Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.

For Districts (GA): it's nat-quals, big stuff, do whatever you need to do to earn a win with high marks. Won't penalize certain strategies, will penalize execution of certain strategies (i.e., if you feel the need to read truth-testing, please see my thoughts on related strategies before I miss a NIB). I consider myself a reasonably good flow, but if it's not on my flow, it does not exist.

About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior* at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)

- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding) - like pls don't

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks

- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: chansey.agler@uga.edu

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability” - though I tend to be on the higher side of speaks...

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2

Theory and Tricks: 4

Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)

*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook

TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine

Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:

- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous

- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments (would love it if my RFD echoes the 2NR/2AR)—this also means I now will factor CX into my decision-making if you completely fumble on key issues

- I won't flow arguments if I can tell that they're generated by ChatGPT - debate is about making arguments and thinking for yourself, not letting AI do work for you - very low threshold for theory against chatGPT arguments, btw

- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk

- I disclose the decision + other stuff post-round but: I don't disclose speaks (goofy), it either takes me like two seconds or 45 min to figure out the round, I try my damndest to give the "right" decision (quality decisionmaking + feedback = really really important), but I am not receptive to aggressive postrounding…

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result; I am probably more willing than other judges to consider independent voters (especially misgendering, racism, and other arguments that, intentional or not, result in exclusion in debate)

- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)

- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3

Lincoln Douglas

Kritiks

- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful

- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad

- I find material explanations of the alt and ToP more persuasive, but I understand abstract interpretations of power or identity to often be necessary, just explain it and we're good

- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L

- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)

- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good), similarly, I think the Aff should at least define what debates should look like as a departure from the squo

- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh

- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty easy to resolve imo but other debates (especially identity debates) need weighing, ToP analysis, and probably a lot of perm work

- I don't like the perm double bind - saying "either the alt is strong enough to..." is basically telling me to my face "I know perfectly well the Aff links but nonetheless I'll pretend it doesn't" - good framing wins debates, but bad framing hurts my heart

- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)

- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it

Policy/Util

- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”

- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful

- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D, especially on the JF24 topic I find that solvency is highly contestable and makes for very rewarding rounds

- I do not default to judge kick, 2NR needs to tell me to do it, low threshold for "it's a lose-lose for the Aff so don't do that"

- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic

- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t

- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)

- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts), especially on the JF '24 topic, I think one-country plans make a lot of sense semantically, but random country ACs could be abusive - doing a lot of work on "there's enough lit about Israel to make it a debate but the US doesn't even have presence in Cyprus, how am I supposed to make args here" is a good strat

Phil/FW

- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry

- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)

- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true

- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"

- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)

- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them

- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Traditional LD (Trad)

- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches

- Trad v. circuit rounds are a dilemma because every judge has different feelings here, but I tend to err on the side of circuit debater should slow a bit (70-80% speed), read an educational position like 2-3 policy off or a good but common K (setcol, security, fem, etc.), and the trad debater should be willing to adapt to tough situations - if we're in a bubble or elim round, do whatever it takes to win

- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge

- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense

- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other

- "spreading bad" is a bad arg if you have the doc and even worse if you use it to clap back after you misgendered your opponent (I cannot believe I had to put this in my paradigm)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good

- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)

- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)

Theory

- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact (aka presumption)

- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse

- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate

- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)

- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx

- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)

- I've voted on RVIs in the past, just not my favorite thing to evaluate bc everyone and their dog has different conceptions of "when do you get one" and "how does an RVI interact with layers" and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just go back to substance and push presumption :)

- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"

Disclosure

- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity—I lowkey really dislike disclosure theory debates so would prefer to adjudicate this only if necessary

- You don’t have to disclose performances

- Stop chronically reading disclosure against Black debaters—I don’t get why that is y’all’s go-to strat of all things

- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)

Tricks

- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)

- I've realized as of late that I find it very difficult to flow a slew of analytics made in short spans of time (which is part of why I prefer Ks and policy since cards in these debates are usually longer so I don't have to delineate as much), if you're gonna read a bunch of analytics, give me time to get em down

- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow

- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link

Misc/Defaults for LD

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence, I have no defaults on theory (make args lol)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one

- Don’t care if you sit or stand, just make it so I can hear and understand you

- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, the fog is upon us

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

I am a flow judge who debates in college policy and parli for MIT and BU. I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments. See below for specific guidance on arguments and conflicts.

