precedents, or models.)

10) Have fun. Debate can be stressful. Savor the community you can in current times.

PS: I am probably more flow focused than you think, BUT I still prefer the big picture. Tell me a story. It has to make sense for my ballot.

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

Previous Version

The 2020 Preamble relevant to ONLINE DEBATE:

1) Bear with my tech for September for the first round of each day - I work across multiple universities and I am still sorting out going across 3 Zoom accounts, 5 emails accounts, and 2 Starfish accounts for any given thing. Working from home for 6 months combined my day-job stuff into my debate stuff, so I may occasionally have to remember to do a setting. This is like the worst version of a Reese's peanut butter cup.

2) Look, it would be great if I COULD see you as you debate. I am old - I flow what you say and I don't read along with the speech doc unless something bad is happening (bad things include potential connection issues in 2020, concerns over academic integrity/skipping words, and you don't actually do evidence comparison as a debater when weighing your cards and theirs). I don't anticipate changing that in the online debate world. But also, tech disparity and random internet gremlins are real things (that's why we need so many cats in the intertubes), so I ALSO understand if you tell me the camera is off for reasons. That's cool.

3) Because of connections and general practices - SLOW DOWN. CLARITY is super important. (Also, don't be a jerk to people with auditory accommodation needs as we do this). Trade your speed drills for some tongue twisters or something.

4) Recording as a back up is probably a necessary evil, but any use of the recording after a round that is shared to anyone else needs explicit - in writing, and can be revoked - permission of all parties present. PRACTICE AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. See ABAP statement on online debate practices.

5) I have never wanted to be on the email chain/what-not; however, I SHOULD* be on the chain/what-not. Note the critical ability to distinguish these two things, and the relevance of should to the fundamental nature of this activity. Email for this purpose: vikdebate@gmail.com .

(Do not try to actually contact me with this address - it’s just how I prevent the inevitable electronically transmitted cyber infection from affecting me down the road, because contrary to popular belief, I do understand disads, I just have actual probability/internal link threshold standards.)

((And seriously Tabroom, what the F***? First you shill for the CIA, and now you want to edit the words because "children" who regularly talk about mass deaths might see some words I guarantee you then know already? I was an actual classroom teacher....debate should not be part of the Nanny State. Also this is NEW, because the word A****** used to be in my paradigm in reference to not being one towards people who ask for accessibility accommodations. ARRGGHHH!!!))

-------

Things I am cool with:

Tell met the story

Critical Args

Critical Lit (structural criticisms are more my jam)

Performative strategies - especially if we get creative with the 20-21 format options.

CP fun times and clever intersections of theory

A text. Preferable a well written text. Unless there are no texts.

Not half-assing going for theory

Case debate

Reasonability

You do you

Latin used in context for specific foreign policy conditions.

Teaching Assurance/Deterrence with cats.

Things that go over less well:

Blippy theory

Accidentally sucking your own limited time by unstrategic or functionally silly theory

Critical lit (high theory … yes, I know I only have myself to blame, so no penalty if this is your jelly, just more explanation)

Multiple contradictory conditional neg args

A never ending series of non existent nuclear wars that I am supposed to determine the highest and fastest probability of happening (so many other people to blame). You MAY compare impacts as equal to "x number of gender reveal parties".

Not having your damn tags with the ev in the speech doc. Seriously.

As a general note: Winning framework does not necessarily win you a debate - it merely prioritizes or determines the relevancy of arguments in rounds happening on different levels of debate. Which means, the distinction between policy or critical or performative is a false divide. If you are going to invoke a clash of civilizations mentality there should be a really cool video game analogy or at least someone saying “Release the Kraken”. A critical aff is not necessarily non Topical - this is actually in both the Topic Paper for alliances/commitments and a set of questions I asked at the topic meeting (because CROSS EX IS A PORTABLE SKILL). Make smarter framework arguments here.

Don't make the debate harder for yourself.

Try to have fun and savor the moment.

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

*** *** ***

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

*Judges should be on the chain/what-not for two reasons: 1)as intelligence gathering for their own squad and 2) to expedite in round decision making. My decisions go faster than most panels I’m on when I am the one using prep time to read through the critical extended cards BEFORE the end of the debate. I almost never have the docs open AS the debaters are reading them because I limit my flow to what you SAY. (This also means I don’t read along for clipping … because I am far more interested in if you are a) comprehensible and b) have a grammatical sentence in some poor overhighlighted crap.) Most importantly, you should be doing the evidence comparisons verbally somehow, not relying on me to compare cards after the debate somehow. If I wanted to do any of that, I would have stayed a high school English teacher and assigned way more research papers.

I am the Director of Debate at Georgetown University ('21-present), before which I was the Assistant DOD (2017-21). I am also an Assistant Coach for Westminster. Before that, I debated for 4 years at Georgetown. In high school, I debated only regionally, for a tiny high school in West Texas.

Please include me on the email chain: bwk9@georgetown.edu

***Update: November 2022***

My prior paradigm was 5+ years out of date. The following are patterns in my judging that you should be aware of when debating in front of me.

All of the items below, EXCEPT for the "D-Rules (not subject to debate)" section, are simply DEFAULTS in the absence of debaters making an argument that I should evaluate these things differently. I would prefer that the DEBATERS tell me how to evaluate things and why, in which case these priors should rarely , if ever, come into play.

D-Rules (NOT subject to debate)

1. Please include me on the email chain.

2. In high school debates, all of the participants are minors, and I will not hesitate to intervene in a debate if anything legally or ethically dubious is occurring. This includes any bullying, displays of sexism or racism, etc. Relatedly, there are arguments which are appropriate for the college context but that I will not--and, legally, cannot!--countenance in a HS debate (one example: the reading of uncensored explicit evidence a la Preciado).

3. Consider me dead inside with respect to any preferences regarding argumentative substance. However, I have very little tolerance for either arguments or ways of engaging that make any participant feel unsafe, and will intervene if necessary.

4. Allegations of an ethics violation will immediately end the debate. No take-backs. I will then inform the tabroom and follow the tournament's prescribed procedures, or in the lack of such procedures will unilaterally determine whether it rises to the threshold of an ethics VI. If so, the accuser will win; if not, the accuser will lose. If allowed for by the tournament rules, I will make a subjective determination regarding whether the violation (or accusation, if the accuser loses) was engaged in knowingly and/or in competitive bad faith, and if so will assign the lowest allowable speaker points. To help guide this determination: egregious or persistent clipping is a D-Rule. So is evidence falsification. Poor evidence "hygiene," e.g. ending in the middle of a paragraph, is a D-rule, but is unlikely to warrant the additional "poor speaks" sanction if it does not change the meaning of the card, whereas if it cuts out a strawperson it is likely to warrant the "poor speaks" sanction. Minor good-faith mistakes in evidence citation are very unlikely to rise to the threshold of a D-rule if it is left up to my discretion by tab and/or the tournament rules.

Things to Know About Debating In Front of Me

1. Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be, identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this as providing me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends. Absent this, I will come up with my own roadmap, but it is substantially less likely to work out in your favor and also I will be grumpy about it.

2. I have found that the way that arguments are characterized early in the debate often bears heavily on how I interpret and resolve disputes over them in the final rebuttals. This has accounted for numerous panel splits in debates I've judged the past couple years. If, for example, an argument is articulated in one way in the CXes (all of which I flow), I will tend to treat that articulation as binding; or, if a plan or counterplan is characterized in a given way in the 2NC and the 1AR does not push back on that characterization, I will adopt that understanding of the plan or counterplan and hold the line against 2ARattempts to rearticulate it.

3. Evidence: I value quality of argument and evidence. A smart, well-warranted analytic is far more valuable than a bad card. Research is at the core of what makes policy debate unique and valuable relative to e.g. Public Forum, Parli, etc. However, evidence matters only insofar as it provides reasons to believe you about your arguments (e.g. qualifications, warrants, etc.); it never constitutes an argument itself.

4. I will not read your speech doc, a practice which I've observed account for other panel splits in recent years. I will spot check specific pieces of evidence if they are contested in CX or in speeches. I will read cards I am directed to after the debate, but it is up to you to have leveraged them effectively in your speech--and, how good a card needs to be to get the job done on a given issue is inversely proportional to how well you debate it. If debaters want their evidentiary advantage to matter--as it should--they should do more evidence comparison, including as it relates to source quality, etc. The sole exception to this: if evidence is selectively underlined to an argument not even contemplated by the original, I reserve the right to unilaterally discount it (think here of the difference between underlining a movie script or selectively underlining words in unrelated sentences to concoct an argument never made in the source, vs. cutting a cards as a strawperson - the latter I will very unhappily accept if the other team does not contest it, albeit at the cost of speaker points, whereas the former I will probably not accept, if I notice it, even if the other team does NOT call it out).

5. Conceded arguments are true arguments. However, 1.) A complete "argument" consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact--assertions are not arguments, and thus are not "true" even if dropped. 2.) Receiving the full weight of an argument does not matter in-and-of itself--you must still unpack why that dropped argument impacts the rest of the debate, and if that explanation was not there initially then the implication component of that can still constitute a new argument to which responses are allowed.

6. CX filibustering: Some amount of it is part of the game, but if this is taken to a silly extreme, then I will not hesitate to pull a Dallas Perkins and tell you to "ANSWER the QUESTION" so as to enable a meaningful debate to occur

Argument Defaults

1. Absent arguments to the contrary, CX and 2AC clarifications of plan mandates constitute binding amendments to the plan text, making them presumptively legitimate sources of counterplan competition. (Merely saying that something is "normal means," however, does not make it a mandate, and thus is presumptively not a legitimate source of CP competition.)

2. My defaults are that conditionality is a.) an all-or-nothing thing and b.) is good. However, I have become increasingly open to contestation of either premise.

3. Plan vagueness is out of control, especially in high school, and I will gladly vote Neg on that, either as a voting issue in-itself or smart circumvention arguments or DA links about the way in which the vague plan would be most likely interpreted and applied.

4. Counterplan vagueness is also out of control. If your CP text boils down to, e.g., "do innovation" rather than outlining a mechanism for how to bolster innovation, and the Affirmative points out that that is meaningless, I will agree with the Aff.

5. Kritiks: By default I assume that the K is not a DA plus a CP and that therefore the debate is a referendum on whatever the Link/Alt is critiquing, e.g. the Aff's reps, epistemology, political paradigm, etc. I can be convinced of plan focus/FW-no Ks, particularly if it is grounded in arguments about the resolutional burden of proof and the Negative's reciprocal burden of rejoinder, though meeting in the middle is often the path of less resistance. I am also willing to adopt very Neg-friendly frameworks, e.g. 'you link you lose,' but with the proper Aff responses I will find them ultimately unpersuasive. Absent Aff FW arguments that render them applicable ('pragmatism good,' for instance, or arguments about reciprocity of burdens), I do not intuitively understand why arguments like 'movements fail,' 'transition wars,' 'alt not feasible / no one is persuaded,' etc. would be relevant considerations--but with them, I do.

Argument Defaults - K Affs

5. K Affs: I prefer that the Affirmative be "topical" slash affirm the resolution. I am pretty good for topical K Affs, insofar as I think that there is substantial room for play regarding what topical AFFIRMATION means/entails, and that the wording of the resolution does not necessarily prescribe that topical "affirmation" take the form of defending the narrow causal desirability of implementing a specific topical policy proposal.

However, if your approach when reading a K Aff is to impact turn topicality, the part I struggle with is how debate can be workable once we have left the resolution behind. To deal with this, please speak DIRECTLY to that question in some manner in the 2AR -- whether by explicitly saying that it's better for debate not to be workable, explaining why it will not become unworkable, clearly defending some alternative limiting principle for what the Affirmative win condition is in place of the resolution, or something else -- AND have that be clearly traceable to arguments you set up in the 2AC and 1AR.

6. Framework v. K Affs: I do find there to be a meaningful difference between "topicality," i.e. the Affirmative must affirm the resolution and did not, and "framework," i.e. the Affirmative did not debate or affirm in the specific manner the Neg would have liked for them to. It would behoove the Neg to leverage those differences in response to Aff offense that presumes the latter or blurs the line.

I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

Alternatively: feel free to say whatever "substantive" FW offense you'd like--I do find link turns to K Affs to often be truer than the K Affs themselves--BUT please do not just assert words like "clash" or "second and third level testing" without explication of what exactly you mean, why it is unique to your model of debate/foreclosed by the Aff's, and what the impact is; AND be aware that in so doing, you run the risk of making Aff impact turns LINK which otherwise would not.

I generally do not care about "T version," except insofar as it is explained in terms of what SPECIFIC lines of Affirmative offense are solved by the being able to read the Aff topically. (For example: "we need to go to X section of the library" is probably solved by T version, and arguably solved BETTER insofar as that model preserves a stronger ability and competitive incentive to dig into that issue than does the Aff's model). I DO think that that if a given Aff is COMPATIBLE with topical affirmation, that makes it easy to moot all of their offense while retaining a clear net benefit by saying that they should've have simply read the same Aff TOPICALLY (in essence, the same function that "T version" plays in a T debate vs. a policy Aff). In contrast, K Affs which are INcompatible with topical affirmation is generally better dealt with in front of me by "do it on the Neg" rather than a TVA.

Correspondingly: I tend to think that the best K Affs are centered not on K's of the resolution or topical Affs, but of BEING TOPICAL slash a model of topical debate--in which case the Neg will need to win that their model of debate is better, and a T version will only be useful in very specific, isolated instances for specific reasons.

I am a graduate student of Communication at Pitt, currently coaching Towson, debated at Dartmouth

Paradigm writing is the worst.  It's also a farce. 

I see debate as a performance, and I vote for the better performance.  That performance can include any number of kinds of arguments.  A performance has stakes for an audience both immediate and abstracted elsewhere.  That performance should involve the endorsement (or no) of a certain politic.

I tend to evaluate debates based on comparative advantage, unless told to evaluate competing methodologies, or unless (in the context of performance debate usually) the debaters seem to think we all agreed that they are debating "competing methodologies."

Debate how you can, the best you can. 

Swag is good.  Complexity. Concretization.  Examples. Comparison. 

I don't tend to call for evidence, since it often overdetermines how I then piece together the debate.

I'm probably understanding your kritik, but it means I also probably have a higher threshold for what you must articulate.

For the time being, I will not be using my AA speaker point policy.

Sean Kennedy - Debated at: University of Kansas

Director of Debate at USC

In general I would prefer to judge based upon the perspective presented by the debaters in the debate. Framing issues are very important to me, and I think debaters should make it clear what they believe those issues are through tone, organization, or explicit labeling (ie "this is a framing issue for the debate" or some similar phrase). Embedded clash is fine, but I think that concept carries some limitations - there is only so far that I am willing to stretch my reading of a (negative/affirmative) argument on X page/part of the flow, that does not reference Y (affirmative/negative) argument on another page/part of the flow. Some of my more difficult decisions have revolved around this point, so to avoid any ambiguity debaters should be explicit about how they want arguments to be read within the debate, especially if they intend a particular argument to be direct refutation to a specific opponent argument.

Beyond that I will try to keep as open a mind about arguments as possible - I have enjoyed initiating and responding to a diverse set of arguments during my time as a debater, and I have had both good and bad experiences everywhere across the spectrum, so I think as a judge I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance.

As a caveat to that - I do think that the affirmative has an obligation to respond to the resolution, though I think whether that means/requires a plan, no plan, resolution as a metaphor, etc is up for debate. However, I am generally, although certainly not always, persuaded by arguments that the affirmative should have a plan.

I am also willing to believe that there is zero risk or close enough to zero risk of link/impact arguments to vote on defense, should the debate appear to resolve the issue that strongly.

Whether or not I kick a counterplan/alt for the 2nr (what some people call "judge conditionality" or "judge kick") depends on what happens in the debate. I will always favor an explicit argument made by either team on that score over some presumption on my part. I have similar feelings about presumption when there is a counterplan/alt. The reason for this is that although there may be logical reasons for kicking advocacies or evaluating presumption in a certain light, I think that debate as a pedagogical activity is best when it forces debaters to make their choices explicit, rather than forcing the judge to read into a choice that was NOT made or requiring that both teams and the judge have an unspoken agreement about what the logical terms for the debate were (this is probably more obvious and necessary in some cases, ie not being able to answer your own arguments, than I think it is in the case of advocacies).

Please be kind to your competitors and treat their arguments with respect - you don't know where they come from or what their arguments mean to them, and I think this community can only work if we value basic decency towards others as much as much as we do argumentative prowess. In that vein, jokes are good, but I'm certainly much less amused by personal attacks and derision than I am by dry humor or cheekiness.

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.

Judge Philosophy

Conflicts: UGA, Emory University, and North Broward

Email: Brianklarmandebate@gmail.com - Yes, put me on the thread. No, I won't open all of the docs during the round and will likely ask for a doc of cards I find relevant at the end.

2024 Updates:

I am not a fully time debate coach. I am working with the UGA & North Broward debate teams part time.

I am someone who believes tech > truth. However, I do not look at cards during debates, so if your arguments are not clear by explanation/flowable tags/very clearly read card text, they are not "tech" that is on my flow. My favorite debates involve strategy (think: creative "cross applications," argument that are "good because the other teams can't read their best answers," etc). I enjoy a good theory debate (conditionality, solvency advocate, perms, politics theory arguments, etc.) and I would prefer that debates have some depth by the end of the negative block.

College - Assume I know things about the topic, but have not cut cards on it in the past year. I have had conversations with debaters/coaches and am very familiar with nuclear strategy. My knowledge of the college topic extends to knowing: assurance, deterrence, IR Ks, military process CPs*, and anything that would have been read on the past college exec power/military presence/alliance topics. I have written many iterations of both ICBMs and NFU affs & negs.

*If you are going for a T argument or process CP, keep in mind that I could not tell you the wording of the resolution off of the top of my head, so any arguments related to grammatical construction of the resolution might require you explaining with another sentence or going a bit slower. I am under the impression that the topic is pretty small and the negative ground is pretty good, so make sure to impact your limits (or "functional limits")/ground arguments

High School - I have had very little interaction with the current topic. I cut a number of cards on UBI in the past, but I know very little about the other parts of the topic. I did not teach at a debate camp. I have judged a handful of rounds and they were almost all on capitalism or race Ks. I am under the impression that the "core" negative arguments are some combination of States, Politics, "Redistribution" PICs, and Ks about the economy; I assume that the "core" affirmative arguments are all related to the economy and inequality.

2021 Post-NDT Updates:

(1) "X Outweighs Y" - If the 2NR/2AR does not start with some version of this (or include this elsewhere), I will almost certainly vote the other way. I don't super care how you say it, but if you are unwilling to say that the impact you will win is more important than the impact the other team will win, things aren't going well.

(2) T & Theory - I seem to like them more than everyone else I judge with. Go for conditionality bad! I don't necessarily think it is true but never seem to hear 2NC or 2NR blocks that have great offense or impact calc. After judging on a slew of panels, I realize that I am more likely to be into technical theory & T arguments then others. I also tend to expect complete arguments in the 1NC/2AC/2NC (theory needs warrants, T needs the necessary defense and offense).

(3) Tech > Truth - I feel like I have said this a number of times, but I realized that I think this more than others (or at least more than people that I judge with). A "bad" disad has high risk until/unless answers are made. This also has made me amenable to voting on some not great disads vs. planless affs just on the basis of 2ACs lacking necessary defense.

(4) T vs. Planless affs - I have found that I tend to vote affirmative when something is conceded or answered completely incorrectly. I tend to vote negative when the negative goes for a limits/fairness impact and responds to every argument on the line by line. I tend to find myself confused about the relevance of all arguments that the content of the resolution is either good or bad. I feel like I find my voting record to be like 50/50, but I haven't done the math.

(5) Decision making process - I tend to read less cards then others who I judge with. Not because I am against reading cards, but because I only read evidence to resolve questions in a debate. If you want me to read cards (which you likely do), make them relevant.

(6) Points - At the NDT, my points were about .1-.2 below everyone else on every panel. I plan on upping my points by .1-.2. That said, I don't give great points.

2020-2021 Updates - Online Judging: Judging online is difficult - a few implications:

(1) Ask if I am in the room / paying attention before you start speaking. Non-negotiable. "Brian, are you ready?" or "Klarman, are you here?" or anything that requires me to respond. I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

(2) Clarity matters more - I don't usually follow along in the doc and I am unlikely to read cards from both teams if one team is significantly clearer. On a related note, organization and numbering can help a lot with clarity because it tells me what arguments to expect.

(3) Technology skills matter - Emails should be sent out on time. If you are taking "no prep" for the 2AC, 1NR, etc. I assume that means the doc is sent and we are ready to go. I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time and makes concentration harder.

(4) Interesting arguments help keep attention and boosts points - I am really trying to flow and get everything down. I flow CX. I line up arguments. I am more aggressive than most about the flow. That being said, staring at the computer for the 3rd or 4th round of the day is very difficult. I will do my best. I find flowing very important because it lets the debaters do the debating instead of me deciding what I like. That said, online it is taking me a little more energy to focus. I've found when I hear arguments that I either haven't judged before, things I haven't blocked out, or even a new explanation, I tend to think the debate is more interesting which helps points & engagement. I really do love debate, so if you are excited, I will be too. On the other side, if this is the 9th time i am hearing the same school read the same block (and this could be Politics, T, Fairness bad, Deterrence or a K) with no emphasis at the same tournament, its hard to focus.

