Jeramy Acker

After reading paradigms over the years, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it's an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counter plan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counter plans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Debate how you choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

I am a coach and a traditional type of judge.

Generally, while I don't mind a debater talking fast, I loathe spreading or spewing. I do not think there is any skill in just talking fast. If i cannot keep with your arguments in my flow, you risk losing the round.

In LD, because it is a value debate, I tend to focus on Value and value criterion in judging rounds. Your contentions should be connected to your value and criterion. I don't see a problem with counter-plans but they should be presented in the context to prove your value and value criterion.

In PF the winning team will have a well researched, well organized case. A strong framework is important, and the team that can show, through their evidence and their arguments, impacts will likely win.

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

I graduated last year, but before then I had competed in debate for 7 years. I'm not going to be the person to list all my awards and accomplishments, but I am well-experienced across a variety of events. My primary events were Policy, Informative Speaking, and Congress

Policy: Despite my experience in policy, I try to remain unbiased. I would say I tend to prefer a more traditional debate argument, that being said I will vote for a K-argument if it is done properly and backed by logic.

• speed: I am fine with spreading, but I will be listening, and if I can't understand what your saying I will not consider it, even if it's on the provided document, it must be spoken and understood, overall quality over quantity when it comes to speaking
• stock issues are very important to me in my consideration

The number one thing I look for is that both teams are respectful, policy debate can get heated, but directly attacking your opponent is never appropriate. (this goes for passive-aggressive remarks too)

email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com

Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.

Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.

I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.

Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.

Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.

The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.

Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.

Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!

Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!

Do not speak too quickly as it does not allow me to fully grasp what you are saying. I understand that sometimes a lot of information needs to be shared, but not at the expense of understanding for those listening.

Pretend that I know nothing (but I do, I have a lot of judging experience) about your topic, which sometimes may be true, and explain what you think I may not know for clarity (i.e. abbreviations, acronyms, jargon, etc). Then convince me why your side should win.

I was an LD debater for three years in High School. I ran a generally traditional style of debate, but don't have any major biases against against progressive debate with an absolutely clear link to the topic.

I will vote on T and Theory, K's are less attractive but I will vote on it if the argument is clearly linked and well explained. I honestly have a hard time buying non-Topical Narratives, so it's not your best strategy to use, but you can try it if you want. THE LINK IS PARAMOUNT.

I love solid topical debates!

Voting issues are key. Tell me what to vote on. If you leave me a mess to judge you may not like how I choose to vote. Make it easy for me to give you the win.

Spreading is okay, but if I need to read what you are saying to understand it you are going too fast. I will judge only based what I hear and understand in the round. I will say clear.

I keep a flow. Dropped Args are huge. EXTEND THEM! Show me their impact.

I will weigh the round based off of the weighing mechanism presented in the round, V and VC are default if nothing else is presented.

If you have any questions I am happy to answer them before the round. As well as give appropriate feed back after the round. Debate is the best! Let's try to laugh, be respectful, and learn together.

Hi, most likely I'm your judge for your next round, so here's what you need to know. Please feel free to ask any questions. I know this is way too long, so if you didn't have time to read it before the round just let me know and I'll give you the gist of what's in here.

My Background: I am a graduated high school policy debater. I loved running aff plans that have very clear solvency, fit clearly in to the topic, and thoroughly accomplished a narrow goal. I like pinna coladas and getting caught in the rain. I prefer plans that don't try to save the whole world at once through vague means. This is policy debate, so I love talking about the law itself, it's durability and viability. I loved running clever counter plans and kritiks. If your argument is strong and you're good at telling it, I'll read just about anything.

Side note, I love the Phineas and Ferb and the avatar. Reference either of those shows in a cool way, and I'll give you an extra speaker point. If you work in a quality secret tunnel analogy, it'd be the highlight of my life and I might not be able to fairly judge the round. I'm kidding I think...

My pet peeves:

1. Talking past each other. I want to hear you respond directly to your opponent. Don't just tell me they're wrong, tell me why.

2. Not citing evidence. Please tell me where you are in your plan, and what card you're reading from.

3. Dishonesty. I know when you drop a point in the debate it's tempting to claim you brought it up when you didn't. I'm taking notes, so I know what you said and I'm not dumb. Please don't purposely miss quote evidence, or do anything that would be in bad faith.

4. Yelling, demonization, and emotional appeal. Keep the round polite. I don't have a problem with an assertive tone in cross, but when calling another team out on topicality, evidence, ad hominin, or any other violations, please maintain a fairly even tone. I'll just get annoyed I feel like you're taking it too far, or being whiny.

5. Yes you can time your self, yes I'm ready, yes you can start.

How I vote:

I will only consider evidence and arguments made in the round. I will vote down some abusive strategies, but only if abuse is egregious, or if it is brought up in the round. Don't bring up new args in the 2AR unless you want to piss me off. (am I allowed to say piss in a paradigm?)

You can bring in new evidence untill the last 2 speeches. New arguments are allowed untill the 1AR.

I don't find sandbagging arguments convincing, but you're welcome to try.