Spreading: I am mildly hard of hearing and rely on some degree of lip reading to understand people so I ask that debaters not spread at their full capacity but just speak fast and I'll let you know if its getting hard to understand.

Signposting: please please please do it, when you're moving to a separate page or getting into links or impacts let me know so I can flow your argument as well as you have constructed it.

(Epistemology) Tabula Rasa: In general, yes. If you drop something on the premise that its absurd or untrue but don't let me know why I will not flow the arg your direction. I use conservative common sense theory in parli but am generally tabula rasa when it comes to what you can and can't drop without explaining.

--------------------------------specific questions and issues (all basically standard) ----------------------------

Theory and Kritiks: Love em in the right context. Standard form should be adhered to but please talk to me before round if you have specific questions or if you want to alert me about how you structure these args differently.

Neg Block Skew: some new off case and on case args in the neg block are valid unless 1AR collapses on theory. Egregious violations and skew will be noted on the ballot. Collapse in the Neg block.

Drops and Collapse: Don't drop important stuff w/o notification, collapse to your best/strongest args.

Presumption of fiat for policy resolutions: fiat grants agency of enactment and enforcement unless a specific issue is highlighted by neg (see: tabula rasa).

Monolithic plans/plan inclusive cp: valid (burden of disproof is on aff and moot args are valid in most cases)

Straight turns: if you run a disad and only offer defensive non-unique args and link turns a straight turn is valid and will be considered on the ballot, to ensure this is noted the opposing team should mention it in rebuttal and closing.

Topicality: sucks, but if someone is egregiously off-topic or skewing the topicality of the debate in some inherently harmful way you should make this arg for sure. Not a fan of topicality stock args if there isn't any specific atopical approach from a team tho (but of course i will abandon this bias to hear whatever debate occurs)

Offense/Defense: I vote on offensive arguments flowed through, if both teams only offer defensive arguments and rebuttals I will adhere to the least responded defense and largest defensive issues. Please do not make me vote on defense it is a messy game.

Anything else I can answer or clarify in the beginning of round! :)

Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Ableism: no tolerance policy, if you engage in harmful behavior in round we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If your opponent is engaging in some kind of intolerance/harm that I do not notice (which may well be the case) let me know and we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If you are using microaggressions or coded harmful language in your arguments it will be reflected in the ballot.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

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.

I am a parent judge with five years of experience judging traditional debate.

I appreciate clearly developed arguments and good judge instruction (explain why you've won the round). I take thorough notes throughout the debate but don't keep a rigorous flow. The most convincing arguments in the round are the ones that will win my ballot.

Please provide a clear framework (including definitions) and explain how your offense functions under that framework.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

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

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

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

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

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

1. What are their qualifications?

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

2. What will they listen to?

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

3. What are they experienced in?

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

4. What do they like?

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

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

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

The Longer Version

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

Theory

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

Policy Arguments

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

Ethical Frameworks

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

Speaks and Ethics Violations

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

Updated 4/11/24 for Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8.5-9/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where the students I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, got to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Athenian EY, Barrington AC, Heritage WT, University Irvine/Southern California Debate Union RN, and Vestavia Hills EP.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speecj times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judgign debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 602 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 188 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.77% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, i think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

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

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

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

general -

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

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

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

———- some more specifics ———-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

Ks

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

T

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

Hey everyone! I’m Tony Cui and I competed on the national circuit for 4 years at Enloe High School, primarily on the east coast. Throughout my debate career, I acquired two bid rounds (Bronx, Valley), a bid my senior year, and broke at a variety of bid tournaments. I now attend Duke University as a sophomore.

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

Prefs Shortcut:

ID pol Ks, theory, T: 1

High theory Ks: 2

Traditional, Tricks, Phil, LARP : 3-4

Dense Phil/Nailbomb affs: 4

Misc:

Tech > Truth, but your arguments must require a warrant

Don’t use CX as prep time, but yes feel free to use prep time for CX

I’ll try to be as tab as possible, but I won’t vote on arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Try not to blitz through analytics pls :( my fingers can only type so fast.

I’ll try to average speaks specific to the tournament (the 4-2 screw has been an enemy of mine in the past so I'll adjust accordingly).

Disclosure is probably a good norm. I understand if you're a novice or new to circuit debate, but everyone else should probably disclose or at least have a good reason why they shouldn’t disclose.

Please collapse.