(5) Internet issues - they happen, I get it. They might happen to you, they might happen to me. I've heard best practice is to have some backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules, follow those. Otherwise I will likely just ask tab what to do if this happens. I'm open to other ideas of how to deal with it. Please please please have one (or all) debaters look to make sure the judge hasn't gotten booted from the room.

2020-2021 Updates - Other:

(1) Points - I think my points average around 28.5. I usually don't go under 28 unless something has gone wrong. If you get a 29.3 or 29.4 that is very good. I'm willing to go above that, but mostly when I hear something and am like "wow, that was memorable. I am going to try to tell people who I coach/teach in lab/judge to do things like this in the future."

(2) I often decide debates by (1) determining what I need to decide (2) looking through my flow for if it is resolved and then (3) reading cards if necessary. I'm unlikely to read a card (for the decision) to figure out something that the debaters never made clear. That said, I am happy to talk about some card or look through your evidence to give advice after the debate if you want - I tend to think debate is collaborative and we should all make each other better.

(3) I miss theory debates - this is the thing I have thought the most about, this is how I debated, and I just think its fun. I don't like "pointless" theory, but if you can convince me that something is the debate in the literature and predictable - from process CPs to T arguments to even spec arguments - I'm happy to hear it. That said, if you make your theory argument intentionally blippy ("ASPEC, they didnt, its a voter") I won't care.

I also left my old paradigm up here, but I think it mostly says: I did more "DA/CP/T" stuff than "K" stuff, I am familiar with "K" literature about race/gender/biopower/cultural studies, I like specific strategies, good case debating always impresses me, and I am very particular about the flow.

Old Stuff:

Preferences: I don't really care about what argument you make. I tend to think bad arguments will lose. The debate things I think about the most are counterplans and topicality arguments. That being said, I cut everything and coach everything. I feel like I mostly judge K debates where no one agrees about anything at this point. In those, I generally am familiar with that set of arguments (I am completing my MA in cultural studies, focusing on questions of race & gender) but not how to fit them into a debate. I tend to be very comfortable with how DAs, CPs, T arguments, and case fit into debate, but I tend to do weird research so I might not know what all the technical stuff of the CP is. That also means that the purpose of a K argument (or answer to the purpose) might require more explanation than the purpose of another argument. The things I think you actually need to know about me are below. I tried to lay out what I do in most debates while they are happening and afterwords and be as honest as possible.

Flowing: I will try to flow every argument in the debate. I expect that debaters will be doing the same thing. I could not possibly care less what the speech doc says or if you are "skipping a card" in the doc (that being said, I would like to be on the chain because I like glancing at cards after debates & trying to learn more about the topic/have informed discussions after the debates; also if you are doing some super annoying thing in the doc just to mess with the other team, I will likely be upset at you when I realize that in the post round/give points). When I flow speeches that set up argument structure (1nc on case, 2ac on off case), I will attempt to number the speech and will give higher speaker points to 1ns and 2as who set up that structure themselves (as well as be able to better understand their arguments; the 1nc that makes 4 analytics in a row without numbering is basically unflowable which means when the 2ac drops something I won't care). In subsequent speeches, I will go by the order of those numbers and will attempt to find what you are answering before I flow what you say. This means that if the 2nc starts on 2ac 4, I will mostly likely miss the first few arguments trying to figure out where to flow it (unless they say "2ac 4 - X - here's our answer" which would just be easily flowable but I might be confused about why the 2nc started on 2ac 4). If the 2nc starts on 2ac 1, I will not have an issue flowing. If the negative block (or 1ar) decides that the order is irrelevant, I am likely to be very grumpy; it is hard to vote on technical concessions or other things if the flow gets ruined and it makes it hard to tell a 1ar "you dropped X" when the block does not answer 2ac arguments. In addition to initial numbering, I will be able to better understand later speeches if you give me some idea (probably by number or argument) where the thing you are extending is on my flow. If you would like to only extend an impact turn or thumper or some no internal link argument in the 1ar that is 2ac 9 on my flow but don't tell me that you are starting at 2ac 9, it is going to take me a minute to find it on my flow. If, however, the 1ar goes to a flow and says "2ac 9 - they dropped X - here's what it is and why it matters" I will be able to immediately find it on my flow (it is easier to find numbers than exact arguments on a flow).

CX: I love CX. It is maybe my favorite "speech." I often try to flow it or take some notes at the least. That means you should pick words carefully in CX. I will especially try to write down anything about the advocacy and frameworks for evaluating debates (meaning metrics for thinking about things, which is not always how debate uses the word). CX can be fun even when teams get heated, but when CX is just people yelling at people and it is clear that people are more upset than enjoying things, I tend to lose interest. I like when people answering questions are honest, explain things, etc. I sometimes have the docs open and if we are having a fight about some card, I will look at it. I am not yet entirely comfortable with this, but if I miss the answer to a question, I may re-ask for the answer after the timer (I will do this with things like status or clarification, I don't think I will with other things yet but I might). I am also not comfortable interrupting CX to say things, but if someone is intentionally saying something that isn't true to answer clarification questions or refusing to answer clarification questions I may do so. If I make any definitive judgement about these things, I will try to update my philosophy again.

Look at me: I do not have a good poker face. I'd recommend looking for expression or other gestures. When I cannot flow people, I tend to look very confused. Same when an argument is bad. When I think an argument has already been explained and/or you are saying things that aren't arguments, I tend to sit there with my pen on my paper waiting for you to say something that needs to be flowed.

How I make a decision: At the end of the debate, I try to figure out what arguments are going to decide the debate (there tend to be 1-3), parse those out, and figure out what happens from there. It is generally better if debaters tell me what those things will be either on the line by line or in an overview (this is the only reason I could really imagine having an overview unless it is to explain some super complicated thing). I tend to think the best speeches are the ones that both identify these key points, explain why they win and then what happens if they win those key things. If there is no discussion of key points (either implicit or explicit), it is highly possible that I will try to find a few points that are key and then explain my decision from there (I determined this argument was probably the most important, here's how I evaluated it, here's why it deals with lots of other stuff). Any decision like that just makes me grumpy, especially because it always ends with the judge CX forever about why I decided this way and my answer tends to be "I didn't know how else to decide"

Speaker points: I'm going to be honest, I don't know if I understand this entire speaker point thing. I think my points might be a bit low. I don't plan on just raising them; if you need higher points I get that I might not be the judge for you. At the moment, I don't think that raising points just to raise them is a great idea because it eliminates a lot of range and variation in points that I think signal improvement for debaters and help communicate about the debate. I might revisit this later on if people want. I don't really know what an "average" speech looks like. If I had to try and articulate some made-up scale, it would probably look something like this: if the speech you gave was the best it could have been and/or basically won you the debate, its in the 29.3+ space. If the speech kept things going and helped a bit but not as much as it could, its in the 28.7+ range. If the speech was fine but didn't have much value value, I tend to think its in the 28.2+ range. If the speech wasn't good and didn't help much, it in the 27.5+ area. If the speech is bad, we are in the like 27 or even 26.8+ range. I don't think I've given many points lower than 27 and if I did, something must have gone very wrong. I tend to find most speeches between that 28-29 range. I think I average in the low 28s but I don't really know or care. Only a few speeches have just crushed the debate for me. I tend to have a lot of issue judging debates when I feel that all the speeches were about 28.2s or something and I have to give people different points. I think my default is to make the thing I think the top end or top middle (so if it was 28.2, maybe i'd give 28.3-28 to everyone). That being said, I think I am more willing to use high range in points based on speeches. I am also happy to add points for well used CX, good numbering, clarity of cards and highlighting (like if I can understand all the warrants in the evidence while you are reading), partners who work well together and make each other look good (I think basically every bold move in debate could be characterized by the 2nr/2ar as a big mistake or a big efficiency gain; if you can convince me that the 1ar under-covering the DA was to trick them to go for it, I will likely think the 1ar choice was smart and hence deserves better points, same with other speeches), etc. If people have a better way of doing speaker points, I am happy to talk about it.

Do not: Clip cards, lie, use something out of context, or do anything else unethical. These will result in loss of speaker points or loss of rounds.

Wake Forest '21, Working at Harvard

Please add to the email chain: rubycklein@gmail.com & harvard.debate@gmail.com

Tech and execution matter most, presuming there are warrants and implications for your arguments.

I like to read through cards closely, so if I’m taking a while, that’s probably why.

I think the aff gets to weigh their case vs. Ks, so protracted debates about framework are rarely important. I would much prefer aff-specific link debating or more about your alternative.

Neg framework impacts about clash and the value of research are generally the most persuasive to me, but if your thing is something else, that’s fine, too. Clearly conveying why your impact matters and how it interacts with aff offense is most essential.

Turning the case is way more likely with cards. And, I really enjoy and care about turns case arguments.

International, consult, condition, etc. CPs are likely bad, but a specific advocate about the plan could help.

If the neg tells me to, my presumption is to kick the CP.

Neg-leaning on conditionality.

Inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s to provide context and you fully explain what it reveals.  

I'd like to be included on speech doc chains, caldebatechain@gmail.com.

I generally try to be open-minded and let the debaters decide the debate. So, while I certainly have more experience and familiarity with policy or topicality debates, I try to be (and have been) a good judge for the kritik as well. That said, I do have some biases:

- I will not vote on generic aff theory arguments against counterplans like PICs bad*, international fiat bad**, or conditionality bad***. At all. Every second you spend extending one of these arguments, or answering these arguments beyond a simple acknowledgement that you know it was there, is a waste of time. This does NOT mean I think that all counterplans are legitimate and/or competitive. I think permutations to do the CP are very winnable against most process and condition-type counterplans, and I am still receptive to more specific theory arguments that particular types of counterplans or kritik alternatives are unfair. For example arguments that a counterplan should be rejected because it uses object fiat, fiats a negative action, or uses private actor fiat are still very winnable in front of me.

* I think the aff has to defend their entire plan and strategies that test parts of the plan are key to neg ground. If the counterplan contains the entirety of the plan then I think that's a competition question, not a fairness question.

**I think the aff has to have a US-key warrant. I could therefore be persuaded that when a counterplan fiats both international and US action, I should reject the US portion of the CP.

***I think the the aff has to prove the plan is better than the status quo, hence conditionality is the only logical status for a counterplan. So I don't need the neg to instruct me to "judge kick" a counterplan any more than I would need the aff to instruct me to "judge kick" a permutation. If the plan makes the world worse, then the neg wins regardless of the undesirability of their counterplan(s).

- I err toward reading a lot of the evidence because I like to get the whole picture, but I give preference to the side that does a better job debating their evidence. When comparing evidence from both teams, I will give substantially more weight to cards that are highlighted in complete and coherent sentences that would be understandable if read at conversational pace.

- If the only way you want to use a re-highlighting of their card is to indict the other team's evidence then I do not think you have to read it, you can just put your version in a doc and mention it during your speech. However, if you want the card to serve some extrinsic purpose, then I think you have to read it aloud like any other evidence.

- What about neg theory arguments? I could never imagine treating a theory argument against a permutation as a reason to reject the team, and "new affs bad" is not an argument that can affect my ballot beyond the speaker points you will lose for wasting time reading it. I would, however, totally vote on Aspec.

- I won’t vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech.

- I protect the 2NR like a parent protects their child.

Otherwise, just play fair and have fun!

Young Kwon

Harvard

Email for speech docs:

y.kwon93@gmail.com

harvard.debate@gmail.com

Update (NDT 2023): I streamlined my paradigm because technical execution in-round trumps my ideological leanings and thoughts about debate most of the time. Feel free to ask me if you've got specific questions though!

Pet peeves

Re-inserting highlighting---I prefer that you argue why the evidence concludes your way first and then read the card

Word salad---I will not read the rest of the evidence to figure out the context if I don't understand what the highlighting is supposed to say.

Talking loudly during other team's speech---Maybe it's an unfortunate byproduct of online debate, but it really interferes with my ability to flow.

Abbreviating cross-examination as "cross"---Please stop. It's called "cross-ex."

Failing to start debates on time---Set up the email chain and send the 1AC before the official start time.

Topicality

This topic is hard for the aff - Reasonability + functional limits are very persuasive.

People should debate internal links a bit more - why is your limit more precise, debatable, or predictable?

Counterplans

“CP must be textually and functionally competitive” – I really don’t know what this means.

Default for presumption is that it flips aff when the neg introduces an advocacy.

Status quo is a logical option when the aff concedes the thesis of conditionality.

Kritik/Framework

Analysis carries more weight than just cards.

Resolving big-picture, meta-level arguments matters more than winning line-by-line.

I am less familiar with the literature, so you need to connect the dots. For instance, how does your theory of power implicate framework?

Teja Leburu, Assistant Coach at Northwestern, Email: tejaleburu@gmail.com, College People: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

I don't have a ton of involvement in debate anymore. I will not have a great understanding of community norms around t/competition on the topic, nor experience on many of the substantive issues. Considering this, it will probably help you to overexplain rather than under.

With regards to clash debates, based on the previous rounds I have judged, my record indicates I am not great for non-topical affirmatives and critical arguments. I will attempt to evaluate the debate as fair as possible, but it seems as though I diverge for two reasons with other judges when dealing with non-topical affs, 1) I find that the affirmative offense is not intrinsic to debate about the topic, nor does it outweigh the neg offense 2) I think that aff debating assumes I’ll account for a lot of implicit case interaction with framework, which I have a hard time doing. With regards to the K, I think the two issues lead me to diverge in decisions from other judges, 1) I tend to agree with the affirmative arguments about plan focus and think the negative doesn’t spend enough time responding to the classic “fairness and clash” arguments 2) I think there has to be some response to case either via explicit alt solves arguments or case defense. Absent that, I seem to give a lot of “Aff outweighs the K” decisions.

In more traditional debates, here are the more controversial opinions I have:

1. I will evaluate rehighlighted/inserted cards, within reason. I get that “within reason” can be an ambiguous line; a general rule of thumb is if it’s text that’s included from the other team's speech doc, that is fine. If it’s from a different section of the article or another article, read it.

2. I think some 1NCs make close to zero complete arguments, e.g introductions of “just text” CPs without a card, an explanation of how it solves, or what DAs it avoids. If the 1NC is without these things, the 2NC cannot assert the aff has dropped a complete argument and I will be lenient to allow “new” 1AR arguments. I think a good test is if the neg finds themselves asserting the aff has dropped an argument and then proceeding to read more cards about that exact issue; then I’ll think the aff should be permitted to respond to the new evidence read and that will often allow “new” 1AR arguments.

3. There are few theoretical arguments (aside from condo) that I could entertain as resulting in rejecting the team. I think I’ll have a hard time being convinced otherwise.

4. I think translated cards or cards from author correspondence are fine and should be encouraged. When the debater or a coach are the ones doing the translating, I can be more convinced that it’s not the best idea.

5. Condo is starting to approach the point where I am questioning whether “infinite condo” is, in fact, good for debate. If the neg finds themselves exceeding 5 or 6 options, depending on the situation and debating, I could find myself persuaded to vote on it. It’s still a high bar, but not as impossible as it used to be with me.

6. I seem to not like “process” oriented strategies as much as other judges. The more germane to the topic and the more it competes off of topic specific resolutional phrasing other than merely “immediacy” or “certainty”, the more likely I’ll be to think it’s both legitimate and competitive. In addition, I think merely reading definitions without advancing a reason to prefer those definitions on competition is risky endeavour.

7. It seems I'm more willing than the average judge to entertain CPs that are often competitive (states, con-con, etc) as theoretically illegitimate, and reasons to reject the *argument*

Conflicts: University of Houston

Add to email chain: patrickleeqw@gmail.com

Hello debate community members. I debated for 4 years at Katy Taylor HS and 1 year at UT-Austin on the M4A topic. I welcome arguments in all their forms. I mean this quite literally. Denounce modernity or impact turn innovation - within the parameters of debate, I don't care. My only request: whatever form yours may take, please be considerate and take the time to outline for me the claim of the argument, the warrants to support it, and the impacts of its significance. Even better, organize these arguments so the ideas are unambiguously clear; and at the end of the debate tell me in no uncertain terms why you win and why they lose.

K debate: If the terms of your argument use jargon from the bowels of academia, and if said terms are not explained with the intention of forwarding understandability, then, in the spirit of competitive agonism, I suggest using clearer and shorter words, for there are plenty of them that are certain to capture the essence of your claims. But in the case that it is of your opinion that there simply exist no other adequate terms and only your words sufficiently capture the monumental complexity of your theorization, that is perfectly fine too - but know that your arguments must now live up the task of explaining that complexity, adequately, as a pre-requisite to evaluation.

At the end of the day, I think debate is an enjoyable game with lasting subjective consequences. What these consequences are, and the extent to which they can become desirable or malignant, is open to interpretation. I believe this responsibility to interpret ultimately resides with the debaters, not the judge. I won't superimpose. I'll try my best to simply evaluate. Have fun!

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and George Mason University. This is my 15th year in policy debate.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this, and I will tell you that your argument makes no sense in my RFD.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

I really do not understand how the economy works. I'm sorry. I've really tried to get it, but I just don't. You absolutely can go for econ DAs and/or econ case turns in front of me, but please be extra careful to explain (in lots of detail!) what you're arguing here.

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary).

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad. Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" even is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate (I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools).

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

Georgetown '17

Stuyvesant '13

You should debate what you're best at. To me, the game of debate is more important than any particular argument. I think it's most important that debaters try to write the ballot in their final rebuttal and leave as few issues unresolved as possible. 

While I am doing work for Georgetown this year, I'm probably somewhat less familiar with the topic than you are, so please try to be clear and explain specific terms/acronyms. 

Be respectful of your opponent, partner, and judge. 

Counterplans

I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states. Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. 

Disasdvantages

"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical. 

Topicality 

Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic. 

Kritiks 

Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well thought out case arguments. 

Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels

As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient. 

Email: flynnmakuch@gmail.com

***you know what is absolutely CX or your prep time? asking the other teams which cards they read or didn't read. you are responsible for flowing and don't get free time to compensate for your inability to do so. a "marked doc" does not mean a new doc where the other team removes all the cards they didnt read

a few virtual/hybrid debate things:

-audio is less intelligible than in person -- make sure you're really clearly enunciating -- i'll yell clear 2-3 times and my facial expressions will be obvious if i can't flow you and then frankly the L is on you pal

(tbh i think most people would benefit from going a bit slower even in person. don't sacrifice judge understanding at the altar of reading that last card)

-MAKE SURE you get a thumbs up or a yes that I'm ready before you start

-prep stops when you've attached the document to the email it shouldn't take you more than 5 seconds from after you've said stop prep to have pressing send on the email

My pronouns are they/them and my last name is pronounced "MACK-oo."

I have judged close to a million rounds

debate history: -HS GBN (2x TOC elims, RRs) - College Texas (2x NDT elims, RRs) -Colleges coached: WSU, UCO, Emory, NU -HSs coached: bronx science, edgemont, GBS, westwood, damien -taught/directed at many camps every summer over the last 12 years -currently assistant coach for NU and used to work full time at the Chicago Debate League + judge/direct lots of tournaments

TOP LEVEL:

Even though I read as arguments and studied critical literature about race, gender, colonialism, and sexuality in college, my HS background was exclusively "policy," and I continue to do research and coach in both areas.

In the post round, if you'd like to seek advice or challenge components of my thinking or note your disagreement or be grumpy or try to get my ballot in the future or try to understand my decision, I would love to discuss my decision with you! If you are into post-rounding as some weird ego thing where you need to demonstrate that you couldn't possibly have lost a debate by berating the judge, then you should not pref me.

I take a while/my time to decide debates, so time-wasting during a debate is truly to your detriment.

After the 2XR, please send me a judge doc with the (marked version) of ONLY the cards you extended.

Things I am really interested in:

--lots of evidence comparison!! this very often shifts my decisions and honestly y'all have become not that good at doing this consistently. a great 2XR will explicitly indict every piece of evidence the other team has read on the position they are extending

--nuanced impact/il comparison

--framing arguments and judge instruction!!!!!!!

--even if arguments -- recognizing where you might be losing

--beginning the 2XR with what you want the RFD to be very explicitly

--in depth explanations -- more warrants! i feel QUITE confident just jettisoning arguments that weren't explained

--strategic concessions + cross applications

--thoughtful and consistent analytics

--attentive line by line

--(hate to have to say this) 2NRs that take advantage of 1AR dropped arguments. It will hurt your speaker points a little if there's a clear path to victory that you ignore entirely

Things I am not interested in:

--cruelty

--inserting long rehighlightings

--long overviews - LINE BY LINE is where those overview arguments fit my friends. i promise you can find a spot if u look

--being rude to your partner

--scholarship/behavior that is morally reprehensible

--"if you vote X you'll have to look me in the eye and explain..., etc." type of inefficient judge strong-arming

--multiple paragraph tags

--mumble spreading on the text of cards

--things that happened outside of the round

--highlighting into sentence fragments

When cx time is over, both teams need to stop talking unless someone wants to take prep.