Aff: In order to win, you need to defend your stock issues. I don't care if you name all of them, or if your plan is traditional or progressive. Additionally you need to prove the comparative advantage of the aff world to the neg world. Obviously perm neg counterplans if they're not mutually exclusive. If you can prove that you're topical, and that your world is better than the neg world, than you'll win.

Unless you want to run an Aff Kritik, then I'm all ears, cause everything is debatable

Neg: First of all, I'm not going to vote down the Aff on topicality, unless they fail to defend it, or they've really got some kind of wacky squirrely plan. If you're arguing about legal definitions vs dictionary, or you're trying to say your definition of a word is better, I seriously doubt your argument is going to be strong, but by all means bring it up. Death by a thousand cuts is one of the best negative tools. As the negative you have a lot of freedom. Run whatever you want. Entertain me. I love a good counterplan. I love a good kritik. If you lose the perm arguement you will probably win the round. Prove that the aff plan won't work, that it has dire unintended consequences, or that it triggers your kritik. Be carful you don't fall into your own kritik or disad.

Both teams:

Spreading is great if you're using it to make more arguments. Just make sure its clear, and ask the other team if they're ok with spreading. If you didn't ask, then I'm going to have to be open to any procedural arguments they run against you. If you're going to run a spreading violation, then please tell them to slow down first.

Evidence is extremely important. I want to hear arguments on who's evidence is more credible and why. I also want you to understand what your evidence is saying and why. I will accept arguements based on common sense. I don't think you need a card to say the sky is blue. Your evidence is important, but you should be able to understand and explain why it is correct. Your evidence should be properly cited in mla format, but I'm not going to vote another team down on evidence violations. I might not consider the card if it isn't properly cited, depending on the arguments in round.

Disadvantages: I'm not easily persuaded by nuclear war, climate change/extinction impacts. I think it is too easy to argue that they are either inherently unlikely or inevitable. I also don't think its very good for a policymaking type experience. I'll absolutely listen to and weigh these impacts. Just know I'm not going to like it.

Counter Plans: Are cool and quite fun. If you run one, make sure you've thought it through. It should probably be mutually exclusive if you want it to go very far. Topical counterplans, or pic plans do probably steal aff ground, but I think this can be argued against pretty successfully.

Permutations: Advocacy or non advocacy? There are arguments for both. I think probably the strongest type would be a non advocacy perm, but that's up to you. Also severance perms are slightly evil and sooooo fun to do. Be warned however, I don't think they're very fair, so depending on what your opponents say, you might not get away with it.

Kritiks: I'll admit I'm not the most familiar with kritiks. I've run a few, and I think they're realy interesting and a lot of fun. Make your points clear. Make sure the link is strong, and that you tell me why to vote for you. I'm not going to be super sympathetic to identity Ks, but if you argue well I'll consider anything.

Good luck!

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments for five years with the bulk of my experience focused on speech events. I have an extensive background in political consulting, speech writing and public speaking. I prefer a more traditional approach with a comfortable conversational speed. However, I am fine with rapid conversational style speaking mixed with spreading IF your value criterion, definitions (important) and contentions are clear and audible. I prefer quality over quantity so, if you plan to spread make sure the plethora of information is necessary. In other words, I'm more impressed with those that provide the most content using the fewest words.

Although a charismatic presentation can often sell your argument on the surface, in LD I am more influenced by your content. I can appreciate passion in your arguments provided you are being respectful to your opponent. I tend to prioritize value criterion and contention level arguments. I'm open minded to progressive arguments but they are not preferred.

I love a good CX! Your questions matter. I tend to give high marks to those that can strategically ask questions that require simple answers. Furthermore, those that can take control of the CX by respectfully not allowing their opponent to beyond the scope of the question, will also gain high marks from me. I believe there is a strategy to an effective cross and I am paying particular attention to those that make those most of their time.

I give speaker points from 25 - 30. Please feel free to ask questions before the round begins.

Hello, debaters! I’m so glad to be here with you. I participated in speech and debate in high school and competed in LD debate and a little bit of CX. But, that was a while ago. I love clear, logical arguments backed up by credible sources as well as good questioning for better understanding of your competitors. I will flow the rounds, but I know I am not as fast as you would like me to be! I will do my best. Good luck!

1. The faster you speak, the greater risk you run that neither your judge or your opponent will catch what you're saying. I am not against speaking fast per se, but if you talk so quickly that you slur words and I can't understand you, it will put you at a disadvantage. Even if you include me in an email chain, clarity > speed and concision/potency > sheer volume of words.

2. I look for clash, which I define as a dialectically progressive correspondence between argument and counterargument. I won't look favorably on a rebuttal that is simply a rehash of your case. Don't just tell me that your previous point refutes their contention; give me a new reason why.

3. LD: Stronger cases will have strong value-criterion framework. If you depart from this convention, your justification must be solid and explicit.

4. Off-time road maps are great, but if it consists only of, "First, I'll be going over my opponent's case, then going over my case," then don't bother; that's the bare-bones function of a rebuttal speech anyway and I already assume you'll do that. Give me more structure: signposts and summaries that reinforce your speech's structure throughout are even better.