Ks:

**I will not fill in the gaps for you. If you’re explaining an extremely dense position you personally don’t know then we’ll both be sad.**

Personally, I’ve read a lot of Asian-pess / Settler Colonialism/ Capitalism Ks in the past, so I’m most comfortable with a lot of identity politics literature. I’ve also had a lot of experience debating high theory args (Baudrillard, Deleuze, etc.) so I know the general gist of most of them, but a thorough explanation wouldn’t hurt anyone. (Please don't read these arguments in front me just because I read them in the past, this is just to gauge the different positions I'm comfortable evaluating).

Links contextualized specific to the 1AC are probably better than links of omission and should be warranted as such starting from the 1NC. K tricks like floating PICs/root cause claims are fine.

I’d like to think I’m 50/50 for framework vs. non topical K affs. For non-topical affs, I think a robust explanation of your model of debate is probably a good idea. Most of these affs end up losing to T-framework because they fail to explain why fairness or skills are necessarily bad.

Theory:

As a debater, I read a lot of spec shells, spikes, Nebel, paradigm dumps, etc. so I’d like to think I’m good at evaluating these debates. I think frivolous shells are ok, but obviously the more frivolous the shell, the more likely I am to buy arguments made against the shell.

If you’re reading an excessive amount of spikes with a) b) c) etc., then please *SLOW DOWN* if you want me to flow them all.

LARP:

I was never the best at these types of debate and so I’m probably not the best at evaluating LARP.

That being said if you do end up reading LARP in front of me, please WEIGH (IE magnitude/scope/time frame, metaweighing included). I will be very sad if there is no weighing done.

Tricks:

Personally I’ve debated with and against a lot of these. If there is a genuine warrant and implication conceded in the speech that they are given in, then by all means collapse to it. However, I think a lot of tricky arguments are implicated a lot more than they really are and I’d be very much open to buying conceded defense made on these arguments.

Please don’t be sketchy in CX. Don’t try to pretend you don’t know what an apriori is. Trying to actually explain condo logic or the principle of explosion when asked in CX is probably good too.

Phil:

I know the basic phil arguments (Kant, Util) but anything that strays further than the general debate realm of phil arguments is when I start to get confused. Still though, I primarily debated on the east coast so feel free to still read your 10 point justified normative frameworks, but be ready to explain it.

I think using phil to interact with other arguments on the flow (like Ks and LARP) is smart and probably a good idea.

Explaining the warrants behind “action theory” or “performativity” would be nice.

NOTES FOR ONLINE DEBATE:

I absolutely hated debating online my senior year and I lost lots of rounds because either my wifi cut out or my laptop crashed. With this in mind, please keep a local recording if possible in order to ensure I can still resolve the round.

Additionally, I won't dock speaks for wifi/microphone/tech issues (trust me I understand).

Lynbrook '21, UIUC '25

**I HAVENT JUDGED IN A LONG TIME PLEASE START A LITTLE SLOW**

Send docs to keshavdandu@gmail.com, whether or not you're spreading!

I think the most fundamental forms of disclosure are good, for example, the first three last three. Anything else is up to debate.

Conflicts: All of Lynbrook, West Ranch SV, Mission San Jose SR, Leland MN

Theory defaults: Reasonability with "gut check", No Rvi, DTA

I'm not a great judge for trad rounds. If you are hitting a novice just don't try hard.

I think I'll try to average 28.8 speaks, if you are at the level of a bidder I will probably give you a 29.2 or higher.

I mainly read K, Theory, and Phil and was pretty decent in terms of like results, Elim finishes, speaker awards, bid that kinda stuff.

I think I'm best for Phil v util and theory rounds, and worst for pure k v k (there are some exceptions) and dense larping.

Nearly everything about how I view debate is from Chris Wang (refer to his paradigm about tech issues and whatnot), with influence on specific things from Perry Beckett, Michael Harris, and Holden Bukowsky. (if you would pref any of them you can probably pref me). My favorite argument I read was my queer fabulation aff. The majority of my 1AR/2ARs as a senior were AFC or indexicals or a trick that did something similar, and most 2NR's were some shell or skep.

Read and go for whatever argument you want in front of me. I've tried nearly everything in terms of types of arguments from performance affs to tricks to util. Don't assume I have background knowledge in every argument but I will do my best to judge. I find k rounds with little explanation of the theory of power difficult to follow.

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

General guidelines:

- Debate's not about the judge, my preferences should not make you decide what you read.

- I will stop rounds if someone is uncomfortable.

- Prep ends after the doc is sent (I will be lenient).

- Tech>truth unless categorically false.

- No new responses to dropped arguments, dropped arguments need to be extended, impacted, and weighed to win. Not just repeated.