Make sure you time yourselves, because I WILL forget at some point

Pointing out that something was conceded is not the same as extending that argument. Author names or claims without warrants are not arguments. I think I have a higher standard than most for this. A conceded assertion is still not an argument. Yes ofc, your burden of explanation is substantially reduced, but there's gotta be something.

Framework:

Things I am interested in:

--saying anything new or unique if possible - tbh i judge mostly fw debates and i promise you i have already heard your blocks many times and i am bored

--the solvency mechanism of the aff, whatever solvency means in the context of the affirmative

--clash impacts in the context of skills gained from debate

--whether the aff is contestable

--a good ol' topical version of the aff that addresses impact turns

--impact framing arguments

--line by line refutation

--well developed impact turns to the neg's interpretation/TVA that don't apply to a counter interpretation

--counter interpretations that address some of the neg's clash/limits arguments

--slowing down when reading consecutive paragraphs of text you have typed for 2nr/2ar

Things I am less interested in:

--affs that are descriptive but not prescriptive -- it's easy to say something is bad, even in a very theoretically dense, educational, interesting way. the more difficult question is determining the best method (not picky about what this is) for addressing or approaching the problem described

--fairness as an impact in and of itself -- it's an internal link to an impact (in my default view, though I end up voting for it pretty frequently bc not well contested)

--long, pre-written "overviews" where you address none of the line by line (both sides are very bad about doing this)

(As an aside, if the aff says they'll defend they link to DA(s), I would always strongly prefer the neg take them up on a substantive debate. That's not to say the neg shouldn't go for framework if that's their heart's desire, only that I find a substantive debate more interesting.)

Counterplans:

Whatever re: the whole thing. I truly have no strong feelings/beliefs about conditionality either way, other than it'll be tough to win 1 is bad. But, I decide that like I decide all things: based on the arguments actually presented in the theory debate.

Exception to that -- perms are just no link arguments to the opportunity cost of the CP, so I will never vote that dropped perm theory arguments are a reason to reject the team.

DAs:

See plea for evidence and impact comparison above. When I get a stack of cards at the end of the debate, it's going to be annoying for both of us that I now just have to render judgment on each of them with no guidance.

Please make more smart, warranted analytics about why the DA is nonsense. A lot of DAs don't pass the test of being a complete argument if the full text of the cards are read and you just take a second to actually think about it.

I expect a high degree of technical proficiency in these debates.

Ks:

Can we please being doing more line by line?

Neg needs SPECIFICITY in your explanation of the aff. Highly specific cards to the aff are not necessary, though helpful, to make specific links, alt solves, turns case, root cause arguments etc. Reference/quote the aff's 1ac ev. Use historical examples. Make logical arguments.

What is the impact to the link in the context of turning/implicating the aff? If you can't answer this question I don't think the link is all that useful unless it's a top level thesis claim. The more contextual your explanation of every facet of the k is to the aff, the more likely you will win that part of the debate and the higher your speaker points will be.

Against policy affs, you will likely win a link, so focus your attentions on defeating the impact turns/case outweighs arguments from the jump. Opposite for k affs -- less focus on impact, instead focus on in depth contextual explanations of the link and how it turns the aff, the alt solves aff impact better, DAs to the perm that aren't just links to the aff, etc.

I almost always find the framework debate to be a huge waste of everyone's time. Both sides get to weigh their stuff -- there are NO debate theory arguments I find persuasive responding to that. Please just spend this time clashing over the substance of the K/aff (things like epistemology/discourse first are substantive arguments btw). This is my most biased opinion, in that it's the only place I consider intervening -- I will almost always err towards allowing both teams to access their substance, even if one team isn't doing very well on the fw debate. If I'm the only judge, feel free to spend VERY little time here.

Finally, almost every argument in the overview should/could be on the line by line.

When aff vs. the K, know thyself. Before the tournament you should know what you want the 2AR to be against Ks. Hint: it's probably not the perm if you're not reading a k aff

T:

Debates about reasonability are usually so shallow as to be meaningless.

Let me save you time:

You: "What did you think about [x argument/author name]"???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Me: "I didn't think about it that much because you didn't tell me to/you didn't speak about it enough or in a way that made it relevant to my decision making process."

However:

I do try to be thorough. Debaters have worked hard to get here, so it's my obligation to work hard to assess the debate.

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

This is the best cx I've ever seen and a very important video to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rgzsO-AMM

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013 

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either.  In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate. 

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree)  I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of  basic communication. 

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently. 

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive.  I think  that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact. 

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo. 

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame). 

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial. 

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny) 

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Wake Forest '21 '23

College email chain: debatedocs, wfudbt@gmail.com

HS email chain: alexmarban99@gmail.com

Evidence quality and execution matter, however, I will default to the debater's explanation of evidence and their spin. Judge instruction is paramount, I defer to the team who has better instructed me on how to evaluate the debate. I read less evidence when deciding unless it's close or there's disagreement over what a card says so spend time making the evidence you've read matter.

You should explain not only why your offense matters but also how it complicates the other side's offense. I care a lot about turns case and case turns DA/K/etc arguments, if only one side has these it'll likely tip the scales in their favor.

Defend your justifications and conclusions, I dislike when teams shy away from clash by not defending core premises of their arguments.

Cross-ex (not cross....) is my favorite speech in debate, use it to your advantage rather than wasting it on flow check questions and integrate relevant moments into your speeches!

Inserting evidence is fine if a complete argument is made and the rehighlighting comes from the other team's card, if it includes other portions not originally read then read it.

Framework

Interpretations establish the model of debate you are advocating so be cognizant and intentional of what you are forwarding. AFFs should have a model of debate with a role for the negative and a vision for what debates look like under their model, instead of solely impact turns. AFFs that solely go for an impact turn with no counter interp need to control the question of ballot solvency like how voting AFF resolves that offense.

Clash and fairness are the most persuasive NEG impacts.

Kritiks

Specificity and engagement for both sides are crucial.

Generally, I would prefer you spend more time on the link, impact, and alt instead of framework. If you want framework to matter resolve arguments thoroughly. Explain the implication of winning your framework and how that should change the way I evaluate other parts of the flow.

Theory

Conditionality is generally good but it can be egregious with multiple conditional planks, amending stuff, counterplanning out of straight turns, etc. 3+ is pushing it for me. Abuse stories should be present in the 1AR, if you are planning on going for it in the 2AR.

I'd prefer teams to say judge kick or object to it.

Topicality

Predictability matters and guides how pre-season research is conducted, evidence with intent to define and exclude usually provides the best interpretations.

Case lists and a vision for the topic should be explained on both sides.

Counterplans

Topic literature guides counterplan legitimacy, if a well-prepared 2A could reasonably expect the counterplan it is probably fine. Specific advocates are important, but given the lack of specific AFF advocates the NEG has a bit more leeway.

Not a fan of multiple plank counterplans without advocates that have no reason they solve the AFF in the 1NC. Once the block explains how they solve or reads cards that advocate the planks, the 1AR gets new responses.

Disads

Make diverse link and turns case arguments, preferably with cards. The nukes topic lends itself to strong comparative evidence, but you must draw out those comparisons when extending evidence in later speeches. Having external offense is ideal.

Case

Unfortunately, debating the case is an underdeveloped skill. Most internal links, solvency, and impacts are terrible, take some time to point out those flaws with evidence and analytics.

LD Notes

Most of the above should apply, please note that I've exclusively only done policy debate so that will filter the way I view and evaluate arguments. I have not done any research on the LD topic.

At the end of most LD debates, I am left with a lack of thorough impact calculus so it would benefit you to do more of that in your final speeches.

I'm very unlikely to vote on tricks, RVIs, etc. The closer your arguments resemble policy-style arguments, the better judge I will be for you.

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
• I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
• Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
• Email-sending related failures
• Dead time
• Stealing prep
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
• Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about debatability, clash, iterative testing and fairness to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

A few things about me (TLDR version):

Former debater at University of Georgia

Plans are good

Impact calculus is important. Tell me how to write my ballot.

Clarity > Speed

Cross-ex is binding

Have fun and don't be rude!

Long version:

Framework - I'm a good judge for framework. Debate is a game and framework is procedural question. I’m persuaded by negative appeals to limits and I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I don’t think the topical version of the aff needs to “solve” in the same way the aff does. If there are DA's to the topical version of the aff, that seems to prove neg ground under the negative’s vision of debate. Tell me what your model of debate looks like, what negative positions does it justify, and what is the value of those positions.

Kritiks - I think it's really hard for the neg to win that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan provided the aff answers framework well. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism, and feminist critiques of IR. The aff should focus on attacking the alternative both at a substance and theoretical level. It's critical that the 2AR defines the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. Negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. Tell me how the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts.

Counterplans - They don't have to be topical. Whether you have a specific solvency advocate will determine if your counterplan is legitimate or not. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that 2 conditional options are good, but I can be persuaded by 3 condo is okay. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning/delay counterplans, international fiat, and 50 state fiat are bad. Typically, if you win theory I reject the argument not the team unless told otherwise.

Disads- I love a good DA and case debate. I've gone for the politics DA a lot in my college career. Normally uniqueness controls the link, but I can persuaded otherwise. Impact calc and good turns cases analysis is the best!

Add me onto the e-mail chain, my email is miriam.mokhemar@gmail.com. If your computer crashes, stop the timer until you can get your doc back up.

Benjamin Morbeck

Updated 9-11-2023

I debated 4 years at the University of Rochester (NY) and 2 years at Strath Haven High School (PA).

Add me to the email chain: benmo28@gmail.com

As a debater and a coach, I lived pretty exclusively on the policy side of things. I think my judging history suggests I am an even worse judge for the critique and critical affirmatives than I thought I would be.

I haven't been particularly involved in debate since I graduated; I now work full-time outside of debate (I'm a geologist with the US Geological Survey in California) and that is even more true.

I evaluate the round probabilistically -- comparing the risk that each team accesses their impacts, regardless of whether it is a DA, K or T debate. Good defense is often as important as offense in my decisions, but there is very infrequently "zero risk".

I very rarely dealt with theory and (non-framework) topicality as a debater. I think there are very few situations where negatives would be better served by going for topicality instead of a DA/CP strategy in front of me, and vice versa few situations where you are better off going for theory/condo to answer that nasty counterplan instead of just making solvency deficits or putting offense against the net benefits.

Judge kick makes intuitive sense to me and I'm happy to do it for you, but you need to tell me to do it in the 2NR.

Evidence quality is very important to me. I like to read a lot of evidence as the debate is going on NOT because I like to needlessly intervene but because I think that it makes my decisions more informed. You should use this to your favor by (a) reading good evidence and (b) comparing evidence to impact how I view the evidence that has been read. This also means I am hesitant to vote on, for example, disad stories that are contrived and supported mainly by "spin." If you don't have a single card that describes all of your disad story, I'm probably not interested (though I have a bit of a soft spot for the old school PC-style Agenda DA).

This (hopefully) should only apply to high school debates, but I have a very low tolerance for non-substantive, "trolly" arguments in policy rounds---things like ASPEC, frivolous T arguments, one card or backfile critiques, or even very generic impact turns (e.g. spark). My threshold for affs answering these is incredibly low.

LD specific:

My background is in college and high school policy. I judge LD occasionally but am not familiar with the intricacies of circuit LD. If you read plans/DAs, I'll be a good judge for you. If you are a more traditional/old school LD debater, I'll be able to keep up. Otherwise, you probably don't want me judging your LD round.

I don't think I would ever vote on a theory argument in LD. Generic impact framing arguments (e.g. 'the util debate') don't matter much to me.

I'm not going to look at any analytics you email out. I'll only check the document to look at your evidence. If you are going so fast that I don't hear your analytic arguments with my own ears, then those args aren't going to be on my flow. Sorry. Speed is good, but you need to be comprehensible.

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging

++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)

(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)

Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito

I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.

Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.

I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.

Assuming aff defends a plan:

Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.

High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?

Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.

Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.

Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.

If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.

I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.

Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.

Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:

Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html

Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).

Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.

In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.

If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.

This was too short?

* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.

Former debater and now coach for GMU

Top Level Things:

Tech > truth.

Depth > breadth.

I will default to util if no other paradigm is provided.

I will judge kick the CP/alt unless 2AR tells me not to and 2NR says nothing.

Do not include cards in the card doc if they were not referenced in the 2NR/2AR but they do answer arguments your opponents made in their speech. If you didn't make the arg, I'm not going to read the card.

Evidence quality is important because ideally both teams should be doing card comparisons; however, if no comparisons/indicts are made, I will generally only look to the claims/warrants in the card.

CPs/CP Theory:

I lean heavily neg on condo, especially against new affs. If there is offense, defense and a counter interpretation in the block, I don't think the 1AR should extend it unless its really egregious (eg. 1NC reads a lot of condo, block kicks/combines various CPs or planks of CPs to create a new CP; or something to that effect). Unless 2AR spends all 6 minutes on it, I won't vote for it.

Other theory stuff:

If theory comes down to reasons that the specific CP is a voter, I view it as a reason to reject the arg and not the team. To be clear, I will not vote someone down for reading a certain type of CP or alt based on theory args alone.

Delay & consult CPs are almost always theoretically abusive, 2AR on this plus perm do CP is a good move when extended well. I lean aff on perm do the CP against process CPs, but if the aff drops a definition or doesn't answer something, I will vote neg.

PICs Good------------X-----------PICs Bad

Process CPs Good-----------X----------Process CPs Bad

DAs:

Bad DAs can be beaten with analytics + an impact defense card.

Uniqueness isn't given enough credit in a lot of 2NRs/2ARs. I value thumpers a lot, and if neg mishandles it, I think the aff should cash in.

Case:

Case debates are good. Solvency presses are underutilized.

I enjoy good debates about internal link differentiation between the aff and the case turn. Even better when there's a CP involved that avoids the turn.

Ks v Policy Affs:

Aff gets to weigh the aff unless the 2AC doesn't make that arg.

I prefer Ks that have specific links to the topic or plan action significantly more than Ks that have state or omission links.

Please explain how the alt solves the links/impacts. If the explanation is vague and the aff has cards that say it can't, I will find it hard to weigh neg offense.

Outside of something that was blatantly offensive, I believe that all language is contextual and words only mean as much as the meaning attached to them. Thus, args like "we didn't use it in that context" are convincing to me. I can be persuaded to vote them down, but I am going to be more biased the other way.

K affs v Policy Team:

I'm fine with most things, and I will try to evaluate the debate fairly on a line-by-line basis. That said, framing arguments and impact calc are very important. Also, if the aff has no connection to the resolution, I'm more likely to be persuaded by certain neg framework arguments about limits/ground.

FOR COLLEGE TOURNAMENTS: ukydebate@gmail.com

FOR HS TOURNAMENTS:devanemdebate@gmail.com

My name is Devane (Da-Von) Murphy, and I'm the Associate Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky. My conflicts are Newark Science, Coppell High School, University High School, Rutgers-Newark, Dartmouth College, and the University of Kentucky. I debated 4 years of policy in high school and for some time in college, however, I've coached Lincoln-Douglas as well as Public Forum debaters so I should be good on all fronts. I ran all types of arguments in my career, from Politics to Deleuze and back, and my largest piece of advice to you with me in the back of the room is to run what you are comfortable with. Also, I stole this from Elijah Smith's philosophy

"If you are a policy team, please take into account that most of the "K" judges started by learning the rules of policy debate and competing traditionally. I respect your right to decide what debate means to you, but debate also means something to me and every other judge. Thinking about the form of your argument as something I may not be receptive to is much different from me saying that I don't appreciate the hard work you have done to produce the content"

***Emory LD Edit***

I'm a policy debater in training but I'm not completely oblivious to the different terms and strategies used in LD. That being said, I hate some of the things that are supposed to be "acceptable" in the activity. First, I HATE frivolous Theory debates. I will vote for it if I absolutely have to but I have VERY HIGH threshold and I will not be kind to your speaker points. Second, if your thing is to do whatever a "skeptrigger" is or something along that vein, please STRIKE me. It'd be a waste of your time as I have nothing to offer you educationally. Another argument that I probably will have a hard time evaluating is constitutivism/truth testing. Please compare impacts and tell me why I should vote for you. Other than that, everything else here is applicable. Have fun and if you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

DA's: I like these kinds of debates. My largest criticism is that if you are going to read a DA in front of me, please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. And I'm not just saying calculus to mean timeframe, probability or magnitude but rather to ask for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round. (just a precursor but this is necessary for all arguments not just DA's)

CP's: I like CP's however for the abusive ones (and yes I'm referring to Consult, Condition, Multi-Plank, Sunset, etc.) Theoretical objections persuade me. I'm not saying don't run these in front of me however if someone runs theory please don't just gloss over it because it will be a reason to reject the argument and if its in the 2NR the team.

K's: I like the K too however that does not mean that I am completely familiar with the lit that you are reading as arguments. The easiest way to persuade me is to have contextualized links to the aff as well as not blazing through the intricate details of your stuff. Not to say I can't flow speed (college debate is kinda fast) I would rather not flow a bunch of high theory which would mean that I won't know what you're talking about. You really don't want me to not know what you're talking about. SERIOUSLY. I will lower your speaker points without hesitation

Framework: I'm usually debating on the K side of this, but I will vote on either side. If the negative is winning and impacting their decision-making impact over the impacts of the aff then I would vote negative. On the flip side, if the aff wins that the interpretation is a targeted method of skewing certain conversations and wins offense to the conversation, I would vote aff. This being said I go by my flow. Also, I'm honestly not too persuaded by fairness as an impact, but the decision-making parts of the argument intrigue me.

K-Affs/Performance: I'm 100% with these. However, they have to be done the right way. I don't wanna hear poetry spread at me at high speeds nor do I want to hear convoluted high theory without much explanation. That being said, I love to watch these kinds of debates and have been a part of a bunch of them.

Theory: I'll vote on it if you're impacting your standards. If you're spreading blocks, probably won't vote for it.

none.

HS: Damien HS '12

BA: Gonzaga University '16

UPDATED: 2/14/23

I debated back between 2008-2016 in both high school and college at Damien and Gonzaga respectively. I am a Ph.D student in Philosophy and Cognitive Science, so when I say that I evaluate arguments, I mean it. Debate is about communication of arguments, meaning it’s about the arguments you articulate that I can understand.

You can do anything you want in a debate, but remember that I have to be able to recognize it as an argument for or against something. This means that, you should have some claim and some way to defend that claim. In terms of literature bases, I am familiar with both old school policy and K debate, as well as the more contemporary versions of each.

We all have some biases, so here is a few of the things that are generally true about me: I almost always default to evaluating if the Aff wins the case debate first. I think the negative can do anything that challenges the Aff as being a good idea, including the epistemic and ontological framework underlying it. I think conditionality is good. I think alternatives and CP’s should be functionally competitive not necessarily textually competitive. I am not white, and I do not have any white guilt. I think language and arguments are a tool to be used, and therefore have ascribed (not static) meaning. I think clash is good. I think fairness should be preserved. I think that perms can be more than tests of competition. I think that debate is about argument and communication. I think that it is your burden to make something understandable to me. I will vote on any argument, so long as I have a reason to do so, and it is your burden to give me an argument to vote for.

I try to mitigate my bias whenever I can, and try to ask myself if I am making a judgement based on what was said in the debate. So I try to be as objective as possible, and find that I tend to have this, if you want to call it, a bias towards fairness in-round and in competition.

Tufts Veterinary '24

Michigan State ‘20

Oakwood High School, OH ‘16

she/her

pepperdebate@gmail.com

I do not coach on this topic - I don't know acronyms, I have no concept of what ground looks like. Please explain these things to me.

I debated for 4 years in high school, graduated from MSU with degrees in zoology and public policy after debating for 4 years, and am currently in veterinary school. (On a side note: please email me if you have any questions about vet school admissions! They're unnecessarily opaque and I'm so happy to help anyone out.)

Don't be rude. If you need extrinsic motivation, I'll lower your speaks if you're mean.

I think this is me becoming an old person, but the trend of asking for a copy of the speech with unread cards taken out bugs me. Please flow.

Prep time ends when you're ready to attach the doc to the email. If you need to do anything else within the doc, it's still prep.

CPs -

I like counterplans that solve case. By that I mean saying “cp does everything case does” without any explanation isn’t gonna cut it if the aff has any type of solvency deficit.

I default to judge kicking the counterplan unless the aff goes for a links to net benefit argument, but can be easily convinced otherwise if that debate starts early.

DAs -

Love 'em. I'm down for your weird DA, as long as you have the ev and can explain it well.

I definitely think politics is dead but also recognize how few DAs there are, so you can read those DAs in front of me if you feel they're your best strat. I voted for them many times last season, and definitely went for stupid politics DAs in undergrad.

I've voted aff on 0 risk of the DA before and will probably do it again.