5. Don't be rude. It will cost you dearly in speaker points.

6. I reserve the right to determine for myself what the voting issues are for the round in a neutral evaluation of your case, your opponent's contentions against it, and what has arisen to carry the most ethical and logical weight during the discourse. However, you are more than welcome to advise me as to what the voting issues should be from your perspective.

7. I'd be delighted to shake your hand after the round if you wish.

For LD, Policy, and PF I am a flow based judge. I can comprehend medium-high spreading and have no issues with kritik, counterplans, etc. If you have any questions about my Paradigm feel free to ask me.

I am currently coaching high school debate and teaching English. However, before that, I worked as a corporate litigator at a top firm in New York City. In addition, I have a Masters in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Accordingly, my judging focuses mainly on the quality of your arguments, your evidence, and your explanations. I also believe that all opponents' arguments should be addressed. Although you do need to address every argument, you do not need to (and should not) give every argument equal weight. Make sure to give your time to the arguments / counterarguments that you believe matter most. This demonstrates your ability to assess, analyze, and prioritize arguments; it also demonstrates your ability to manage time effectively. In addition, I am not a fan of spreading. Advocates would never speak that quickly in real life; speaking fast vastly undermines your ability to be understood and, therefore, undercuts your persuasiveness. Finally, I also consider presentation skills, including dynamics, structure (i.e., signposting), word choice, pacing, and volume.

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I'm quite simple in terms of judging. I have an extensive background in Lincoln-Douglas debate, and from my experience, what frustrated me the most was the debaters that would rely more on their knowledge and exploitation of the rules than they would actual, well-founded arguments.

What this means is that I look for people who make good points, and argue their side well. Don't abuse the rules of speech/debate to technically gain more points, I will see right through that. Make good points, and use your ability, I believe in you!

Additionally, I prefer it if debaters do not pander to me directly, instead relying on universally good points.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

PF: I base most of PF off of flow. make sure that you refute everything your opponent says. I also tend to weight key ideas a bit higher so emphasize quality instead of quantity. your final focus is where you will win or lose.
LD:I don't know much about LD but I really appreciate it when you tie everything back to your value. don't be afraid to get a bit philosophical.
CX: only spew if you have something for me to read along. Then I'll probably be okay with it.
OO: what I'm looking for in a oratory is a call to action. At the end of your speech I should want to do something.
Imp: Impromptu is never just about the topic. Find a way to make the topic relate to me. For example if the topic is socks, and you find a metaphor for finding a pair. I will probably rank you higher.
Con:I'm looking for novel content. Novel and relating to the bill at hand. Oh and I'm fine if you people want to be cut throat and stop each other from getting speeches. That's all part of the game.
INf: I want to learn something. That's pretty much all there is to it.

I am a high school English teacher and know how to write effective essays and speeches. I do not, however, have formal debate training. As a high school English teacher, I value the writing of the speech itself. As a debater, you should go into each round assuming that I know nothing about the topic at hand. Give definitions, explain concepts, speak clearly and explicitly. You can’t convince me to choose your side if I don’t understand your side. Please teach me before you convince me. If you choose to speak quickly, be warned that you need to still speak clearly. If I cannot hear you I cannot judge you.

I typically choose debate winners based on the success of their claims, including those made in crossfire, as they are presented with rhetorical strength, including effectiveness of logos, ethos, and pathos.

Thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm!
General Stuff:

I graduated Viewmont High School in 2021 after serving as the debate President there my full senior year. Overall I have 2 years of speech and debate experience and while my main event was LD I know every event pretty well.

For debate specifically:

Since LD was my main event debate is where I have the most experience, I judge based off of my flow in round so make sure you are speaking clearly enough for me to flow it. If I misplace one of your arguments because of bad sign-posting that is still on you. I am not a huge fan of progressive debate in general but do not let that stop you from running a K if you have one prepared. Also I pay special attention to cross-ex for speaker points since I'm not busy flowing the round.

If you have any further questions feel free to ask before we start our round, I much prefer to explain things in person than type up a 500 word essay on every little preference I have while judging.

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.

Policy and other debates - I am a traditionalist in debate in that I believe debate should be training for public communication. I prefer a conversation of ideas, not a speed reading contest with no connection to your opponent. Please watch your speed and listen and respond to your opponents arguments to help strengthen your own.

- give me road maps throughout. Thanks.

- I am not experienced in Policy, except for coaching basics and judging. I learn more from you, so don't be afraid to show me what you know.

Public Speaking: A great public speaker chooses topics that are unique, interesting, and relevant and delivers them with passion and authority. Do not trauma dump on me. It won't work. I will vote for the best speech and speaker, not the most dramatic.

Be respectful and professional. The debate space is not a place for emotional manipulation, fallacious use of accusations, and cheating.

Thank you.

I have been judging NSDA tournaments for a few years now. I have experience teaching, researching, and writing. I look for debates and speeches that include sound arguments with a beginning, middle, and end. I know you may be stressed, just do your best. Your coaches and judges believe in you!