- Clipping, and evidence ethics are L 20s, clipping I will intervene if I catch it, evidence ethics should be called out or in most cases resolved in a shell or a reason to drop the card.

- I don't care if cx is treated as prep.

- Marked docs should be sent right after the speech, if it takes an excessive amount of time it'll come out of prep.

- Asking about what was read or said comes out of your prep.

- I'll disclose speaks if asked

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

Specifics:

Larp

Pretty straightforward, read some framework or I'll default to not util. *FOR CAL: this will probably be a more larpy tournament, I should not be preffed very high if every round you have is larp v larp*

Phil

I have a decent grasp of Phil in the context of LD and outside. I would like actual Phil, not logcon and condo logic. I think other tricky stuff like skep that is a bit less trolly are actually quite interesting and enjoy these rounds. I feel like arguments like relativism are underutilized. I think modesty is silly and usually would hurt util more than it helps. I think well-structured Phil affs with offense that clearly affirms is one of the strongest positions.

Ks

K's are like cool, I know some literature not all. I'll be better for Deleuze, Baudrillard, warren, Hartman, genealogy, black nihilism, and puar than other stuff. I will still vote on arguments if they make some sense. Concrete examples and clearly knowing the lit will do wonders. When there is a ROB/ROJ please show why it's preclusive or why it doesn't need to be normative. K v K is incoherent a lot of times so if something makes more sense it'll probably win. I haven't touched anything related to K lit for a decent amount of time so I will be rusty on quite a bit of stuff here.

K affs v T

40/60 on K aff/fwk. I've read non t, topical k affs, and performance affs so I think a lot of T is easy to beat. I think I err on the side of fwk because I don't buy a lot of the claims from K affs either and generally, affs fall into this problem where it might come off as telling the judge to affirm their identity. You're probably reading this and thinking this isn't your aff, but if the round really gets like this I'm most likely negating. I think for the aff to win they should have a solid topic link and leverage that in the T debate along with impact turns, I meets, etc. The neg wins by proving the opposite. I think 2NRs need to still deal with case 90% of the time. Affs get away with a lot of nonsense if you don't deal with the 2-minute overview with 16 independent voters and 20 turns to T. I also would be willing to vote on a 2NR that is primarily on case instead of T.

Theory

I will vote on literally every shell, bad debating will hurt speaks not necessarily bad arguments. Set voters cuz my defaults are bad. Paragraph theory is fine, might need clearer signposting since I mainly did the big shell stuff. Weighing makes these rounds really easy, not weighing makes them a pain. In general, I enjoy well-done theory rounds with 1 shell more than rounds with 3 shallow shells that were 15 seconds of the 1NC and became 5 minutes of the 2NR.

Tricks

I personally like Phil tricks more than theory tricks, but a lot of Phil tricks are also poor logic so be careful, I will vote on these if they are won, impacted, extended, and weighed. If I don't get the trick I won't vote on it. "Eval after" tricks are bad cuz there are too many questions about how to evaluate them, so I will only use them for tiebreakers absent adequate judge instruction.

Feel free to contact me on Facebook before rounds, prefs were always tough for me.

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

Hello everyone my name’s Alex. Email chain: sealions660@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

I debated LD for 4 years in HS and graduated last year. Won and placed at some tournaments, but that’s all the background you really need. I was a flex debater, primarily k’s and larp though.

TLDR:

Go at 70% circuit speed. I have been out of debate for 4 months at least so take that into consideration, though I’m doing Policy in college at Georgia Tech. I will say clear, but I can't flow what I can't follow. I'll evaluate anything (besides obvious discriminatory arguments), topical or not, but I need warrants to consider them actual arguments. 2 off and answering case is way better than 6 off no case or little case. Likewise collapsing in the 1a and answering stuff is better than going for everything. Clash is nice.

1 - K’s, LARP

2 - Phil, Theory

3 - Tricks and Frivolous theory (I’ll vote on them I’m pretty tab but I won’t like voting on it and have a low threshold for answers)

Long version:

LARP - WEIGH. I need to know why your impacts matter more than your opponent's. If there are two uncontested impacts and no weighing, I will have to intervene which will make me sad. For negs, strategies that have a lot on case are far more likely to be conducive to success than 5 off barely anything on case. CLASH. LBL the aff and make the 1ar hell. For affs, you need to collapse and go for what's most important. The 1ar is too short to go for every piece of offense. Evidence comparison is good, but warrants are better. Don't run an advantage counterplan if you don't have an advantage (duh), and be prepared to answer the perm. I won't judge kick cps.