Ks –

I debated almost exclusively against the K in college, but that wasn't because of any ideological commitments; I am sympathetic to any argument that isn't death good or science bad.

Just like counterplans, I won't do any work for you. If you're claiming the alt solves the case, explain how.

Links/impacts generally need to prove that the aff is worse than the status quo, but I am very willing to vote neg on 0 risk of aff solving + alt solvency of something that's not the aff.

T –

competing interps > reasonability

You cannot win reasonability without a counter-interp.

If you're making an "x modifies y" argument, I won't vote for it if you're not actually correct about the function of that modifier/auxiliary. This is a bias that I am not willing to shake; my semantics professors would never forgive me.

K affs -

I'm down. The aff needs to be clear about their solvency mechanism. When answering T, defining neg ground is always necessary.

For the neg, I'm always happy to judge a methods debate, and I am sympathetic to T IF the neg team argues it in an empathetic way that does not preclude discussions of critical literature. The neg impact I am most persuaded by is clash, I am not very persuaded by fairness.

     By far the most important thing you need to understand in order to successfully debate for me is that I am not going to follow along with your speech document in order to try to understand what you are saying.  If you cannot deliver your arguments and read your evidence in a fashion that is comprehensible, I am not a good judge for you.  I read a very limited amount of evidence after debates, always and only to decide arguments where the two sides have advanced detailed disagreements about what the evidence in question actually says.  I only hold teams responsible for answering arguments after I have understood them:  calling 1AR answers to a kritik new will not avail if I only understood the basics of your argument after the block.  I am not saying this is an oratory contest, but it is oral advocacy.

     When I do read evidence, I am increasingly suspicious of cards that consist of a few words highlighted here and there over several pages of text.  If you can't find a single sentence from you author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me. 

     My "paradigm:"  I try to judge as if I were at a town meeting or other public forum where the audience would listen to a discussion and then each person would vote their opinion.  I deviate from the real world as little as possible, mostly to exclude my own predispositions and decide based on what is said by the contestants.  If weighty matters are at stake, I would hope that I would not be persuaded to vote for bad ideas because the advocates of better ideas had committed some argumentative indiscretion.  (This is a fancy way of saying that I am a tough sell for "discourse kritiks"--you'll do much better to attack your opponents' thinking than their language.)  I generally do not accept arguments that urge me to "punish" a team for advancing an ill-considered position in the debate.

    I do believe that both sides should stick to one policy system to defend.  This requires that they eschew "conditional" advocacy, whether that is vague plans or multiple counterplans.  I see both of these strategies as needlessly diluting the advocacy in what is already a short time to discuss even one policy comparison.  I see the attempt to discuss multiple comparisons in a single debate as far more motivated by nefarious strategy than any sort of truth seeking.

     My voting record on kritikal arguments is far better than my reputation suggests.  Solid, topic-specific attacks on the logic and worldview of the opposition, with specific links and impacts I can understand, frequently succeed om winning my ballot.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Hey I’m Jazmine.

(Updates for clash debates will be loaded by 1.20.23, the below is still relevant)

Yes I want to be on the email chain: futurgrad@gmail.com

Had a long paradigm from 3 years ago most of it word vomit so I’ll keep it simple.

I know I’ll be in clash debates. Most will think I lean on one side of the "fight" which is probably true but anyone who claims neutrality is lying to ur face. So I’ll say that I have predispositions HOWEVER, I DO NOT AUTO vote on the K or vote against fwk since as a coach I develop arguments on both sides. Don’t believe me? Well check the wikis;). MY Rule of thumb is if your logic is circular and self referential with no application to what is happening in the debate or how these competing theories (Debate as a game, state good, etc. are theories so you’re not out of this comment) structure how I should be evaluating top level framing and the ballot then yea I’m not your judge [FOR BOTH SIDES]. Point out the tautology and implicate it with some defense to solvency or have it lower the threshold for how much you have to win your competing interpretation (or interpretation) and let’s debate it out.

K on K, I’m smart and pick up on levels of comprehension BUT make it make sense. The buzzword olympics was cool but I want to see where the LINKS or POINTS of difference where ever you are drawing them from so I know what does voting AFF mean or What does voting NEG mean.

like I said simple. I appreciate the linguistic hustle and am into the game, but play the damn game instead of stopping at intrinsic statements of "Debate is a game and that presumption is valid because that’s just the way it has to be because MY DA’s! :/" or "This theory of the world is true and since I entered it into the chat I win..." IMPLICATE THE PRESUMPTIONS with solvency thresholds, framing thresholds PLEASE!

THanks for coming over.

Glenbrook North- he/him

If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

spipkin at gmail. Please set up the chain at least five minutes before start time. I don't check my email very often when I'm not at tournaments.

1. Flow and respond to what the other team says in order.

2. You almost certainly are going too fast for how clear you are.

3. Kritiks on the neg: Probably a bad idea in front of me.

4. K affs: You definitely want to strike me.

5. No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). You don't need to re-read the plan and counterplan text, and you can say perm specific planks, but if you are reading a more complicated perm than that, you should read the text. The litmus test is "insert the perm text."

6. I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say you fiat deficit spending in CX, you don't get to say PTIV on T taxes. If you say normal means is probably deficit spending but it could be taxes, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are taxes for a DA or CP. Fiat is limited to the text of what you have in the plan. Implementation specification beyond the text requires evidence and can be contested by the neg.

8. Highlighting should form a coherent sentence. If it's word salad, I'm not going to waste my time trying to parse the meaning.

9. I like counterplans that are germane to the topic. Most of the process counterplans I've seen this year are not that They either can't solve the net benefit or they're not competitive or both.

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

1. Hostility - I am too old, too cranky, and too tired to hear undergraduate students treating opponents, partners, or me like trash. I literally can't handle the levels of aggression some rounds have anymore. Please just stop. Be community minded. You are debating another person with feelings, remember that. Opponents are friends on the intellectual journey you are having in debate, not enemy combatants. Give people the benefit of the doubt and try to practice grace in rounds.

2. Debaters who act like they don't care in debates. If being a troll or giving some performance of apathy about debate is your shtick I am absolutely not the judge for you. Debate is a privilege that many individuals do not have the ability to participate in due to lack of collegiate access or financial well being, and I think we should treat the opportunity we have to be in this activity with respect.

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

4. Yelling over each other in cx - everyone will lose speaks.

5. Interrupting your partner in cx - I am seriously close to saying I want closed cx, I am so annoyed at how egregious this is becoming. I will deduct speaks from both partners.

6. Extending Cross ex past 3 minutes. I will actively stop listening in protest/leave the room. Anything past the 3 minutes should be for clarification purposes only.

7. Wipeout, Baudrillard, Malthus, Con Con CPs, Strike 'x' country CPs, trivializing the holocaust, reading re-prints of books from 1995 but citing it as the reprint date, fiating mindset shifts.

Topicality:

The nukes topic is great for the negative and I do not think I will be persuaded on sub-sets arguments against NFU. This topic is too small give the aff a break.

If cross ex actually checked for specification questions (i.e. "who is the actor" - and they tell you "Congress") - that is the only argument the 2ac needs to make against a 1NC spec argument.

NOVICE NOTE: I think it is ridiculous when novices read no plan affs - do whatever you want in other divisions, but these kids are just learning how to debate, so providing some structure and predictability is something I think is necessary. I err heavily on framework in those debates for the negative in the first semester.

Theory:

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. I genuinely do not know how I lean in condo debates. Some rounds I feel like the amount of conditional positions we are encouraging in debates is ridiculous, others I wish there were more. Open to being convinced in either direction.

Counterplans:

Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. I shouldn’t have to pull the CP text at the end of the round to determine what it does. I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff (if you can defend theory though, this doesn’t mean don’t read them). Also, I think that perm do the cp on CPs that result in the plan can be rather persuasive, and a more robust textual/functional cp debate is probably necessary on the negative's part.

**Delay and consultation cp’s are illegit unless you have a specific solvency advocate for them. Agenda DA Uniqueness cp’s are too – I’m sorry that the political climate means you can’t read your politics strat on the negative, but that doesn’t mean you should be able to screw the aff’s strategy like that. Have other options.

Important CP Judge Kick Note: I always judge kick if the negative would win the debate on the net benefit alone. However, I will not judge kick to vote on presumption. Going for a CP forfeits the negative's right to presumption.

Disadvantages:

Wonderful. Disadvantages versus case debates are probably my favorite debates (pretty much every 2NR my partner and I had). I love politics disads, however, I can be very persuaded by no backlash/spillover answers on the internal link – in so many situations the internal link just makes NO sense. I think there is such a thing as 100% no link and love thumper strategies. Like elections DA's - not a huge fan of impact scenarios relying on a certain party/candidate doing something once they get in office. Think shorter term impact scenarios are necessary.

Kritiks:

2023 update: For the past several years my work with Mason Debate has primarily focused on research and coaching of our varsity policy teams and novices. I am not keeping up with the K lit as I was a few years ago. Please keep this in mind. Everything below is from a few years ago.

I wrote my thesis on queer rage and my research now focuses on a Derridian/Althusserian analysis of Supreme Court rhetoric - but that does not mean I will automatically get whatever random critical theory you are using. Due to who I coach and what I research for academics, I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, Marxism, any other cultural studies scholarship, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Deleuze. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive kritik debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it structured. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized.

Note for policy v K regarding the "weigh the affirmative or nah" framework question - basically no matter how much debating occurs on this question, unless the affirmative or negative completely drops the oppositions' arguments, I find myself normally deciding that the affirmative gets to weigh their aff but is responsible for defending their rhetoric/epistemology. I think that is a happy middle ground.

Critical Affirmatives:

Nukes note: I think the affirmative should *at least* defend that the US' reliance on nuclear weapons for military policy is bad. Some type of critique in the direction of the resolution. Inserting the word "nuclear" or "weapons" into your aff is not enough of a topic relevant claim imo. In general, I believe affirmatives should defend some universalized praxis/method and that deferral is not a debatable strategy.

Overall Framework update: Procedural fairness IS an impact, but I prefer clash key to education. I find it difficult to vote for impacts that preserve the game when the affirmative is going for an impact turn of how that game operates.

Generic Case Update: I find myself voting neg on presumption often when this is a large portion of the 2nr strategy. I recommend affirmatives take this into account to ensure they are explaining the mechanism of the aff.

I find judging non-black teams reading afro-pessimism affirmatives against black debaters an uncomfortable debate to decide, and my threshold for a ballot commodification style argument low.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized. For example, if you are debating "fem rage" - you should have to defend writ large adoption of that process to give the negative something to debate. It is pretty difficult for a negative to engage in a debate over what is "good for you" without sounding incredibly paternalistic.

Overall Sound:

I am partially deaf in my left ear. It makes it difficult to decipher multiple sounds happening at the same time (i.e. people talking at the same time/music being played loudly in the background when you are speaking). I would recommend reducing the sound level of background music to make sure I can still hear you. Also means you just have to be a smidge louder. I'll let you know if sound level is an issue in the debate, so unless I say something don't let it worry you.

Flowing:

I love flowing. I do my best to transcribe verbatim what you say in your speech so I can quote portions in my RFD. I do NOT flow straight down, I match arguments. I most definitely WILL be grumpy if speeches are disorganized/don't follow order of prior speeches. If you ask me not to flow, the amount I pay attention in the debate probably goes down to 20% and I will have mild anxiety during the round.

Your Decorum:

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent. This includes anything from ad homs like calling your opponent stupid to super aggressive behavior to your opponents or partner. Speaker points are a thing, and I love using them to punish jerks.

My Decorum:

I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree.

<3 Jackie

Tripp Rebrovick

Director of Debate, Harvard University.

BA, Harvard; PhD, Johns Hopkins

Please put harvard.debate(at)gmail.com on the email chain, but see note 1 below.

Updated January 2021:

The first thing to know about me as a judge is that I take overviews in the final rebuttals very seriously. The team that correctly identifies the critical arguments for each side will generally win, even if they have problems elsewhere on the flow or if I have other reservations about the argument. In other words, most of the time, the team that gets my ballot has done a better job of (a) identifying the most important arguments in the debate and (b) persuading me that in evaluating those particular arguments I should believe them. Similarly, I've found that in most of my decisions I end up telling the losing team that they have failed to persuade me of the truth of their most important argument. Occasionally this failure of understanding is due to a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker(s), but more often it is due to a lack of detailed explanation proving a particularly significant argument to be correct.

As a judge, I am usually skeptical of anything you say until you convince me it is correct, but if you do persuade me, I will do the work of thinking through and applying your argument as you direct me. It is usually easy to tell if I am persuaded by what you are saying. If I’m writing and/or nodding, you’ve probably succeeded. If I’m not writing, if I’m giving you a skeptical look, or if I interrupt you to ask a question or pose an argument I think you should answer, it means I’m not yet convinced.

In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others. I am usually hesitant to vote against a team for something they said unless it is willful or malicious.

A few other tidbits:

1. I will not read the speech doc during your speech. The burden is on you to be comprehensible. Part of me is still horrified by this norm of judges following along.

2. If what you have highlighted in a card doesn’t amount to a complete sentence, I will most likely disregard it. Put differently, a word has to be part of a sentence in order to count.

3. CX, just like a speech, ends when the timer goes off. You can’t use prep time to keep asking questions or to keep talking. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to alt use time.

4. Please number your arguments. Seriously. Do it. Especially in the 1NC on case and in the 2AC off case.

5. Pet Peeve Alert. You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact. For example, saying a war with china causes poverty does not mean the DA turns a poverty advantage. It simply means the DA also has a poverty impact. In order to the turn the case, the DA must implicate the solvency mechanism of the affirmative, not simply get to the same terminal impact.

6. [Since this situation is becoming more common...] If the affirmative wins that conditionality is bad, my default will be to reject conditionality and make any/all counterplans unconditional. Pretending that the counterplan(s) were never introduced is illogical (they stay conditional) and solves nothing (the affirmative can't extend turns to the net benefit).

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 19 years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: Since Tabroom stopped making speaker points accessible, I honestly don’t really even know what they mean anymore. I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.7 or 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Answer your own cross-ex questions. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

Updated - Pre-NU - 09.12.23.

On balance, J Philosophies should prob cut to the chase - but I'm gonna violate my own rule this time:

We exist in an era where being unfiltered gets glorified.. where the smartest person in the room is also encouraged to be the loudest.

Every now and again, someone arrives in our small pond - and they have all the characteristics of a great judge. They are quietly brilliant. They are thoughtful. They hold the community's respect for the simplest reason of all: they are undeniably good at what they do. It doesn't need to be broadcasted - it finds itself on display in each oral critique.

I won't be the guy that pretended to know Brian McBride on a deeply personal level. Our interactions were often limited to those panels that finish their task at 2am.

... but I know enough to say this with confidence. I learned a great deal by letting that guy go first in the post-round. He rarely called attention to himself. I am hopeful that our community finds ways to honor his contribution - even if he would've bashfully declined such praise.

I had a great deal of respect for who he was in this community.

Customary biz:

Yes - speech Doc.

Repko.Debate@gmail.com

Side note - I often miss non-speech doc correspondence sent to that address bc I only use it for judging.

** New - Topic Specific - Nuclear weapons, 2023-4

With all the asterisks that often accompany this, I'll say I'm not going to deeply break-down my thoughts on hyper-generics and the kind of K's that tend to get run on every Res. I do have thoughts on these matters - but I am much more apt to be placed in a Policy-Policy round... this is bc clash/K teams have (correctly) concluded that there are many judges in the pool where their win% would be higher.

I have sneaking suspicions that Topicality will arise more in Policy-Policy rds - what follows is designed to be helpful:

- As a general proposition, I am more Aff than most on T - but I do think the Framer's worded things in a manner that gives the Neg something to argue here. Enough will come down to execution that some of what follows could be overread.

- I do not enter into the T Debate presumptively assuming Negs are structurally hosed on *this* Res. This ain't the water or CJR Res - there's at least room to argue that this Res= atypically good for Negs. I often judge on panels where the lone conception of "ground" is Neg. Absolute kudos to the Neg if they can pull of that framing - you should (as ever) run with the premises your opponents concede. But - in an evenly matched debate - I do think there's space for the Aff to push back on the some of the classic Neg ground claims.

- While I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where one side's interp is noticeably imprecise (i.e. old school "substantial" defs about a Court case involving a kitchen measurement), I tend to think most prepared teams read a reasonably precise interp. Once the opponent's interp has exited the theater of the absurd, I am open to threads that argue that we should consider defaulting to other RTP various interps. Better put - if you're trying to win that an inch of precision >>> a mile of balanced ground/limits, I would recommend you have technical execution on your side.. bc I am going to need to read the opponent's interp and chuckle at how non-applicable it is. If your lead on precision is NOT an inch - I am very good for your side.

Deterrence and Assurance are a thing. If/when the Neg blends them together, they create Aff openings where "thumping one" can "thump both".

Revisionism has become the Policy equiv of ontology. The 2N uses the fact that "Russia has revisionist tendencies" to lower the threshold for the link, the impact, the "turns case" thread, etc.... OK - I suppose it's somewhat helpful to the cause - but let's not overdo this. No one would pretend that reading a card that "X nation is revisionist" is - by its lonesome - a link to the NFU Aff... The best K research takes the ontology claim and contextualizes it to the Aff in question. The best disad research takes the revisionism premise and applies it to the NFU Aff. I find no dissonance here - it feels logical (to me) to demand scholarly contextualization from both revisionism claims and ontology claims. And - to be candid - I suspect I have a higher bar for Neg contextualization than most.

*Older stuff starts here - I'd only read through it if you needed more than the basics

I'm somewhat correctly stereotyped as a "good judge to break a new aff in front of". And, certain broad strokes will not change between now and Monday:

- I am bad for some Neg generics that get run in these spots (process CP, many K's)

- I will do enough "reading" in the post-round to at least try and comprehend a novel Aff or Neg arg - and, as these things go, that can open room for a prepared new Aff to win on various appeals to specificity

- I get that Neg's adore the Cap K... but the way this is getting deployed in the modern era is just so far from what I feel is a complete reason to Negate. I could break down my creative Cap K 2.0 blueprint ..or go on some rant - but, unless your Cap K has some very unique twists, I'd say that I am the second worst judge in the pool for your Cap K (behind Katsulas). This is meant to be helpfully honest as you make pref decisions;

- I am one of the better judges in the pool for "the impact turn doesn't link". Let me unpack - as this might read as illogical. Just bc the Aff said "heg" doesn't mean that *the way* the Aff enhances Heg auto-links to your backfile... similarly, just bc the Neg read an impact module that loosely referenced "ag" or "econ" doesn't mean the camp backfile is simply greenlit. Often times the OG impact is about "preventing a future decline in Heg"... or helping a sector of the econ that may solely be a piece in the dedev puzzle. I'll obviously "play ball" if both teams opt to ignore this int link minutiae. But I do sometimes find myself on the bottom of a 4-1 bc I strongly consider analytic threads appealing to whether the impact turns applied in the first place. This is not intended to full-on dissuade. Teams seeking to impact turn should invest some time connecting the "top-level" dots between the opponent's impact claim and their impact turn. Impact turn strat can also wind-up defending a squo that's very messy (transitions, other Aff impacts). Think about more than the narrow impact turn itself - and the broader system being defended.

- I differ from many judges on "disad turns case". I was recently asked to recount an NDT elim I judged a few years back. In it, Aff slams on Adv... Neg slams on Disad... Aff is bad on "disad turns case"... neg is silent on "Aff solves case"... 8 out of 10 judge vote neg here: after all, Neg turns Aff. I regularly vote Aff on "aff solvency claim is every bit as dropped as the neg's claim to turn solvency". There are some exceptions where I would vote Neg - suppose the neg's "turns case" arg is couched as comparative to the 1AC solvency... OR maybe the neg claim simply makes more sense than the OG Aff solvency.. etc... but I tend to not punish the Aff for lacking large re-explanations of (dropped) swaths of their case. Negs would do well to make comparisons that bake-in the particulars of the Aff.

- there is a risk of overcorrection to all of this. I have voted on "PIKs bad" at the NDT - and it was the correct 2AR choice.. I voted on a "meh" human innovation disad earlier this season bc the Neg tailored it so well to the opponent's solvency claims. There have been other decisions that might surprise a third party coach - unless they watched the debate itself. I do understand that debate is a game. All of this advice assumes situations where both sides have the time to evenly execute on a position - but sometimes that hasn't taken place. Capitalize accordingly.

--- Everything below this is older stuff... all of it still applies - but may be more than you need ------

TLDR - general

More apt to be placed in Policy v. Policy rounds. A great deal of the research that I do is on critical/culture theory. And, a lot of outcomes are possible in a world of imbalanced coverage/attention to detail.

That said, I have a poor track record for planless Affs. I have enough "argumentation teacher" in me to give a range of oral critiques. But, I do think K of this Res/Topicality struggles vs. standard (policy) boilerplate responses.

If your pref decisions hinge on post-round academic convos, I will be an engaged critic. But if a big component of your pref decisions are about the grizzled bottom line of winning (which is 1000% understandable, IMO), I think much of the pool has a better track record on behalf of the K.