K’s - I primarily ran Lacan, Berardi, Deleuze, Baudrillard, and Nietzsche, but I am familiar with most other k's on the circuit (Wynter, Warren, Wilderson, most other forms of pess and pomo, Security, Cap, and some others. I'm fine with any k, just be clear and be prepared on what model of debate you defend and what it looks like. The countermodel of debate is the internal link to what makes these arguments convincing and why we should endorse a departure from debate. I will evaluate the k without the alt but only if the alt is kicked. I won't judge kick alts. K's don't need a rob, but make sure they link under some framing mechanism (opponent's fw or otherwise) i.e. under what framing do they matter whether it's util or otherwise. 2NR's should signpost clearly, have an overview, and go LBL. Have a clear link story that is specific to the aff, even pull lines from the aff don’t be super general that would be sad. Implicate the links and weigh. ANSWER THE PERM. Standard stuff. Affs answering this will be most effective with link turns, perms, framing, and not conceding the theory of power because it's too hard to come back from that. Answering case with k args is super underrated and effective.

Aff K's - Framing is super important. Be prepared to answer T, it is almost always the same argument. Impact turns only matter if you win FW. Tell me how the t page is evaluated because fairness bad and t is a prior question is difficult to evaluate. Topicality is probably good but I can be convinced otherwise. If you are non t you need to win why your model of debate and departure from topicality is necessary or good, not just that topicality is bad.

K v K: These debates can be messy. Win your model of debate and WEIGH just as larpers would. Framing is probably most important and then obviously link stories and the perm debate.

LARP v K: Neg should have implications from link stories that outweigh, turn, or exacerbate aff impacts and weigh impacts against aff. Aff should weigh impacts too, use the AC to answer the k, and pressure the k on the specificity of the link story to the aff. Attacking the alt is good but the neg can still easily win with links outweighing even if the alt fails or is bad.

Phil - Did this in high school. Mostly Kant, Deleuze, Levinas, and developed util or structural violence frameworks. Most Phil debates are super blippy so be clear and tell me how to evaluate the Phil debate, what was dropped why it matters and outweighs. I NEED WARRANTS. Epistemic confidence is probably true but I can be convinced otherwise. Remember too either debater can win on offense no matter the fw! On the offense page, WEIGH in the case of competing offense.

Phil v K’s: Super fun! I love these debates and it’s very interesting to see what way we should look at the world. Framing is very important. Affs should leverage fw against the k and weigh, and negs should answer the fw warrants.

Trix - I was a Florida debater who ran trix Baudy so I’m no stranger. I will evaluate it but my threshold for responses is super low so take that at your own risk. Conventional trix are hilarious but boring most of the time. Interesting trix and ones tied into kritiks are super fun and will earn high speaks.

Friv theory - there isn’t a bright line for what makes demarcates this but just don’t be frivolous it will make me sad.

Theory - These debates can be super blippy, which is sad because theory can be a fun debate. Don’t make it sad. Be clear on your interp of debate, win why your interp is better for debate than the other person’s, and GIVE WARRANTS. Competing interps, no rvis, and fairness/education good are probably true, but I can be convinced otherwise. Reasonability can be very convincing especially in the 2n hedge against a 1a theory dump bright lines are not irrefutable monoliths. Condo is pretty fair though 4-5 condo shells is probably pushing it though again both can be convinced otherwise. Disclosure thirty min before rounds is good, but rich schools/debaters punishing poor/newer debaters for not disclosing is not a good look.

For PF - See LARP page. K’s probably shouldn’t be in PF though I will evaluate them.

tl;dr is in bold

Email: eric.endsley4@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

Update: NDCA - please put loyoladebate47@gmail.com on the chain as well as pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com. Thanks!

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on no risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine."act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "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." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

1. Policy 2023-24 - fiscal redistribution

a. taught at the UTNIF, coach a team, and do moderate card cutting, but judging less policy this year than last year – consider topic knowledge high, but meta knowledge medium. I can hang for debates over dense economic concepts, but worth slowing down and explaining current trends and relevant debate shorthand.

b. so far, extremely reliable single-issue voter, with the single issue being business confidence. it is likely a bad argument, but the cards are excellent and nobody is making the good arguments against it. overlap between K and policy debates is that it all requires a dense operating knowledge of economic concepts, which makes me like this topic. most turns case/link arguments and most link turn/solvency arguments will be operating on different levels/mechanisms, and teams should contextualize why their offense matters more, e.g: if aff increases consumer spending but dumps tons of government spending to do so, how do these interact with overall purchasing power and business confidence?

c. T - Taxes seems to be the only take people care much about - probably lean aff, but only slightly. dont have strong takes on ground bc taxes don't seem impossible to defend, but also unsure how much neg ground actually relies on them. i just think neg literature seems to lack intent to exclude.

2. LD JanFeb '24 - WANA presence

a. T - "presence" is the defining battle of our times. inclined to place a much higher premium on good evidence defining presence as a term of art. probably more willing to exclude things like aid than some judges. can see myself voting aff on reasonability a lot because otherwise the topic becomes unbearably small.

b. most affs are well built to bead disads and Ks, but lose to well-executed straight turns and advantage counterplan. defining issues for these rounds often come down to a. uniqueness for neg offense, although this can be counterplanned in and might not be wholly necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence, and b. the ability to explain and unpack IR concepts through evidence properly. would consider myself extremely comfortable evaluating even the densest versions of these rounds, but threshold for good execution will likely be high. irresponsibly high speaks to a 2NR that is just turning the case if done well, though. it's a lost art.

c. assurances disad is busted. more teams should impact turn prolif.

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “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.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (highlighting/cutting, spin). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “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.” I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

I am a lay judge and have judged numerous state (MA) and national tournaments, both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas.

I favor clear structure, comprehensibility, and the quality/integrity of arguments/data over quantity and complexity. I am not a subject matter expert on the topics you are debating or on the fine points of Lincoln Douglas debate technique. That said, I will listen to you very intently, take a lot of notes, and do my very best to render a fair and balanced decision.

I am not a fan of meme cases and not experienced enough to fairly judge tech cases. I may ask you to slow down if you speak too quickly. I expect you to keep your own time.

I will share critical comments if I have any, which may not be always. I will take careful notes throughout, disclose and provide an RFD after submitting the ballot.

Above all else - have fun and good luck!

Hi everyone,

I am new to NSDA however, I am not new to judging. If you are unable to spread properly do not do it. Thank you. Other than that its free range. Thank you and have a great time!

fharpster@summit.k12.nj.us

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

Eric He -

Dartmouth '23

eric.he1240@gmail.com

Better than most for cp theory

Slightly neg on condo when equally debated

Kritiks are ok

Affs should probably be topical but will still vote for affs that do not have a plan text - I belive fairness is an impact

Wipeout and/or spark is :(

for LD -

really quickly - CP/DA or DA or CP+some net benefit = good, K = good, T/Condo = good, phil = eh, tricks = bad

I am a policy debater. That means I am ok with speed, and I much prefer progressive debate over traditional LD. Bad theory arguments are :( - that means stuff like no neg fiat

Offense defense risk analysis will be used

solvency is necessary

T is not a rvi

yes zero risk is a thing

please be clear

please do line by line

stop asking if i disclose speaks

also speed reading blocks at blazing speed will get you low speaker points, debating off your flow will get you good speaker points

if i have to decide another round on disclosure theory i will scream

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Debated policy in high school and parli at Columbia University

judging for over 4 years

email: cyrusjks10@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

2/17/24 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

2) LARP

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks (unless tied to social advocacy)

IHSA 2022 Update:

Debate Philosophy: Generally, I default to voting for the team that has done the better debating, in terms of proving the merit of the arguments they make against some comparative (opponent's arguments, status quo, etc.). Offense is always appreciated, and I normally vote for the team that has the best warranted / impacted out offense.

UK Digital TOC Speech & Debate #2 Edit:

What debaters should do more of: give roadmaps, sign post, slow down on taglines, do impact calculus/weigh, do line-by-line analyses, compare evidence, collapse on key args in final rebuttal speeches, and say why you are winning/get the ballot (write my ballot for me)

What debaters should avoid doing: spreading through overviews and theory shells (if need to spread please send out a doc), saying they have proved something to be true, bringing up that something was dropped/conceded without explaining why it matters or is a critically important to evaluating/framing the round, jumping all over the flow (please sign post so I can accurately flow/ keep track of your arguments), and sending out speech docs that can't be downloaded or copied from. ALSO please no postrounding and no sending me emails before a round is scheduled to occur nor after a round has occurred, as judges are not allowed to have contact with debaters except during a round.