Seems like there's two sets of Policy judges on this particular Res:

Camp 1.0 - summer pleasure reading was about Bostrom, gray goo bloggers, and meta-physical q's posed by British scholars.

Camp 2.0 - not that.

I'm more in camp 2.0. I have cut policy cards on the topic. I am not dismissive existential risk. I think the Sci Fi impacts are fine - strategic even....

And, I am (quite fairly) accused of letting your ev do some work for you. But there's a wave of oral critique out there that's akin to: "the sub-text of the Aff entropy claim rests on Toby Ord's The Precipice - which is hardly viable without a deeper defense of hypercomputation".

... huh ?..

I can get there - but you'll need to at least start me down that journey.

TLDR - process CP, compete on "should"

Anything is poss in the land of wildly disparate in-rd execution/coverage - but I am quite Aff here

Where are you good for the neg ?

Disad, CP of non-process flavor... the 1AC itself = often pretty silly.

'Rona

For me, I am judging INP for the first time in a minute - mostly bc it would not be great if I brought COVID back to my household.

I am appreciative of the efforts the tournament and the participants are making to reduce the risk of COVID. I mean that quite genuinely

... this simple statement could be over-read or cause students to overreact when I am judging. I understand that sure-fire solutions are rare... and I do not need to 2A to debate outdoors or something. Just a friendly - not judgmental - reminder that I will be on the cautious side of this one.

--wrote this pre '21 NDT - I'll leave it up a bit longer, but it has little to do w. arg preferences ----

This strikes me as an audience where one can make a bold claim... and be granted an opportunity to back it up.

Here goes:

One of the strongest people I know is only 3 yrs old.

... I've watched her figure it out.

When the six yr old points and stares.

When the family switches lanes in swim class.

When they ask why her mask is the kind that ties in the back.

...and I've watched in amazement. Somehow, she channels her exasperation into thoughtfulness. Somehow, these aftermaths are productive.

A few years ago, I heard rumor that a student was thinking of foregoing her final NDT - ending her career after her Junior season. This student had challenged MSU Debate ...in the best ways possible. Judging policy rds as I do, I knew this debater. I decided to drop her a note. I thanked her for the hard work she'd put in.... for the indirect ways in which she'd made our program grow. One never knows what to expect once the send key is hit. I do think she was a little surprised to receive it. But I came to learn it made a small difference... that it landed with the right timing.

Later that season, I wrote a similar note - this time to a non-traditional debater. The same premises held. This student pushed our program and drove us to be more prepared. I extended an overdue "thanks". I imagine they were more than a little surprised to receive it. Judging policy rds as I do, I had even less of an idea how it may land. I was glad to learn it landed well.

The days leading up to the NDT are an especially good time to keep one's head down.

...But when the dust settles... when the inevitable frustrations grow distant... consider crafting a simple note. Consider sending it to a judge... a rival... a teammate.

Above all, consider sending to someone that may not expect it.

In doing so some will accuse you of being weak. Why extend energy to your rivals ?.. Why breathe life into the foe ?

But - in doing so - you will be anything but weak.

You will exit a challenging season... perched atop a most-challenging 12 months... and you will have done something genuine.. something unexpectedly thoughtful.

And - in doing so - you will show strength.

Strength similar to the strongest girl I know.

A girl who is Earless... and Fearless.

A girl named Robin Jane Repko.

#E&F

Thanks - and best of luck to each of you this weekend.

NDT 2021

---------old stuff here-------------------------

True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising.

Topicality:

I'm overwhelmingly Aff on "contrived" interps bad. In general, I think I am more Aff than most on T in policy rounds. If it helps, I did not happen to judge the elim between UGA AR + KU HM on the Exec Authority. Here - by all accounts - the neg did a dazzling job on a T thread that amounted to "you gotta be a big Aff".

I cannot know - but I suspect I would have been an above-average judge for UGA in that spot. It has nothing to do with the debaters - all four were/are magnificent. It's more that I find T interps of that ilk tend to break-down under strict scrutiny.

I don't mention this example out of nowhere. I am writing in 2021 bc I suspect it could be instructive for this yrs college topic. I would not be shocked if I voted Neg on T - hard work has dividends. By this is a game of inches - and this is me being transparent about an inch.

Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season.

-------------- old philosophies start here -------------

I wrote this a few years ago - it still holds:

Often, the K struggles on the alt... and can be a little over-reliant on the checklist for someone (like me) that's a bit of a truth-seeker and post-round ev reader.

To give a concrete example:

Suppose a (policy) Aff said "a Small Modular Rector will *solve* for a nuclear accident". Further suppose that the Neg did not engage this claim in any way.

Then suppose the Neg said "interrogate our relationship to neolib -- as it may *solve* neolib". Suppose the Aff was comparably inattentive to that alt.

I would start the post-round evaluating competing solvency claims. Both teams 100% won their original statement -- but the word *"solves"* in both sentences does not get at questions of magnitude/likelihood. "Solve" was not posited as a 100% affair in either the ev, the tag, or under any standard of logic.

So, yes, both teams "solve", but the degree to which an SMR could prevent an accident is miles ahead of the degree that individual interrogation might solve neolib. I acknowledge that not everyone judges these args in this manner -- in part because they fear being labelled "interventionist". I happen to feel it "intervenes" to impose magnitude onto either team's claim (as stated).

I can imagine a future time where the K more assertively attempts to have Alts that inform policy praxis or generates non-institutional collectives... And if you think your arg is novel in that regard, then I might be a better judge for you... But, the odds are that you've learned to run the K based on the prevalent community norms that have developed over the previous 15 years... Over that time, your predecessors did an exceptionally mediocre job of helping the K inform praxis and be PART (not all) of negating an Affirmative.

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

Rando:

- I rarely think "literature" alone makes a cplan competitive. I consider the two as wholly unrelated and I struggle to grasp this line of thinking. Some are aghast if the two options that are compared by a think tank article are somehow not auto-competitive. This borders on laughable - as there's lit that defends plan-plus cplans....Sometimes I have judged literature that demonstrated that the perm severs - that might be germane.

- I think "judge kick" needs to be flagged early and often - not merely implicitly as part of a conditionality answer in cx - for it to be a presumptively strong arg for the Neg. I consider "conditionality" to be a question of whether multiple strategies can/should be carried through the middle of the debate - and *not* whether the Neg should ultimately be afforded multiple choices at the end of the debate. I will assume that you went for the one damn strategy that you did extend in the 2NR unless you play your "multiple options" card earlier in the debate.

If you have specific questions about how I'd evaluate an item, feel free to ask. I'll strive to respond with candor.

Best,

Will

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

Whitney Young ‘15

University of Kentucky ‘19

Cornell Law '23

Former WY and UK coach; Officially not coaching anymore. This means that I have less topic knowledge than normal and you should not assume I know what your aff is or will know what those acronyms you just threw out stand for. When in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument.

Top Level

Add me to the email chain- Jacindarivas@gmail.com

My name is Jacinda (Juh-sin-duh) so call me that instead of judge.

I will reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

Please be nice. I am not very responsive to raising voices/yelling.

Clash debates

No one ENJOYS clash debates but I end up judging quite a few. I really do believe that affs should have a tie to the topic and should be in the direction of the topic. I am not the judge for an aff that has a couple cards that say a theory and then pretend to say something about the topic. I also believe that debate is an inherently good activity so indicting the entirety of the activity we participate in is not great for me. I think this matters a lot for the way some teams answer framework so be cognizant of this. The only thing that my ballot decides is the winner.

Ks

Links should be causal, specific and about the plan. They NEED to be contextualized to what the aff actually did. I have too often judged debates where a team presents a theory of the world but have not explained what the aff has done to implicate that. Explanation is key. That applies to all Ks cause if you are just spitting jargon at me and the other team, you aren’t gonna have a good time. I am not persuaded by arguments that the aff just doesn’t get fiat.

CPs/DAs

Love them. Obviously better the more specific to the aff they are. I default to judge kick unless expressly informed not to.

There can be zero risk of a DA

Theory

Conditionality is good.

Random Things

You can insert a re-highlighting of a card- you shouldn’t have to waste time re-reading a card if they suck at research

Ethics violations (ex. Clipping, a card being cut in the middle of the paragraph, etc.) should just have the debate staked on it. It is a bad form of education and should be rejected. No point in drawing it out.

Further questions- email me at jacindarivas@gmail.com

I’ve finally been forced to make one of these, my hesitancy in making one is I paid way too much attention to these when I was a debater and they rarely actually predict how someone evaluates debates, your intuition about how someone feels is often more accurate than their self representation.

Believe it or not, I’m open to judging a variety of debates, not just ones that involve the kritik.

Anyways, add me to the email chain: theqnr@gmail.com

I believe that the debate should be guided by the debaters, not the judge. I believe this implicates the way that I judge debates, I am very persuaded by anyone who frames the debate and explains how I should be evaluating the debate, so I would opt in for more judge direction than you might for another judge. Embedded clash is fine, but I think there are limits to this before we get to judge intervention, and I have to feel comfortable feeling like these arguments existed prior to my evaluation.

Speed: make sure I’m flowing at the rate you’re speaking, I will be clear with facial cues if I am not.

Topicality, I feel competing interpretations are easier to evaluate. Do not spread too quickly through the 2ac, it’s important I catch these arguments.

Clash debates, apparently as punishment for my career because I didn’t get enough of these for myself I’ve been summoned to judge all of them. Just kidding, I’m happy to be here and genuinely do not mind a good clash debate. With that being said, I’m very familiar with both sides of the arguments and I feel the issue in a lot of these debates is that people operate from extremely ideological standpoints that I don’t find persuasive.

I think I’m less persuaded by the “we solve your stuff better than you by making you better advocates stuff” and more interested in what your model of debate does outside of solve the affirmatives impacts.

I think that affirmatives should be grounded in the topic. I like when debates are early breaking. Both in terms of how your affirmative interacts with framework and more broadly whatever your critique of topicality is make it clear earlier than later.

Fairness is an impact. With that being said, many iterations of this argument do not make it to the point that it can be voted for as an impact.

Not that persuaded by the idea of rev v rev debates, and similarly am not that persuaded by third and fourth level testing.

I do not think that the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality, it can be helpful but often times find it leaves too much open for the affirmative and is not your responsibility to provide a way to solve the affirmative.

K’s

I’m familiar.

Links are important, you should have some.

Debating the case matters, I could be persuaded that debating the case does not matter but that would require a significant investment in framework.

If you are reading a K that’s a hodge podge of K’s make sure you’re making an argument that’s consistent, I am very open to the argument that incompatibility of kritiks means _____ for the debate.

aff v K: win framework arguments. Don’t just repeat your framework shell from the 2ac, that won’t go very far for me.

DA’s - I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR.

CP’s do your thing, I will say I don’t prefer overly complicated counterplans with terribly under highlighted evidence.

Some people are convinced that it’s completely true politics discs and certain CPs are terrible for debate, I am not in complete solidarity with that.

Love a good case debate

I don’t believe in a politics of respectability, I’m not going to ask you to be respectful to your opponents but what I will ask of you is to engage each other in good faith, what that means is genuinely try to engage with each others arguments and don’t make characters of them with strong ideological claims.

I would like to be on the email chain -- if you don't have my email ask me

I debated at Iowa City West in high school, then 5 years at Iowa.

Don't be overly mean

T --

I default to competing interps

Reasonability is supposed to be applied to interpretations, not the aff

You should go slower on T and Theory than other flows because the relative percentage of the words you're saying that I have to write down is higher

K --

I will default to evaluating the implementation of the plan vs the implementation of the alt -- this isn't to say that you can't convince me otherwise

I probably won't vote neg on your k's impacts if the alt doesn't solve them//you haven't won that your framework obviates the question of solvency (which requires a warrant and doesn't defacto happen once you won framework)

I often find kritiks of extinction framing don't have impacts that outweigh extinction ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

K Affs --

Judging framework debates I'm often more persuaded by internal link analysis based on interps/counterinterps than the impacts themselves in the abstract. That seems like it should be obvious, but contextual analysis about the magnitude of limits explosion based on the affs counterinterp is rarely made, and even more rarely contested by the affirmative. I'm much more persuaded to vote aff if it's made clear to me that there is valuable role for the negative team in their model of debate.

The most kritikal aff I ever read was an Agamben aff on the surveillance topic in high school that defended the rez as a plan text and read a bunch of aff perm cards as solvency advocates lol do with that information what you will

CP --

Advantage counterplans are dope -- solvency advocates for them are cool -- if you dont have a solvency advocate for the counterplan it better very obviously solve the aff

I love PICs, especially ones that compete positionally as per Brett Bricker's Positional Competition: More Than Just a Plan Text, The National Journal of Speech & Debate, Vol. 2, Iss. 1, September 2013

Process CPs are winnable, but aff theory and competition args against them are persuasive

Condo's probably good

DA --

idrk what to say here -- who doesn't love a good DA, if you have a good DA you should read it

dont be afraid to go for DA and case, especially if your DA has in-roads to complicating the affirmatives internal links or impacts and happens on a shorter timeframe

do your thing, and I'll do my best to render a decision based on the arguments the two teams presented in the round ???? (sorry for the lame platitude but it's a requirement for a paradigm)

Put me on your email chain (all of them, even if I'm not judging. I just want to be included): dar298@cornell.edu

Update (2023/2024)
Less involved in debate than previous years and I judge even less. I probably will be confused about certain acronyms and shorthand others might get.

Please do what you do. I will try my best to meet you where you are, and on the grounds you start from. I am, however, not a blank slate.

The longer version of this paradigm was written when I was an over-eager debate coach, and is way too long. Here's the short of it:

- All arguments are Ks and performances and about identity-- yes, even the Japan prolif DA (especially!). Just make good ones.
- I am equally good for T/FW and against it. I believe that FW as traditionally conceived is bad on a truth level, but I think some things implicit to all FW debates (what we talk about and where we devote our energies) are so important that they often contest the core of the aff and thus overshadow this error.
- Being able to critically contest ideas and sort out moral quandaries without prepared research isn't just useful, it's an essential skill that we should actively cultivate in debate. Effective research is also an essential skill and highly prepared debates are extremely fun and informative.
- Please respect your opponents enough to speak with and in their terminology, language and concepts, even if you haven't read their literature. The best answer to most K affs is to simply think on the fly and contest their understanding of the world/problem and their solution.
- I will never vote for anthro good. I will happily vote for criticisms of how animal subjectivity/rights are traditionally conceived. I just will never accept that I am more important than a cow or a chicken.
- I am extremely sympathetic to critiques of non-black people reading afropessimism.
- Be nice. Sometimes being nice to yourself means no longer being nice to your opponents and I respect that. But don't be needlessly cruel.

I would like to repost something from one of my favorite judges when I was a debater, Will Baker. This part of his paradigm resonated deeply with me:

Cherish this moment. Being at a university with the resources to send you across the country to represent them in intellectual combat forwarding whatever arguments you wish against some of the most talented debaters in the world backed by an incredible braintrust of coaches, in front of a critic that you preferred is an immense privilege and a societal rarity. In a world that thrives on hot takes over listening and polarizarion over pragmatism, debaters need to understand your power, hone your craft, and value others. We lose brilliant, debate minds too often. Others globally perish in silence, pain, disasters and darkness. Thank your parents/guardians, your administrators, your coaches, but most of all your OPPONENTS. None of us would be here without others to debate so respect them whether your perfect strat features a Politics DA & a CP or impassioned narratives set to Janelle's dulcet tones.

Update (2022)
Less involved with debate than before, so please keep that in mind. That said, my research does involve animal personhood and I did contribute to the animals K neg section of the topic paper, so I am familiar with the RoN/animal topic.

I am less familiar with the AI topic than the personhood topic, but I am willing to listen and learn.

I've become more dissatisfied with the presumption that debate arguments follow the narrow exceptions to make them justified unless "beaten" (e.g. First Strike an enemy of the US because it could be justified under consequentialist grounds if certain things are met--counterforcing works, war coming now etc., which is supposed to lessen the vileness of that thought experiment). I have trouble distinguishing the universally agreed areas outside these limits (spark, death good, homophobia good, etc.) from things currently accepted that I see as similarly pedagogically harmful (first strike US enemy, US heg good, warming not real). Do whatever you may with that info.

Overview/Long of it

Started as a novice in college and I love novice debate! Don't talk badly of it in my presence.

Started policy debate running xo and politics every round, devolved into reading one off Ks most rounds (mostly anthro and disability [as 2n/1a], sometimes various strains of afropessimism [not as 2n])

Do NOT assume that because I read critical arguments you are better suited to read critical stuff in front of me- do what you do. I love policy research and did a lot of it for various squads over the years so please don't be afraid to go for it in front of me.

I enjoy critical affs, especially if it's something that you have put thought into/challenges how I think of the world. It's some of the best and most educational part of debate.

This does not mean I am opposed to voting on FW or T arguments- it's a large amount of what I debated against so I am well aware of when a team does it well. I think a lot of affs mishandle T/FW and it can be a very strategic choice for the negative - especially when T/FW implicates the aff's knowledge production/method.

I am very line by line and flow centric- I don't think this is at all opposed to "big picture debate" or in-depth argumentation but that's just my style that will be represented in my judging- i dislike implicit "overview" clash that doesn't flag what your argument does or how it functions in relation to their argument.

I would rather not read every card referenced in the debate after it ends- debate is a game about communication and spin can beat evidence if you do it well enough- I don't vote on whether or not your or your coach cut a good card, I vote on the way you articulate the importance and weight of an argument the card makes (or comes close to making).

Skip here if you don't care to read above/Specific arguments:

Case: Debate it more- most cases don't make sense and can be dismantled with analytic arguments/a small amount of cards.

DA: I probably have a higher threshold for internal link explanation to impacts than other people - especially advantage extensions in the speeches like the 1AR- too often the 1ar runs through a scenario without an internal link and it pops back up in the 2ar again magically.

FW: FW is a K, defend your alternative view of the world/debate and the relative disads to the counterinterp/aff and how you capture/mitigate/outweigh/turn their offense. No feeling one way or another, either side can win- debate it.

T: Do your thing, but I'm probably extremely unfamiliar with norms of T/shorthand, etc.

K: Familiar with most lit bases in debate, in particular animal studies, afropessimism, disability etc. Don't assume my familiarity with the K- explain the arguments in depth and their importance as if I had no idea what you were talking about.

CPs: Impact out your solvency deficits or else it's hard for me to compare relative deficits/advantages in solvency

Other things:

Reading afropessimism is all the rage for non-black people in debate but if you are not black I will be very sympathetic to arguments about that from the otherside- - years of seeing in this debate has made me very uncomfortable with this. (Christina Sharpe and Selamawit Terrefe in Rhizomes- "The only people who can be and embrace it are particularly these white, male, young academics who are so excited. They're excited by it. And it's an invigorating theory because it's a purely intellectual enterprise for them. This is something we have to experience and re-experience viscerally when we read Frank and Jared's work. It's a traumatic experience. But it's not a trauma that is being imposed by us— by the theory or by those of us who write and critically engage with the work. It's a trauma that we're reliving because we're never outside of this trauma. So I think Black people's responses, Black academics' responses in particular...it's not a foreclosure the way white or non-Black academics would respond. If it's a negative response it's foreclosing on their own...ethical relationship—")

The one exception to this is I can think of is if you have a partner that is black and wants to read that argument, but I am willing to hear args for and against that. (This does not mean don't discuss race/colonialism/your relation to that if you are white but be critically aware of how you are situated in relation to identity and the dangers involved.)

Please respect people's pronoun choices.

I will never vote for anthro good. If you decide to argue that in front of me, that is your issue.

That twitter account is not me, it's some impersonator.

brubaie at gmail -- Please add to email chains, thank you

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

1. Just do what you do and do it well.I like every "style" of debate and have been lucky to debate, coach, or judge most over these past two decades. Thank you for being stewards of a beautiful game at a pivotal moment in debate history.

2. Above all. The 2NR/2AR should clearly describe what the most important issue(s) in the debate are, why they're the most important issues, and how voting your way best addresses them. Choose, compare, and dig in on a few A+ arguments over a greater volume of A- arguments.

3. Framework. I judge quite a few framework debates and like them. I don't have a strong "lean," but I do notice some slight trends;

-- For the neg, I often find that leaning on fairness/some procedural impact is best. It's the thing the neg's interp most often clearly solves relative to a counter-interp. I think the TVA + aff doesn't solve combo is an effective strategy. I often find that lots of direct pushback vs. case (even without evidence) is necessary and effective. If you don't win some significant defense to the aff it can complicate most paths to victory.

-- For the aff, it helps to clarify a role for each side and to negate/impact turn the neg's interp from there. If you don't have a description of why debating the aff is good and/or how the other team can engage then it can complicate most paths to victory. I am more moved by "here's what the neg could do" than counter-interpreting "resolved."

4. Evidence quality. It's very important, but the key to activating it in my RFD is rebuttal framing. The way evidence is utilized and framed in the final rebuttals is usually the most important variable in how I assess it. The easiest way to hypothesize which evidence I read is a simple if/then: if I hear a clip/quote/even an author name referenced directly in the last speech then I'll 100% read it. Beyond that I'll read for comprehension but that is less likely to drive the outcome of my RFD than direct framing by debaters.