1/7/22 EDIT:

Quick Prefs:

1) LARP

2) Ks/KAFFS/Performance

3) Phil

4) T/Theory

5) Tricks

Miscellaneous

Kritiks I like to hear (in order): Afropess/antiblackness, afrofuturism, set col, cap,

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Indiana University(IN),

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

-Brian Delong

-Jacob Bosley

-Adam Tomasi

-Jamie Davenport

-Matthew Bricker

-Alex Yoakum

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

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

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

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 debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

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

.

[[ ]] About Me

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

.

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

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

.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

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

.

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

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

NFA-LD: I'm a college policy coach and judge. Very familiar with the nukes topic. Basically won't vote on theory arguments that aren't conditionality. I am not at all familiar with the norms of the NFA-LD format, so bear with me. Read the rest of my paradigm--it's all relevant.

NDT/CEDA: I feel very strongly that the decline in recorded debates since the COVID pandemic started is a huge loss for the community, particularly for high school debaters from smaller or less-resourced programs. From now on, I will be carrying recording equipment at every tournament I judge at. If both teams let me know before the round that they'd like the round recorded and posted on YouTube, I will happily do so.

he/him

I debated in high school LD for four years and college policy for two years. I accomplished very little of note. I now coach LD and speech for Edina High School and policy for the University of Minnesota.

Debate is a communication activity. I flow speeches, not documents (and I usually flow on paper). This means that you should be clear. If I cannot understand every word you are saying, I will clear you twice. If I cannot understand you after that, I will vote against you for clipping. Speed is never a problem for me, clarity often is.

Another pet peeve: debaters should stop shotgunning permutations or short analytic arguments on counterplans or Ks. This is the most unflowable practice that I usually see -- either give me pen time or break them up with cards.

After a year of judging college policy I have noticed I am more of a big picture judge. That’s not to say that I don’t care about technical concessions — they’re incredibly important — but that I start my decisions with global framing questions. Ticky tacky line by line is less important if you’re not connecting it to the central question(s) of the debate— I don't like to draw lines for you. However, I will follow conceded judge instruction and adopt the decision procedure that the debaters instruct me to if it happens.

I hold the line.

Speeches should be well organized. I have ADHD and I struggle the most in rounds where debaters do not line up arguments. This means you should put a premium on numbering arguments, having clear transitions between arguments and answering arguments in the order presented.

I prefer debates where students present well-researched positions that they've clearly put a lot of thought into. I don't like cheap shots. However, technical execution overrides my personal feelings.

I'd rather see debates where students treat each other kindly. I'm not going to enforce standards of politeness or respectability with my ballot, but being needlessly cruel to your opponents is unnecessary and makes the debate worse for everyone.

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. Issues of safety should be decided outside the constraints of a competitive debate.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

Specific arguments

Ks: This is where I spend most of my time in researching, coaching and judging. Judge instruction, especially relating to framework, is essential. For both sides--put away the long overviews and blocks, unless they have a purpose in the round.

T-USFG: Winnable on both sides. Intuitively, I think a counter-interp makes more sense, but impact turns are often easier to execute for the aff. Fairness makes more sense to me than clash. A 2NR that doesn't engage somehow with the case in these debates is likely to lose.

KvK: Articulate your vision of competition. Examples, examples, examples.

CPs: Competition arguments > theory, but you do you.

T: I don't have a distaste for T against policy affs. I don't really care about community norms, and I don't see why that would make an aff topical or not.

Extinction does not automatically come first. Non-extinction impacts matter, but most debaters are bad at debating that.

Stanford Note: I haven't judged in 4 months. Be clear and go slower than usual. I don't know anything about the topic.

What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus, or speechdrop. If you would like, I am happy to send you my flow after the round.

Important Warning: the longer the tournament goes the worse I become at judging. If I've judged like 10+ debates be prepared for short rfds and be clear so I don't misflow you and make things obvious so I dont do illogical things.

I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, nebel T, intrinsic perms, extra T, K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense or ask), arguments attempting to change the number of winners/losers, and arguments attempting to take speaker points out of my hands. With those exceptions, my only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.

I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.

Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022, Summer of 2023. Private coaching - Fall 2021-2022 (no longer actively coaching). Happy to talk about math stuff, especially topology!

Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference

1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans

1 - Policy Args

1 - Phil

2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)

2 - Tricks

2 - Theory

2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)

3 - Ks (high theory)

Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.