5. Counterplans/theory. Not the worst judge for a funky counterplan. Most common 2AC theory objections seem like competition concerns remedied by kicking the counterplan. I'm not terrible for conditionality bad, but that's almost always because of tech concerns like a flippant block that doesn't answer the 2AC than truth concerns like any real aversion to conditionality (I generally think it's good).

6. Topicality. I haven't really judged a big T throwdown this year. If you prefer someone with no set preferences I'm great, but if you want someone to adhere to consensus I'm afraid I'm unsure what consensus is and will need more explanation than most. Despite my unfamiliarity with many interps, T has generally been an efficient/low-risk/high reward block option in past rounds I've judged.

7. Critiques. The more a K identifies specific parts of the 1AC/2AC that it disagrees with, the better. The aff should attempt to identify which parts of the aff are offense, why only the aff solves them, and why they outweigh. I generally think the aff gets to weigh the aff and most neg framework arguments just seem like impact calculus.

8. National championships!! Congrats again yall :) March 2022 will mark my first tournament judging in person since February 2020. I am thrilled to see you all again and to celebrate all you've done for debate. I know it's the national championship and it's tough to relax, but try as hard as you can to just have fun and enjoy it. Debate goes by way too fast and is very easy to take for granted. Sending all who read this the best of luck and hope you can lift each other up and give each other some really fun, challenging debates to end the season.

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Email chain: zahir.shaikh112@gmail.com

I have read and voted for many different styles of arguments. I appreciate thorough, technical debating, regardless of the content of your argument. Try to understand what issues you're winning, which ones you're behind on, and how that shapes the debate. Explain why winning certain issues frames the debate.

Being confidently wrong isn't a good thing. Debaters who exhibit general lack of awareness of the world or the topic will lose speaker points. I am far more likely to vote for the team that knows what they are talking about.

2014-18, Eagan HS MN

2018-19, Concordia College Debate (RIP)

2019-2021, The University of Minnesota Debate (Graduated with BA in Political Science.)

Qualified NDT years: 2019-2020 (RIPx2)

Pronouns: She/Her

IF YOU ARE VARSITY AND DO NOT TIME YOUR SPEECHES YOU WILL NOT GET ABOVE A 27.5 SPEAKS FROM ME

If you're reading this you're doing a great job already props!

yes, I want to be on the email chain thisiseliseshih@gmail.com

Personal Background

I believe a personal background outside of my debate philosophy is important to understand me in context therefore a short synopsis of my life. I was a former policy debater in a rather local circuit in highschool before joining the University of Minnesota debate team. I've been familiar with more classic policy debates and NatCir style debate. Since graduating I've pursued political work with the Democrats and now with a labor union. Personally, I try not to make my preferences felt in debate and try to remain as impartial as possible.

In terms of personal ideology, I've been described as a tankie take that as you will. I'll still vote for right-wing, policy hack, PRL positions.

I was a political science major that debated for UMN@TC so I am familiar with most aspects of politics IR, political philosophy, American politics, etc. I was a K debater in high school I ran cap K, anarchy, Nietzsche, biopolitics, and I was a little bataillecurious. In college, I ran queer theory, Deleuze, transhumanism(cyborgs), and a bit of ableism. I'm familiar with most K arguments outside of those, but I am not an expert by any means, and don't expect me to know them and get sloppy with your explanations! As of now, I am a coach for a "PRL" school though I loath the term it is useful to orient your understanding of my background.

In short, almost* anything goes

*The one exception to that will not vote for exclusionary/toxic arguments in any way shape or form I'm sorry but we are all human at the end of the day and we should respect each other even if our opinions differ.

CP

In general, I dislike techy counter plans with no solvency advocates since I think they fail the burden of truth, on a base level I think counterplan's should have a solvency advocate even if in the abstract but I won't knock it down just because of that fact.

DA

Does anyone even have controversial opinions on these?

Yes, non-linear DA's exist and the more convoluted the link chain the harder it will be to win the DA is true.

K

you do you I'm sure I will have some idea of what you're saying.

Framework/"T"

After running and seeing a lot of K affs in the college circuit I've revised my stance on them. You will be rewarded for a good framework, but don't expect to win just because you have "more ink" on the flow. Framework requires you to decisively win the entire flow to win the argument. Sloppy work that becomes difficult to flow will make that harder for you. Vomiting prewritten blocks in the neg block won't get you brownie points so make sure to contextualize and actually listen to what your opponents say.

in short, I reward tenacity.

Aff

I can default policymaker/educator/activist whatever you want me to be.

Though, there is some irony in calling me a government agent because I used to work for Congress.

Random thoughts

In general, I will be willing to listen to most arguments. I am not so much an ideologue that I have an opinion on what the "right" way to debate is that's something I think debaters need to decide amongst themselves. I'm just here to watch the round and render a decision.

tech > truth unless the tech is blatantly wrong I.E. if you tell me China is a democracy I'll probably be pretty sus on it. This doesn't mean I don't reward nuance though. I will probably be lenient to good T interps that can split the topic effectively. The most topics seems like word goop, so I will also appreciate clear T interpretations.

I've judged more rounds than what my history shows.

To L/D or PNW people reading this, I am a policy debater and I don't usually judge L/D or PNW so please be aware

local non-circuit POLICY MN tournaments only

improper disclosure or no disclosure will be punished with a 0.2 speaker point penalty

proper disclosure on the other hand will be rewarded 0.2 speaker points

Minigame

because debate should be fun here's a game

properly incorporating any piece of evidence from https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/461 and using it in the round will gain 0.1 speaks from me. This does not mean I will grant the evidence as true or that you will win because you read it. It is a gambit so choose wisely if you decide to do it. (applies to college and HS!)

In-Round Etiquette

people should feel welcome in debate and giving courtesy and decency to the common person is something we should all aspire to do.

Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.

If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.

I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.

I began high school judging in 1973.

I started judging college debate in 1976.

Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.

Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.

You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.

I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.

BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.

People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.

I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.

Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.

For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.

I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.

I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.

2023 Nukes Rewrite

He/Him

Jsmith55@binghamton.edu

Please add me to the chain, I do not usually read along during speeches but I like to able to check things during cx/prep and it makes post-round evidence collection easier. I prefer when teams send analytics (especially for online debates) because I think normalizing the practice makes debate more accessible for people who might struggle to process policy debate speed without forcing people to ask for that accommodation.

Debated at Binghamton for 2.5 years (college novice), coached at Baylor for two, and am now in my 5th year as a coach/gta for the University of Kansas.

Random logistical note:My verbatim does not do well with images, by default I can not see most images when I open a word document. If you're argument has a visual component to it that it is important for me to see remind me so I make sure to open the document in a way that lets me see the image. (I try to do this by default but I do forget sometimes so the reminder is helpful)

I love debate and promise to put my full effort into the rounds I judge.

This philosophy is very long because I would rather over explain and give more insight into how I think of my judging then less. Ultimately, you should do what you do best, everything below is a preference but I do try my hardest to adapt to the debate in front of me.

Broad Debate Thoughts

I think I'm generally in line with most of the community in the sense that I think specific debate is better than generic debate, clarity is really important but undervalued, and most rebuttal speeches could use more comparative impact calculus.

In terms of areas where I might differ a little/require stylistic adaptation, the most important is that I tend to really value/give significant weight to spin and the explanation of arguments. Part of my goal as a judge is to base a decision as much as I can on the words of the debaters in the 2NR/2AR. That means that I'm looking to the story or narrative you are creating and reading your arguments through that lens as opposed to looking at what your cards say. A lot of my decisions in close debates come down to the question of who was more explicit in constructing a story that not only framed why they won arguments substantively but also how they won the debate at a meta level. Story telling in debate is everything for me and I try to reward teams who do that work as opposed to teams hoping that I will construct a ballot or narrative for them.

Functionally, my focus on explanation and spin means that I am not a great judge for 2nr 2ar's that attempt to identify everything each team conceded and ask me to construct a ballot from those concessions. I am better for teams who explicitly identify the ballot they want me to write and then frame the remainder of the speech by explaining how various arguments support that particular ballot. As a side note, generally, I'm of the opinion that the word conceded (or their equivalents) should be used minimally in 2nr/2ars because it ends up serving as a placeholder for comparison and the narrative construction I am discussing. The over use also makes it harder to emphasize the actual important drops that teams may have made as they get lost within the 20 things you claim they never answered.

I tend give a lot of leeway in terms of how teams apply and expand on evidence which means that I think I'm certainly a better judge for the team that reads a couple of good cards and focuses on spin and narrative with those cards that I am for the team that reads a lot of cards but never really tells me what I should do with them. I am also better for teams that are explicit in applying their arguments to different parts of the flow, than I am for teams that hope I will pick the embedded clash out of an overview. If one team is doing the work to explain a piece of evidence and its implication while the other team is implicitly answering the argument in an overview I tend to side with the team doing the more explicit analysis.

None of this is to say that I do not care about evidence quality, especially if you make arguments as to why evidence quality matters in your particular debate but that I think I am more willing then a lot of judges to give credence to analytics and explanation because in my mind that leads to less intervention

This preference means that clarity is really important, I can keep up with fast debate, but the more explanation I get/words I understand the better it will be for you, so try to find a balance. I'm also not the most technical flow, even though I tend to be very tech over truth in how I evaluate rounds, so be aware of giving me time and being clear with transitions and packaging especially.

I have a substantial neg bias in my voting record, I think that this true for several reasons, some of which come down to chance/variance and some meta things about how clash debates play out. However, I do think I tend to be better for the negative because in a lot of debates, I usually find myself feeling like the neg block overwhelms the 1ar and that I am reluctant to give the 2ar much room to spin out of those concessions. I am much better for affirmative teams that are willing to go for less arguments (1/2) and explain how the rest of the debate is implicated by those arguments. However, I often feel like 2ars think they need to match every 2nr argument which makes it difficult to produce a narrative or story for my ballot.

Framework v K affs

My record in these debates has increasingly shifted towards the neg. That is less of an ideological question and more a question of how the meta of these debates has changed. I often think negative teams do a better job (it is also easier for them) of controlling a lot of framing and uniqueness issues that I find important. Affs often struggle against arguments like "debate is a game so that means fairness is the most important impact" or the "affs offense is non-unique because it is a criticism of the content of the resolution but the ci can't solve it" or "debate does not shape subjectivity at all".

At a truth level, I believe that K-affs are good for debate and lead to some of the most important/relevant discussions in our community but I do find myself feeling like K teams might be a bit behind in terms of dealing with those framing arguments.

affs

You need an argument about the purpose of debate and the question of "what we are doing here". Ideally that argument needs to be based in your 1ac and you need to leverage it against the neg claims that debate is just a game or that subject formation does not happen in these spaces. I'm very persuaded by the argument that if the activity is unethical then who cares if it is fair, but I think affs often struggle to have an explanation that actually implicates the activity/form of debate.

I wish aff teams would be more willing to challenge neg teams on questions of debates relation to subject formations. I often think, neg teams get away with an almost nihilistic depiction of debate as absolutely valueless. Aff teams should argue that even if individual rounds do not shape subjectivity, the type of activity we create and norms of research do have an impact on how we think and move throughout the world. I also frequently find myself thinking that the argument current "debate does not shape subjectivity"should be an aff argument not an neg argument because it seems like that is something k affs would say is the problem. Maybe we should attempt to construct a model of debate that does try to shape how we think and educate rather than focusing on being a pure competitive game with no regard for the types of people we produce.

I also wish affs would more push back against the internal link that just because debate is a game it means we should fully maximize fairness, (or even what it means to maximize fairness) There are a lot of great games that do not require fairness in the way debate discusses it. Games are also often more about education and learning then competitive equity but generally we've defaulted to the idea that debate is a game and the thing that matters for games is that they are fair.

I'm a good judge for arguments that draw on the utility of kvk debate and the conversations that are had there. I think fw teams often pretend those debates don't exist or devalue those arguments in ways that could generate significant offense for the affirmative but affs sometimes fail to take advantage of those arguments.

I think overall I'm better competitively for more impact turn styles of answering framework because those have been increasingly the meta and I'm more used to them. However, I do really enjoy teams that articulate alternative relationships to the resolution that are more nuanced then 'res bad/unethical" and discuss in-depth alternative models of debate .

Neg-

When I vote aff, it is frequently because the aff won the case page, which made structural claims as to how debate, contestation language, etc operate and those claims shape how I view the framework page. Thus, for me, you must engage the case, either by isolating fw from it, or with various case defense arguments.

Good fw debating is good case debating, if you are not talking about the aff, on both pages, (ie how fw relates to the affs impacts and structural claims) you are losing the debate. I think the question of how specific the fw is to the aff is what differentiates great fw debaters from good fw debaters.

That is also true for explaining impacts like fairness/clash, If you are able to describe to me how their aff/interpretation specifically makes it impossible to be neg/ruins models of debate and provide examples in round it will always go further than general rants about the necessity of limits. I can go either way on the question of fairness being an impact and it most often comes down to which team is controlling spin on what debate is/what is the goal of our activity. The more the narrative of "debate is a game, fairness matters for games, therefore fairness matters here" is clear to me, the more I am likely to think of fairness as an impact.

I understand the strategic utility of more procedural based arguments and impacts. However, I will say I enjoy fw debates where the neg defends the possibility of what plan based debate can do or why it is educationally valuable, far more then the current trend of making neg claims as small as possible. However, in the end do what you have to do.

Policy aff v K

The fw debate is incredibly important for me.

I do not like the trend of kind of deciding that the fw debate is a wash and constructing some weird compromise outside of what the interpretations/views of the debate actually were.

I think fw interps/arguments should be as explicit as possible in terms of instructing judges as to what you think the implication of winning your frame work is. I often think teams are very unclear on this question and leave it to judges to fill in blanks. I think that is particularly true for aff fw interps that often stop at "weigh the plan" with very little explanation of what that means or how the K prevents weighing the aff/the plan. Similarly you have to tell me how the neg moots the 1ac and not just assert that it occurs.

Neg teams need to recognize that winning framework is not game over, but a way of shaping how the rest of the debate plays out. As such your links and even alternative should be contextualized to the framework interpretation you are going for/winning. If your framework is about research practices, then your links better explicitly explain why the aff research practices are bad. If your framework is about competing political imaginaries your criticism of the aff should use that language.

A lot of my neg decisions start with some variation of "I thought the neg was winning a structuring (often theory of power) claim that shaped how I came down on a lot of the close issues in the debate. A lot of my aff decisions start with I thought the aff won that they should get to weigh the plan and that the aff outweighed links that were relatively non-unique.

Kvk debates

Generally, the team that is able to package their arguments into a clearer narrative/story wins the debate. That goes beyond just being right about the content of the arguments but focusing on explaining how that content converts into a ballot

I'm not great for aff teams that just try to permute everything because I tend to think more structural Ks will always find a link. You are better of challenging the neg's view of the world and defending how your aff approaches politics.

I'm pretty willing to listen to arguments about what competition should look like in kvk debates, i.e. how much of the aff should one have to disagree with to earn a ballot is often a relevant question in a lot of these debates since both teams often agree on a lot of premises. That means I'm also better than a lot of judges for arguments about whether the aff should get a perm.

In terms of K familiarity, I'm very familiar with the ableism literature used in debate. I'm also very comfortable with the cap arguments generally read in debate, though I often think teams deploy them pretty poorly, especially against K teams. I have a working knowledge of the more structural ks in debate though I'm not particularly well-read. I do not feel very confident in my knowledge of the more "high theory" arguments deployed in debate. Those require more explanation and examples with an emphasis on explaining the applicable elements of those criticisms.

Policy v Policy

I don't judge too many of these debates, and I still probably judge more than I should. The biggest thing to think about is my discussion of explanation at the top. In policy v policy debates there is a tendency to forgo that storytelling element of debate in the name of efficiency because it is assumed that judges will somewhat fill in those gaps. That ends up being difficult for me because my lack of experience with these debates makes it hard to fill in the gaps and I just generally don't like doing so. That means the team that focuses more on explicitly instructing me as to how I should understand the debate at the meta-level will do better.

That is especially true for counter plan competition debates and topicality debates because I have virtually no experience in either and can struggle to process what is going on as I attempt to keep up with the block spewing. The more work you can do to make me understand, even if you feel like you are overexplaining the better you will do.

Random side notes

I think I'm a decent judge for arguments that challenge the form of debate (think spades, coloring etc) as long as you are being explicit in explaining why you are doing what you are doing, you have an actual argumentative backing for what you are doing and you are trying to win the round.

I don't really know where I fall on most theory issues because I judge them so rarely, I would say that I'm fairly agnostic on conditionality in general, but I do think there is an increasing prevalence of a style of run and gun argumentation that I really dislike. In my mind, the style of reading like 8 bad arguments, going for the least covered one in the block (or just kicking all of them in the 1nr and talking about t for 9 minutes against k teams) creates shallow antieducational debates. I don't think that practice is intrinsically tied to conditional argumentation but that it does seem to go hand in hand and I could probably be convinced condo is bad because it promotes this model. Read this as you are better off constructing 1ncs with arguments you will actually go for/discuss and not trying to just outspread the aff with random nonsense.

I have an absurdly awful poker face while judging debates. You will see me react to things. I will say that if push comes to shove you should always prioritize your view of an argument/the round over what you perceive my reaction to be, because I might be reacting to something totally different then what you think. Furthermore, I vote for arguments that I dislike all the time and vote against arguments I do like as well, so my reaction might not be tied at all to the competitive element of the debate.

If you are some one who finds facial expressions/reactions distracting and unhelpful feel free to let me know and I will do my best to limit them

There are very few arguments that I will refuse to consider on face, but please do remember if you are the type of team that enjoys the wipeout, spark or death good, genres of argumentation, that debate is ultimately a persuasive activity and the burden of work you will have to do to win/be persuasive for those arguments will likely be higher than normal.

Hello, I'm Jamie Snoddy (pronounced like snotty, but with the [d] sound). I'm a community coach for Patrick Henry HS and also a coach at the University of Minnesota. I did a year of debate at Patrick Henry and debated two years for UMN. I graduated in 2018 with a Bach. in Linguistics (Puns get you extra speaks). Please add me to the email chain with the following email address: snodd003@umn.edu

Overview

Learning is the main focus of debate. I like arguments to be presented in a clear and logical manner (it can even be flawed logic, as long as it's coherent and feasible, I think it's legit.). So, there aren't many things I'm against teams running. TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR PLZ! Impact Calc and Roll of the ballot args are great.

Place a higher precedence on presenting evidence clearly and consistently (so not reading things incoherently fast unless e.v.e.r.y s.i.n.g.l.e t.h.i.n.g. is in your speech doc. Which it shouldn't be. If I'm not looking at you and typing, you're good. If I'm looking at you and leaned back, I'm waiting for flow-able info. If I'm looking at you and nodding I'm listening to good points that I feel have already been flowed.

Full disclosure: I'm a sucker for wipeout/death good args, idc which side it is lbvs. Maybe it's the high school emo in me. Best way to combat these args, to me, is go all into VTL and some change better than no change and, if applicable, the ppl who are getting effed over by sqou violence still don't want to die... then that gets into cruel optimism, yada yare yare.

Case

I'm fine with no plan affs. You just have to reeeeeally be ready to answer FW and T. You need to convince me of why running this aff w/o a plan will not work within the resolution. I'm a former 2A so sympathize with defending your case baby from the big scary neg lolz jk.

CPs

As long as the Neg can keep track of all the CPs they have, have all the cps you want. Just be ready to defend needing all of the cps if the aff chooses to go that route. Condo... is... a thing... I guess. The more cps you have, the high chance I'll believe condo bad args, cuz having that many multiple worlds is sorta abusive. So if you're running 7 or 8 cps, they better be dispo or uncondo, or have really great answers for why having that many condo worlds is necessary...

DAs

Fine and necessary args in policy.

Ks

Great! I love Ks and really love non-basic Ks. I don't like flimsy, vague alts. Even if it is as simple as Reject "x", I need to know what exactly what the world of the alt will look like and why it should be preferred to the aff's.

T

Topicality, to me, is different than theory (I flow them sep) and as long as voters are attached to it, I'll consider the args.

Theory

Is a prior question and needs to be addressed before talking about anything else. If we can't agree on how we talk to each other, then what does anything we say matter? ROB args are persuasive if voters are attached to it.

Speaker Points

Switching between hs and coll. debate sometimes throws me of, but I try to be really generous with them? If you're chill, courteous and not a butt during a round you get higher speaks.

Cutting people off aggressively and being unnecessarily snarky looses you speaks. I get if you're having a bad day or are going through some things that it may get taken out here in our community. If that's the case, just give the people in your round a heads up that you're in a mood.

1. You have to have truth

I am a graduate from the University of Houston!

My degrees are in Political Science and Philosophy, with a focus on Public Health and Bioethics respectively.

I've been debating since 2010 and I've been doing CX since 2012. I really enjoy public speaking as a whole.

Non-debate stuff about me (that debate got me doing): I'm the treasurer for the Houston Tenants Union and also a certified Community Health Worker. So if you need help accessing a tenant's rights/housing organizations near you, or healthcare resources, feel free to reach out via e-mail and I will send what I can :)

You can probably find my rounds/old wiki's if you want.

I want to be on the e-mail chain: JCSpiehler@gmail.com

COVID-19 2021 Digital Debate Update:

- Please make sure everyone gives a thumbs up or something before you start your speech :,) if my audio is broken, I won't respond to "Is anyone not ready". So please don't say "Is anyone NOT ready?" I will deduct .25 of a speaker point off of what I was originally going to give every time I hear you say this.

- I don't think spreading has translated super well to online debate. I don't know exactly what it is, but the sound quality varies from debater to debater and (more often than not) the words become super muddled together and tinny through my microphone. That said, I have nothing against it and I will evaluate arguments about "speed reading" wholistically. But, if I can't hear what you're saying clearly through my average laptop and headphones then I can't flow the arguments you're making. You might just need to read just a little slower than you would in person.

I <3 Debate.

Framework/T: Just because I group these together in my paradigm doesn't mean you get to do it in your debate. There are distinctions between Fw/T. I actually find that these debates can be enjoyable if you use less jargon and more explanation. If the aff does a governmental thing you probably want to be running a variation of T.

DA's: I don't regularly go for DA's but I've (obviously) encountered them often in debate. I remember the first time I really appreciated the 'art of the DisAd' was while watching an outround at Wake. That said, the best thing you can do for me as a judge, is break down the narrative of the DA in relation to the aff. I find it easy to be skeptical of most internal link stories (lazy card cutting?) so make sure you can adequately explain how your politics scenario reasonably leads to your catastrophic impact.

CP's/Pic's: I love tricky Pic's. Counterplans are alright. I think all forms of CP's are a great way to force the aff into defending their methodologies.

Theory: Just because I like Pic's doesn't mean I don't buy that they can be bad. Severance Perms are probably bad. You can pretty much sell me on most theory. But, if it sounds like you're reading backfiles and blocks back and forth to eachother don't expect me to be sufficiently persuaded. If you expect me to vote on theory then treat it like you would any other winning argument.

K aff's: I love a well executed K affs. Anything from a middle of the road affirmatives (also see Policy Affs) to performance. I have voted against these kind of affirmatives on framework (and T) before - so make sure you can defend the pre-fiat implications of the affirmative and why they matter.

Policy Affs: The more detailed the better. Personally, I don't run policy affirmatives - but I do respect people that do. The time and effort put into these arguments really can show. I actually do want to hear about what the world would be like if your plan was passed. You don't have to be hyperbolic about everything.

K's: I love a good kritik. I am persuaded by access arguments made by the affirmative. I've debated/read/seen a lot of the kritikal theory out there. I primarily ran kritiks (if you look at my neg page on the case wiki you can get an idea - although not sure if it's still up now, so feel free to ask).

Speaker Points: I try not to, but I give higher-than-average speaker points. I don't mind sharing CX, but don't answer questions your partner is capable of answering. Wait until your partner defers to you. Don't interject for them. Also, please don't be rude. You are all human. I am a person, you are all people. We all have feelings, we are all here to learn, we all (hopefully) love debate. Friendly competition is good competition.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round starts.

Update for 2021-2022 season: I have not worked on this year's topic, so please be as thorough as you can. I have some familiarity with the resolution based on my law school coursework in antitrust law, including antitrust law in the context of mergers and acquisitions.

My argument experience is still the same in terms of having more experience with policy arguments/plan-based debate, but as mentioned below, this is just a disclaimer about my background, rather than a preference for any type of argument. I will do my best to evaluate your arguments no matter the style, and I am happy to answer questions before the round if there is something specific you'd like to ask about. I've also noticed that I find framing the ballot even more useful for me as someone who has been out of the activity for a little bit, particularly in the final speeches- i.e. explaining what you think you are winning, why it matters, why your evidence is good and theirs is bad, etc.

Background
- Debated for 4 years at Gonzaga University, current law student at Georgetown
- Assistant coach for Gonzaga University

Overview
- My experience is nearly exclusively in policy-based debate. That does not mean that I’m unwilling to listen to other styles of argumentation, it just means that I require an extra level of explanation if that's not your argument style.
- I do not want to reconstruct the debate and arbitrarily make a decision based on whose evidence is better- I think you should do that work in the debate, and I will do my part by working hard to listen and evaluate what you have to say.
- I think it is much more important to be clear than fast. I'm more likely to reward a 4-off strategy than a 9-off strategy.
- I think negative teams get a logical but not contradictory amount of conditional advocacies.

Being Aff
- I'm not persuaded that many things are reasons to reject a team, but I'm perfectly willing to make a cheating counterplan go away if you have a strongly developed theoretical objection
- I am a huge fan of case debate, and am strongly opposed to 2As that fly through case arguments
- The phrase “try or die” is not compelling to me, I prefer engaged impact comparison

Being Neg
Framework
- I am more persuaded by substantive reasons about why progress in the direction of the resolution is possible and desirable than I am by purely theoretical arguments, but a combination of both is worthwhile in establishing a link to your violation
- I'm typically confused about what it means for the aff to be a prerequisite to the resolution. I find offense related to the negative's interpretation far more persuasive than trying to find some balance between defending the resolution and not defending the resolution
- Topical versions of the aff don't have to be perfect to be worthwhile arguments

Topicality
- I think topicality has become a non-starter for many judges as long as the aff is close enough; I don't feel that way and will not be disgruntled listening to a T debate if that's a part of your strategy against a particular aff
- I default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded by a thoroughly explained reasonability argument
- Evidence comparison is important to me; predictability is not the only litmus test for the desirability of a given definition
Counterplans
- I think there should be a solvency advocate that agrees with the counterplan text
- I am willing to evaluate the status quo if the 2NR establishes a judge choice argument- if the 2NR does not make this argument, I think the 2AR ought to make clear that the negative is stuck with the counterplan
- I will reward smart, case specific counterplans more than I will generic agent/process counterplans
- I think the following counterplans are more objectionable than others: consult counterplans, condition counterplans, and anything else that could be characterized as “plan plus.” This doesn't mean I don't want to listen to these counterplans, I was a 2N for my whole debating life so I'm comfortable with whatever you want to do. This is just a disclaimer that I tend to find these theory arguments more persuasive than other judges might.
Disads
- Impact comparison matters very much to me but not at the expense of the rest of the DA- if entire pieces of the DA are missing and I'm confused about something, I'm not likely to fill in the gaps for you
- I'm not a fan of a proliferation of 2AC arguments with no warrant or explanation, but I also think bad DAs deserve plenty of logical indicts and I think that defensive arguments can be enough to beat a bad argument
Kritiks
- Of my limited experience with critical argumentative strategies, I have the most familiarity with gender and critiques of capitalism
- The impact debate should focus on contextualizing your evidence to the aff’s advantages or mechanism
- I will be sympathetic to a conditionality argument if your kritik explicitly contradicts one or more of your other off-case positions
- I am not persuaded by arbitrary or self-serving "role of the ballot" arguments. I would prefer a clear explanation of how to compare your arguments against the affirmatives

I will evaluate the debate that you want to have to the best of my ability. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round or email me: paigespraker@gmail.com.

Matt Stannard

stannard67@gmail.com

Me: he/him, I participated in policy debate for West Jordan High School and Weber State University, I have coached multiple formats at Eastern Utah, Long Beach, Wyoming and Lewis & Clark, and have directed and/or taught at a vast multitude of institutes.

Delivery: I will, shockingly enough, miss your unclear analytics. Speak clearly no matter your rate of delivery. Over-enunciate. Don't leave comprehension to chance; control what I write down.

The (very important) game: all styles and formats of debate are good, policy/critical/procedural all valuable, I am not the state, topics and topic research are good, I vote for all kinds of arguments even when I intellectually disagree with them, debate should be both very accessible and very challenging.

Important needs and assumptions: besides clarity, I have these predispositions: (1) conditionality is fine until the 2NR; you need to explicitly tell me what advocacy you are kicking. (2) I seem to have a greater need than other judges for good solvency cards for affs, counterplans, and K alternatives. Many K alts I hear feel vague to me at the outset. Love voting for movements and don't think fiat is confined to the state, but the threshold is specific advocacy with solvency cards. (3) political and social implications of T and other procedural/framework interps can be reasons to prefer/reject them, weighable against other reasons. They aren't "genocide" per se, but they aren't ideologically neutral; debate it out. (4) aff should provide a clear statement of advocacy, neg should provide a clear reason to reject the aff.

Tech: I judge online a lot, please use the best mic tech you have and don't project your vocals directly into an internal laptop mic. Prep time ends when you say so and then IMMEDIATELY hit send, and in all debate tech scenarios if anything goes wrong don't panic, we'll be fine and figure out what to do.

Ethics: be chill to each other outside of your speeches (in your speeches you should feel free to be ruthless if that's your thing), don't cheat, let's all commit to dismantling classism, racism, sexism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, ageism and ableism, and to listen to those affected by exclusion--not just as debaters making arguments but as responsible and accountable human beings making our world. It's okay that debate is weird and different. Please make it a safe place for everyone.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Many judges will lie to you in an RFD and promise that the round was “close.” I will not, as I don't find most rounds close. I decide most debates quickly, based only on my flow. I find evidence quality irrelevant unless contested, and I disregard “truth” when making a decision.

I also intervene as little as possible. That means I will make a face as you gaslight me, but accept what you say at face value. This holds for arguments that I know as obviously false: if a team drops that an old argument is new and I should reject it, then I do so. This might lead to some absurd outcomes. But the judges that I respect do their best not to intervene.

As a quick aside, I do not share everyone's disdain for topicality, theory, and counterplan competition debates. To be sure, I've judged plenty of tragically bad theory debates. But I struggle to understand the people who contend it's not “real” or “substantive” debate. I find many topicality debates just as exciting as a politics/case debate.

Likewise, though, I find the personhood topic quite exciting. I have cut hundreds of cards because I find the research refreshing.

What I don't find refreshing, however, is arguments of the critical variety. Ideologically, I am just not good for them. I am unfamiliar with most critical literature and have no interest in reading it. So if you do have the (mis)fortune of my name on the pairing, argue as technically as possible. When I vote for a critical team, it is because they debated more technically than their opponents.

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that just leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

WARNINGS:

1. I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
2. I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
3. I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
4. I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
5. If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

• This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
• This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word, unless used intentionally to put down another Black debater to the point of distress in the other Black debater.
• When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
• If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way to hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

LD

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Peninsula ‘17

Dartmouth ‘21

raamtambe@gmail.com

UPDATE: 2022-2023 season 

I am no longer deeply involved with topic research. I most likely won’t know what’s going on (not sure if I ever did). 
Be like el Greco and give me a bigggg picture. 

UPDATE: 2021-2022 season 

Imagine yuppie John Turner and begin.

***Paradigm – updated as of 4/13/20****

General:

1. Please do line by line. If you do not, I will not just “flow straight down.” If your speech does not follow any order, I will consider arguments that are not directly addressed as dropped. If you number your arguments, all the better.

2. I care more than most about the academic validity of your argument. I find that smart analytics can overcome unqualified or generally weak evidence (whether too old, out of context etc.). A general rule of thumb here is “don’t be preposterous.”

For plan/counterplan/disad/case debates:

1. Plan (and counterplan) texts must be specific. The aff does NOT get to "define what their own plan means," the plan text means only what evidence supports it to mean. Similarly, the aff does not get to make arguments regarding what they will defend "for the purpose of disads." If you read a plan that's vague, you do not get to say "no link - we only do x version of the plan," unless of course you read evidence that says the only or overwhelmingly likely way for the plan to occur would be through that mechanism. Negs should take advantage of slippery plans by making solvency arguments, and, in rather egregious circumstances, read a specification theory argument. This does not apply to agent specification unless the agent of the plan seems highly relevant to the topic, such as for example on the executive power topic.

2. Link > Uniqueness.

3. Not a great judge for politics DA/process CP: see #2 in the general section.

4. Theory: I’m hard to sell on international fiat good. I think that is my only atypical theory opinion.

For critiques:

1. I’m a tough sell on any totalizing framework argument: I don’t think I’ll ever vote on “aff doesn’t get a plan,” “alternatives must be counterplans,” or “ROB/ROJ: aff impact only thing that matters,” unless they are dropped.

2. Specificity matters (in most cases). If your 1NC shell and 2NC link blocks don’t vary based on the 1AC, don’t take me. Equally, if you read the same set of 2AC cards against every critique, don’t take me.

For T/neg theory:

1.T v affs with a plan:

a. I’m hard to persuade on “overlimiting” because I find it hard to believe the community would exhaust the possible arguments for a given case. Barring a few circumstances, the aff should go for “arbitrariness” as their primary piece of offense.

b. “Reasonability” does not mean auto-vote aff.

2. Specification arguments/other procedurals:

a. Fine but must be developed and supported by evidence.

b. I will allow either side to make reasonable cross applications to answer shallow theory arguments like a dropped 1 sentence aspec shell.

3. T v planless: Please pay attention to your opponent’s arguments. I often find myself making decisions in these debates simply because one side has dropped a series of arguments made by other. I believe that is because teams tend to go on “autopilot” in these debates. Like #2 in the critiques section, your argumentation should make clear that you recognized your opponent’s arguments and accordingly tailored your explanation.

hello! i started as a novice at gmu where i debated for 5 years. i then went and coached at binghamton for 2 years and then back to mason for 3.

my email is mthomasgmu@gmail.com

for hybrid, I tend to keep my camera on during speeches. If my camera is off please assume I am not there and do not begin. I’m probably not far from my computer but if it’s been a while shoot me an email. '

Do whatever you do best. i was a flex 2n and read both k affs and policy affs, so i am down for just about anything

I am pro-Palestine. It is already worrying enough how little care debaters take when debating about current events when people’s lives, families, and liberation are on the line, but for one where an ethnic cleansing is currently being funded by our tax dollars, I have very little patience for this topic coming up in policy debates in an unethical way. Tread carefully

FW - this is a huge chunk of the db8s i have judged/debated during my now decade long tenure in debate, so i have heard just about it all. i find clash impacts more persuasive than fairness. topic education das are generally not a winner in front of me - the process of debate does not translate well to the real world so i dont believe you when you say debating w/e topic is going to make you a more persuasive advocate or a better congress person. most of us are far too busy between school, debate, work, etc for this to leave the space so lets not pretend like it will. take advantage of the other teams screw ups - if their counter interp is nonsense, take advantage of that. meanwhile, make sure your tva is relevant and can actually engage with the content of the aff. please also always answer the aff - presumption and turns case args are your friends! side note, if the aff gives you disads or impact turns, i far prefer that debate and will be very grumpy if you chose to go for fw instead.

for answering fw - please defend some sort of action that solves some sort of impact. it obvi doesnt have to be capital T Topical, tho preferably it is in the direction or spirit of the revolution. i have voted for affs with no relevance to the topic, but i have a much lower threshold for fw in that world.

t - again i know little to nothing about the topic but i love a good t debate. ive voted on my fair share of bad t args before (shout out to t subs) because aff teams never seem to provide a meaningful limit with their c/i. i need it explained to me exactly what the case list is under either interp, and what ground was lost. i obvi dont really know the aff/neg ground on this topic but i like to think i can follow along.

Counterplans - not the biggest fan of cheaty cps. condo is good up until a point (probably max 3, preferably 2). dont like perf con or condo planks. not a fan of states but i guess y'all dont really have a choice this year.

case debate - big big fan of good impact turn debates. presumption is also a useful argument.

K - it would be cool if your link would be about the aff - i have judged too many clashless debates where the neg just goes on some adjacent historical tangent but never brings it back to the aff. i like alts but they are not necessary - win the framework debate and you're golden. idk why theres a trend to go for a cap k and then spend a ton of time on framework when it is functionally an impact turn debate??

some odds and ends -

im typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot, especially in debates involving a k. im very interested in what the ballots relationship is to voting for whichever side, particularly in issues involving things within and outside my social location. i dont really like being perceived as a judge, but what does my ballot as a white queer woman mean? (aka i find the ballot k persuasive more often than not)

if im in a straight up policy debate, i dont get these too terribly often, so id recommend not making it too big - id prefer depth over breadth.

ive found im a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or cant understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

*Updated November 2023*

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: thurt11@gmail.com

LD NOTE

I've been in debate for fifteen years as a competitor, judge, and coach. In that time, I've almost exclusively done policy debate (I think I've judged <10 LD rounds ever). That's to say, judging LD at the Glenbrooks will be a bit different for me.

I don't think you'll need to dramatically adjust how you debate. In fact, I'd prefer to judge you in your best style/approach/form. Relatedly, I don't think I'm particularly ideological, and I'm like not a bus driver or parent who has been dropped into the judge pool. That said, be aware of my still-developing topic knowledge, norms of LD, and theory. I will do my best to resolve the debate before me. That said, folks should know that I'll likely have many idiosyncracies of someone who has basically always been in policy debate.

PF NOTE

Much of what is said about LD is true here too. Some thoughts on evidence that I stole from Greg Achten:

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

I debated for four years at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Go Packers/Brewers/Bucks! In college, I debated for four years at Michigan State University, earning three first-round bids and a semifinals appearance at the NDT.

Currently, I work on the non-debate side of Michigan State, doing education data analysis, program evaluation, and professional development. On the side, I coach for Georgetown University. I still love debate, but it is no longer my day job. Given that, I'm not a content expert on this topic like some of your other judges might be.

More generally, any given debate can get in-depth quickly, so you should be careful with acronyms/intricacies if you think that your strategy is really innovative or requires a deep understanding of your specific mechanism. Teams sometimes get so deep in the weeds researching their business that they forget to provide a basic explanation for the argument's context/history/background. Instead, they jump into the most advanced part of the topic. If something is creative, that's an issue because it's likely the judge's first time hearing it.

Everyone says it and almost no one means it, but I think that you should debate what you care about/what interests you/what you're good at doing. In other words, put me in the "big-tent" camp. All of the stuff below is too long and shouldn't impact your debating (maybe besides the meta issues section). It really is just my thoughts (vs. a standard), and is only included to offer insight into how I see debate.

META ISSUES/ABBREVIATED PHILOSOPHY/STRIKE CARD ESSENTIAL

1. Assuming equal debating (HUGE assumption), I'm *really* bad for the K on the neg/as planless aff. I find myself constantly struggling with questions in decision-time like: Does the neg ACTUALLY have a link to the plan's MECHANISM or even their SPECIFIC representations? What is the alternative? How does that advocacy change the extremely sweeping and entrenched problems identified in the 1NC/2NC impact evidence? If it's so effective, why doesn't it overcome the links to the plan? If the alt is just about scholarship/ethics/some -ology, how does that compare to material suffering outlined by the 1AC? This year, some of these biases are accentuated by the "disarm" and negative state action planks of the topic. On the affirmative, I think there are many creative ways to critically defend the idea of ending nuclear weapons (especially by the "United States" rather than the "United States federal government"). On the negative, I have hitherto been unimpressed with the Ks of "disarm" (like the ACTUAL "We end the nukes and dismantle them because they risk horrific US first use/nukes are bad" disarm) I've seen.

In the end, when I vote negative for Ks or affirmative for planless affs, it's generally because the losing team dropped a techy ballot like ethics first, serial policy failure, or "we're a PIK." Do you, don't overadapt, and feel confident that I approach every debate with the intention of deciding the question of "who did the better debating?" REGARDLESS of the subject of the debate. Relatedly, know that I'm excited to have the chance to evaluate your arguments (even if it's really late and I'd rather not be judging at all in the abstract) basically no matter what you say. Instead, I would take my above biases as things to keep an eye out for from your opponents/come up with novel responses to/overcover/etc.

2. College debate made me more oriented to tech than truth. In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in the round and executed more effectively. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you.

3. I care about evidence quality - to an extent. Debate is a communicative activity, and I'm not going to re-read broad swaths of evidence to ensure that your opponents read a card on all their claims. To be clear, I do think that part of my role in judging is comparing evidence *when it's contested and through the lens with which it was challenged.* Put concretely, if your 2NR says "all their evidence is trash and doesn't say anything" or is silent on evidence comparison, I'm not gonna be doing you any favors and looking at the speech doc. I'm certainly not going to be reading un-underlined text in 1AC/1NC cards without explicit direction of what I'm looking for. Instead, if you're like "Their no prolif cards are all before Kishida and only talk about means vs. motive," I'm happy to read a pile of cards, looking to assess their quality on those two grounds. If that sounds time-consuming for your final rebuttals, it is. You should create time by condensing the debate down to the core issues/places of evidentiary disagreement.

4. Every round could use more calculus and comparisons. The most obvious example of this thesis is with impact calc, but I think there is a laundry list of other examples like considering relative risk, quality of evidence, and author qualifications. As a format, any of these comparisons should have a reason why your argument is preferable, a reason why that frame is important, and a reason why your opponent’s argument is poor/viewed through a poor lens. In the context of impact calc, this framework means saying that your impact outweighs on timeframe, that timeframe is important, and that while your opponent’s impact might have a large magnitude, I should ignore that frame of decision-making. Engaging your opponents’ arguments on a deeper level and resolving debates is the easiest way to get good points. Beyond that, making a decision is functionally comparing each team’s stance/evidence quality/technical ability on a few nexus questions, so if you’re doing this work for me you will probably like my decision a lot more.

5. I hold debaters to a high standard for making an argument. Any claim should be supported with a warrant, evidence, and impact on my decision. Use early speeches to get ahead on important questions. For instance, I won’t dismiss something like “Perm do Both,” but I think the argument would be bolstered by a reason why the perm is preferable in the 2AC (i.e. how it interacts with the net benefits) instead of saving those arguments for the 1AR/2AR. By the way, you should consider this point my way out in post-rounds where you're like "but I said X...It was right here!" For me, if something is important enough to win/lose a debate, you should spend a significant amount of time there, connect, and make sure your claim is *completely* and *thoughtfully* warranted.

6. All debates have technical mistakes, but not all technical mistakes are equal or irreversible. Given those assumptions, the best rebuttals recognize flaws and make “even if” statements/explain why losing an argument does not mean they lose the debate. I think debaters fold too often on mistakes. Just because you dropped a theory argument doesn’t mean you cannot cross-apply an argument from another theory argument, politics, or T to win.

7. I'm a bad judge for yes/no arguments like "presumption," "links to the net benefit absolutely," or "zero risk of X." I think the best debaters work in the grey areas.

8. Things people don't do enough:

a) Start with the title for their 1NC off case positions (i.e. first off states)

b) Give links labels (i.e. our "docket crowdout link" or "our bipart link")

c) Explain what their plan actually does - For instance (in college), what nuclear forces do you disarm? Who does it? What is the mechanism? I've decided that if the aff is vague to an egregious extent, I'll be super easy on the negative with DA links and CP competition. Aff vagueness is also a link to circumvention and explains why fiat doesn't solve definitional non-compliance. I will say, I'd rather lacking aff clarity (e.g. when aff's include resolutional language in their plan and say "plan text in a vacuum") be resolved by PICs/topic DAs than by T. I don't think that the negative gets to fully define the plan or have some weird positional competition vision for T even if I think 2As frequently dance around what they do. Punish affs for ambiguity and lazy plan writing for the purposes of T on substance!

d) Call out new arguments - I don't have sympathy if you *wish* you said no impact in the 2AC. There are times that I wish it existed, but there isn't and can't be a 3AC. I will say that for mostly pragmatic reasons, I'm not to the point of reviewing every new 1AR argument. I'll protect the 2NR for the 2AR, but you have to do the work before that.

9. Random (likely to change) topic thoughts:

a) Both sides are likely to get to some risk of Russia and/or China nuke war. The best 2Ns/2As will dehomogenize these impacts based on scenarios for escalation and their internal links.

b) Be careful your UQ CP doesn't overwhelm the link to your DA. Sometimes the neg goes a bit too far. I do love a good UQ CP though!

c) This is a rare topic where I'm less interested in process stuff! Who would've thought?

d) Debated equally, I'm 60/40 that we should include NFU subsets and "disarm" actions that fall short of "elimination/abolition." I get the evidence is good. I'd just abstractly rather have these arguments as affs than PICs/would prefer a bit more than the smallest topic since single payer.

GENERIC DISPOSITIONS

Planless affirmatives – The affirmative would ideally have a plan that defends action by the United States (least important). The affirmative should have a direct tie to the topic. In the context of the college resolution, this means you would have a defense of decreasing nukes/their role (pretty important). The affirmative MUST defend the implementation of said "plan" - whatever it is (MOST important). While I will NOT immediately vote negative on T or “Framework” as a procedural issue, if you don’t defend instrumental implementation of a topical plan *rooted in the resolutional question*, you will be in a tough spot. I’m especially good for T/Framework if the affirmative dodges case turns and debates over the question if nukes are good or bad. In particular, I am persuaded by arguments about why these affirmatives are unpredictable, under-limit the topic, and create a bad heuristic for problem-solving. Short version is that you can do you and there is always a chance I’ll vote for you, but I’m probably not an ordinal one for teams that don’t want to engage the resolutional question.

I do want to say that at tournaments with relaxed prefs, I will do my absolute best to keep an open mind about these assumptions. That shouldn't be read as "Thur says he's open to our planless aff - let's move him up to push down 'policy' people." It should be read as if I come up at one of these tournaments, you might as well do what you're most comfortable with/what you've practiced the most instead of over-adapting.

Critiques—Honestly, just read the first point in the "meta issues" section. I understand neolib/deterrence/security pretty well because they were a big part of my major. If you want to push against my confusion on the K (as a concept), you need to have specific links to the plan’s actions, authors, or representations. Again, trying to be honest, if you're itching to say Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, death good, etc., I'm not your guy. On framework, the affirmative will almost surely be able to weigh their 1AC (unless they totally airball), and I'm pretty hesitant to place reps/scholarship/epistemology before material reality. One other thing - substitute out buzzwords and tags for explanation. Merely saying "libidinal economy" or "structural antagonism" without some evidence and explanation isn't a win condition.

In terms of being affirmative against these arguments, I think that too often teams lose sight of the easy ballots and/or tricks. The 1AR and 2AR need to “un-checklist” those arguments. In terms of disproving the critique, I think I’m pretty good for alternative fails/case outweighs or the permutation with a defense of pragmatism or reformism. Of those 2 - I'm best for "your alt does nothing...we have an aff..."

Case- I’m a huge fan. With that, I think that it’s very helpful for the neg (obviously?). I believe that no matter what argument you plan to go for, (excluding T/theory) case should be in some part of the 2nr. In the context of the critique, you can use case arguments to prove that the threats of the 1AC are flawed or constructed, that there are alternative causes to the affirmative that only the alternative solves, or that the impacts of the affirmative are miniscule and the K outweighs. For CPs, even if you lose a solvency deficit, you can still win because the net benefit outweighs the defended affirmative. Going for case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in.

CP- My favorite ones are specific to the 1AC with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. I had a big section written up on theory, and I decided it's too round-dependent to list out. I still think that more than 2 conditional positions is SUPER risky, functional > textual competition, competition is dictated by mandates and not outcomes (i.e. CPs that are designed to spur follow-on are very strategic), judge kick is good, consult/condition/delay/threaten generally suck, and interpretations matter A LOT.

Topicality- People have started flagging violations based on things not in the plan (solvency lines, advocate considerations, aff tags, 2ac arguments, etc.). This is a bad way to understand T debates. The affirmative defines the plan, positional competition is bad, plan text in a vacuum makes sense, and the way to beat teams that include resolutional language in the plan is on PICs not T.

I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced that Competing Interpretations is a decent model. The negative does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely as opposed to just theoretical. That is, I'll be less persuaded by a 25-item case list than a really good explanation of a few devastating new affirmatives they allow. If I were to pick only one standard to go for, it would be predictable limits. They shape all pre-round research that guides in-round clash and ensure that debates are dialogues instead of monologues. Finally, as a framing point, I generally think bigger topics = better.

SPEAKER POINTS

They're totally broken...

I'll try to follow the below scale based on where points have been somewhat recently.

29.4 to 29.7 – Speaker Award - 1 to 10

29.2 to 29.3 – Speaker Award - 11 to 25

28.9 to 29.1 – Should break/Have a chance

28.4 to 28.8 – Outside chance at breaking to .500

28 to 28.3 – Not breaking, sub-.500

27 to 27.9 – Keep working

Below 26 – Something said/done warranting a post-round conversation with coaches

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. Negs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Affs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

I do a lot of work during tournaments and will be tired on their last few days. I have found that this makes it harder for me to focus. To counteract this, I have gone back to flowing on paper, which I have found helps me process the debate as it is happening. You will benefit if you make my paper flowing life easier (give me time to flip the page, warn me if you're going to make an abnormally large number of arguments about part of the flow, tell me to make an overview or framework page if I need one, etc.).

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would decide every question in the debate. However, shrinking decision times make this impractical. Minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them through debating.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty neg on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the aff are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the aff, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches. "Should =/= immediate" plus a cr

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless Affs

Good for specific Ks on the neg, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K affs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA then yes, you need framework and you need an alternative. Whatever issue your framework says should determine the round should be what your link, impact, and alt are about.

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessively demanding curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

Ethics and Conduct

If the tabroom tells me to do something, it is not up for debate. I will do that thing. The rest is what I will do if left to my own devices.

Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Alternative remedies short of an automatic loss could be more responsive or proportional to the harm: scratching the argument AND evidence, scratching only the evidence and treating the argument as if it is made analytically, assuming an author is absolutely unqualified, requiring the team to produce the full text of articles in question, requiring the violating team to establish a paper trail authenticating other important evidence and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, requiring a team to produce the full text of every article in the debate and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, reducing speaker points, informing the team's coaches after the fact. They MAY be a reason to reject the team, but I will not treat them as such by default.

Clipping - claiming you read words from evidence that you did not read - is different, and a voting issue. It is a form of dishonesty that irreparably distorts teams' speech times, which affects every other issue in the debate, and which opponents are uniquely poorly positioned to police. If you are inexperienced or appear to have clipped by mistake, I will be lenient. Otherwise, it is non-negotiable.

Thoughts on stopping the debate early:

1. This is an exceptional measure to be avoided if possible.

2. Once the debate stops because of an ethics challenge, my first step is to consult the tabroom and do whatever they say.

3. Unless expressly instructed otherwise by the tabroom, the debate will not resume once stopped. The winner and loser will be determined solely by the ethics challenge.

4. An accusing team can stop the debate at any time except during a speech or a cross-ex. They win if they are correct, present compelling evidence that they are correct, and I agree that the conduct justifies a penalty loss. The winner will receive 28.5 and 28.6. Losers who have personally committed an ethics violation receive the lowest points allowed. Losers who have not personally committed an ethics violation - either due to an unsuccessful accusation, or because the partner committed the violation - receive a 27 and 27.1.

5. During the dispute, both teams must engage in good faith. The accusing team must submit evidence of their accusation as soon as possible. I will not consider evidence submitted within 20 minutes of decision time. Any filibustering or other unreasonable behavior by the accusing team will result in a win for the accused.

6. An accused team can stop the debate, even if the accusing team does not wish to do so, if the accusation concerns the fundamental academic integrity of the accused. This is a very high bar.

7. An accusing team may ask me if I believe certain conduct justifies a penalty loss without stopping the debate. I will take judge prep to answer. This answer is not an invitation to negotiate and obviously doesn't bind the tabroom.

8. I will proactively end the debate for clipping. I will not do this for other evidence ethics or academic integrity issues.

9. Basically none of this applies to novice or JV, where I will resolve the dispute as quickly and narrowly as possible with the aim of maximizing the number of speeches that can happen.

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

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question).  To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge.  I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful. 

DAs- I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms.  It tends to be easier to get me to consider direction/quality of link & internal link over uniqueness.   Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give analytic and defensive arguments more weight than many judges. 

CPs--I've rarely voted against CPs for theory reasons. This probably has more to do with what affs are willing to do/commit time to more than it demonstrates any real appeal of certainty-based competition arguments. 

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being obnoxious in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags. Historical examples help a lot for either side.
 
Theory—I tend to dislike theory debates focused on narrow comparison of interpretations.  For the most part, people would be better off discussing the logical implications of a practice rather than a potentially arbitrary implementation of that practice (i.e. conditionality rather than "neg gets 1 CP and 1K").   I am biased in favor of conditionality, though not that strongly.  To me, "status quo is always a logical option" or other logic-oriented defenses of conditionality require a judge to evaluate the plan versus the status quo even if the negative goes for their CP.  I say this for clarifying purposes -- this has very rarely changed the outcome of a debate that I have judged.  I often judge debates that do not presume conventional plan-focused models for debate yet still contain theory arguments that presume a plan-focused terminology and its resulting constraints.  I point this out only to suggest that I think debaters should devote some time to thinking about the consequences of strucutral changes in the form of debate that they advocate for the smaller theoretical practices that occur within those debates. 

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

I prefer cross-ex strategies premised on listening to an opponent's answer and using it in a subsequent speech, not posturing/arguing as though c/x were another speech.

I'm a bit of grump, especially when it comes to my consistent facial expressions in debates.  It's not often that is about you,  the debaters.  I often talk a great deal after debates. 

I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is lower than our current average.  I've tried to get more in line with current norms so as not to punish people for speaker point inflation.  That said, for high points (28.5+) I still need to be impressed. 

I'm a graduate student and coach at the University of Pittsburgh studying Communication and Rhetoric. My research focuses on reactionary digital subcultures. I debated at Wake Forest (2015-2019, 1x NDT octofinalist, 1x CEDA octofinalist) and at Princess Anne High School in Virginia (2011-2015). 9 times out of 10, I was a 2N/1A reading non-traditional affs and going for the K, and I liked to read Marxism, cybernetics, psychoanalysis, Virilio, among others. My experience as a debater and coach is 99% in the policy format.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Ask me for my email before the round.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. Do not run from an argument. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

I enjoy judging any and all debates across the purported ideological spectrum, but traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in these debates and adjust accordingly, preferably by emphasizing depth over breadth. On the opposite side of the coin, K teams (and especially Marxist teams) who take me and expect an instant win will likely be disappointed by the outcome.

Written paradigms can only describe how a judge aspires to evaluate debates, not necessarily how they will actually evaluate your debate.

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. The technical play of the game determines the parameters of "truth" through which I evaluate the debate, but I hold myself to the same standards of basic pedagogical responsibility that I would hold in the classroom.

A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant, and evidence. Absent a clear extension of all three parts, I will not feel comfortable voting on the argument in question. Furthermore, arguments are not reducible to the evidence used to substantiate them. My evaluation of carded evidence starts from the analysis of the evidence given to me by the debaters, not my own reading of the cards.

I think that affirmatives should present and defend an inherent advocacy that solves a significant harm. I also think that affirmatives should be topical, but this does not necessarily require a defense of instrumental fiat. A 2NR that demonstrates that the affirmative has not met these burdens is likely to get my ballot. In other words: I am not the judge for five McGowan cards with a topic link.

You should be explicit about the model of competition that you are employing, especially (though not exclusively) if you know that your opponent assumes a different model. Framework arguments are useful for signaling me to give weight to your strongest arguments over your weakest ones. Please do not collapse the complicated and necessary debate about these burdens to an un-nuanced "role of the ballot" or "role of the judge."

Impacts are always relative. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts. This includes procedural fairness - even though I personally do not consider fairness to be essential to the function of the game. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I usually vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact unless someone has won that I should evaluate impacts using a different frame of reference.

Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic.

You should always debate the case. Having a K link on another flow or - dear God - putting the whole 1 off K onto the case flow does not count as debating the case.

I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who effectively balance mirth and rigor, respect and irreverence, and abstractness and concreteness. Also, being good at debate helps: I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals.

High threshold for: RVIs, "perm you do you," infinite condo, asking for perfect speaks

Low threshold for: judge kick, fiat theory of all shapes and sizes, no plan no perm

Pet peeves: tautological framework interpretations (e.g. "Topical affirmatives defend the resolution."), bad capitalism kritiks, choosing to debate online in order to maximize competitive advantage

But will this judge vote for Death Good? Yes, they will.

I'm fine with being postrounded. The debate that just happened may be static, but the ideas are not. You're allowed to be angry if I'm allowed to be cheeky - deal?

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a grad student and coach at KU and Barstow.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time. I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan.  The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense.  Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.

I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world.  I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies.  Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.

I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it.  It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really.  It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.    

I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.  

I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.

The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor. 

Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached.  Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here.  Have fun.

UC Berkeley 2021 (go bears)

College - caldebatechain@gmail.com, debatedocs

High School - ktwimsatt at gmail

- Tech over truth. Only exception is death good arguments/spark. Do not read them; I will not vote on them.

- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

Have fun!

I'm the assistant director of forensics at the University of Rochester. I'm also a history grad student. I think more debaters should be historians.

There will very likely be a pigeon judging with me. You are free to bring seeds to give to him if they're not covered in sugar or salt. No speaker points or anything, my birds don't get paid to judge debates.

Any and all styles are great since I love it when folks that come out swinging strong for their positions. When y'all can actually be RESOLVED, that's that kind of debate speech I love to see.

A few loose thoughts:

- I don't like it when people ask for high speaker points. If you want a 30, give me a speech that makes me think you're better at debate than Gabby Knight or Kaine Cherry. I'm going to ignore any requests for high speaker points, even if your opponent tells me to follow your instructions. My immediate thought when someone makes this an argument is めんどくさい

- There's a trend of teams not sending out taglines/plan texts on email chains/docs, don't do that. While I still have an aversion to paperless debate, if we're going to be debate cyborgs, be open with what your evidence/positions are so your opponents can engage in good faith.

-I do my best to keep a tight flow, but that said, please slowdown for interps/counter-interps/plan texts, especially if you're not emailing those out and you expect me to say something about that debate.

- I tend to think conditionality is good, since I think Affs should be able to beat the squo or a counterplan/alternative but I have voted on condo bad in the past.

- I'm generally not persuaded by new affs bad theory. Not saying I won't vote on it, but I'm not a fan.

For LD:

In the off chance I'm in the LD pool, I did conservative value-criteria debate during my time in high school and I'd be lying if I said I liked it. That said, I heard rumors of circuit LD and how y'all seem to have a low threshold for theory arguments and that sounds appalling. I like substantive arguments. I like kritik arguments.

Read that as you wish.

Policy > LD.

Also, I strongly suggest y'all check out Keiko Takemiya's To Terra. It's really good.

Name: Jefferey Yan
Affiliations: Stuyvesant High School ’15
Binghamton University '19
Currently working as an assistant coach w/ GMU for 2021-22

Please put me on the chain: jeffereyyan@gmail.com

I debated for 8 years, in HS for Stuyvesant and in college at Binghamton. I read a plan for a majority of my time in HS, and various K arguments on the neg. In college, I read an affirmative about Asian-Americans every year with a variety of flavors and a few about disability. On the neg, we primarily went for K arguments with themes of biopower, capitalism, and resiliency.

Form preferences:

I think line by line is an effective way to both record and evaluate clash that happens in debate. I like to judge debates that are heavily invested in line-by-line refutation because I think it requires the least amount of intervention and the largest amount of me pointing to what you said.

That being said, I think rebuttals require less line-by-line and more framing arguments. The biggest problem for me when evaluating debates is there is often little explanation of how I should treat the rest of debate if you win x argument. In other words, you need to impact your arguments not just on the line by line, but also in the broader context of the debate. The ability to do both in a round is primarily what modulates the speaking points I give.

Argumentative familiarity/thoughts:

Framework/T-USFG: I like to think of framework as an all-or-nothing strategy that can either be utilized effectively and persuasively, or poorly and as an excuse to avoid engagement. My ideal block on FW is where you spend time articulating specific abuse and why it implicates your ability to debate with examples. I think specificity is what makes the difference between framework as a strategy for engagement versus framework as a strategy for ignoring the aff. I think a lot of the delineation here is most apparent in the 2NR and whether or not the neg explicitly acknowledges/goes to the case page.

Generally speaking, I think ties to the topic are good. I think topical versions of the aff are something people need to be going for in the 2NR and are lowkey kind of broken given the time tradeoff vs amount of defense generated ratio. I am unpersuaded by fairness as an intrinsic good or impact in itself, and relying heavily on it in the 2nr is not a great spot to be in. For example, I am relatively easily persuaded by the argument that if a current form of the game produces bad outcomes, then whether it’s fair or not is ultimately a secondary to concern when compared to re-thinking the content of the game itself. I think arguments regarding the quality of clash are the most persuasive to me as they can implicate both fairness and education impact arguments fairly intuitively.

I default to competing interps, but I think that aff teams tend to read awful C/Is without realizing it, mostly because they fail to really think through what their counter-model of debate looks like. I think a strong counter-interp really sets aff FW strategies apart, because being able to access the neg’s offense does a lot for you in terms of explaining the specificity of your own impact turns.

T: Like I said, I have very little topic specific knowledge and am a bit out of the loop in regards to the meta. This means I’m probably more willing to vote on a stupid T argument than other judges. This could be good or bad for you.

DA: I like stories. DAs are opportunities to tell good stories. Not much else to say about this.

CP: I wish people slowed down when reading CP texts because it makes it so god damn hard to flow them. I think judge-kick is stupid. If the debate becomes theoretical, please adhere to some kind of line-by-line format.

K: I am most familiar with structural kritiks. Link specificity makes life good. I think framework is incredibly important for both sides to win to win the debate. I think the neg should defend an alternative most of the time. I think the neg should generally pick and choose one or two specific link arguments in the 2NR.

K but on the aff: These debates are largely framework debates, and the winner of that debate gets to decide what happens with the judge and the ballot. I think it’s important to make clear what the aff advocates early on, because often times these affs have too many moving parts, which gets you into trouble vs link debates/presumption arguments. I think ties to the topic are generally good. I usually really like judging these types of affs.