Below are purely procedural things

Ev ethics note: I will evaluate ev ethics claims the way the accusing debater wants me to out of 2 options: 1] stake the round on the egregiousness of the ev ethics claim, if the violation meets my arbitrary brightline for egregiousness I will drop the debater with bad ev ethics, if not the accusing debater will lose 2] if you read it as a theory shell I will evaluate it as a theory shell. If you're unsure about my arbitrary brightline for staking the round, note that such ev ethics violation need to be reasonably egregious (to auto end the round, I would prefer to see malicious intent or effect, where the meaning of the evidence is changed) - whereas my brightline for voting on it as a theory shell is much lower, and given the truth of the shell you will likely win on the shell, regardless of effect or intent. This means if you have an edge case its better to debate out the theory because you'll probably win simply bc those theory shells are pretty true but I'm pretty adverse to auto dropping ppl so you might not if you stake. If it is obvious and egregious though feel free to stake the round I will definitely vote against egregious miscuttings.

CX is Binding. This means with respect to statuses, etc, your arguments must abide by the status you say in either the speech you read the argument, or the status you say the argument is in cross X. If you say an arg is uncondo in CX, but attempt to kick it in a later speech, & I remember you saying it was uncondo in CX, I will not kick the arg.

But I take this notion farther than just argument statuses. If your opponent asks you "what were your answers to X", you may choose to list as many arguments as you like. You may say "you should've flowed" and not answer, that's your prerogative. But if you DO choose to answer, you should either list every argument you read, or list some and explicitly say that there were other arguments. If your opponent asks something like "was that all," and you choose to say yes, even if I have other args on my flow I won't evaluate them because you explicitly told your opponent those were your only responses. DO NOT LIE/GASLIGHT IN CX, even by accident. Correct yourself before your opponent's prep ends if you've said something wrong. I will not drop you for lying but I WILL hold you to what you say in CX.

My personal beliefs can best be described via Trivialism: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e74aad4-3f61-5a49-b4e3-b20593c93983/content

some info abt me: was v flex as a debater so im down to see whatever (please just read whatever ur best at rather than trying to adapt to me, I just love a good debate), qual'd to toc and worked as instructor at nsd

email: ridingsailboat@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

Feel free to hmu before the round asking questions, but I'll evaluate any argument. I'm probably the worst at very heavy policy debates but can still handle them with good judge instruction.

General things:

- I like and encourage post-rounding, it only gets excessive when it becomes clearly personal or accusatory rather than educational

- CX is binding

- I don't really like using cx to prep, at least ask questions while prepping

- I'm not receptive to args asking for high speaks

- I want good extensions. this means claim warrant impact implication.

Thoughts on specific forms of debate:

Kritiks:

love em, well read on most ks people read and especially love strategic implications of things like ontology. good for reps ks too.

Theory:

good for whatever shell u want to run no matter how frivolous, I think im very good at evaluating theory debates bc of how structured they are

Phil:

big fan of kant and just normative phil in general, do good hijacks and syllogistic takeouts and ill be v happy. phil tricks are best tricks, going for skep or a contingent standard or some hijack or something is fun and strategic

Tricks:

good for k tricks and phil tricks, theory tricks are a lot less fun and will prob hurt ur speaks (things like eval after 1ac). Cool paradoxes, trivialism, and skep >>>>> definition nibs / a prioris, extremely long underviews etc. but ill eval whatever

Policy:

Lot of respect and understanding for policy debate but I struggle in very very high level rounds, if you are a policy debater and get me then please go for it but try to avoid embedded clash and make clash very explicit and line-by-line heavy. Call out badly warranted cards. I like impact turn debates a lot and think cheaty counterplans are funny. I also think util is probably the most strategic framework in debate.

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

she/her

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.

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

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

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

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

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

--

email chains:

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

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

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

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

--

Some general notes

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

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

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

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

--

Speaker points:

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

I try to give points as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

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

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

Planless affs:

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

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

T/framework vs planless affs:

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

Topicality (not framework):

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

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

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

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

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

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

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

Kritiks (neg):

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

Disads:

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

Counterplans:

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

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

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

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

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

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

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

tjclarksonmaher@gmail.com

CHS 2020/UVA 2024

Experience:

I lone-wolfed for a school called Chantilly in Northern VA. I qualled to TOC my senior year (2020), but did not attend because of COVID. I went to six tournaments total in my career and broke at the four I went to my senior year. I am currently a physics major at the University of Virginia (Wahoowa!)

General Debate Philosophy: 

I care about technical execution more than argument content. But part of good technical execution includes providing strong warrants for your arguments. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and ideologically neutral, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for an incoherent, unwarranted, blippy argument just because it was conceded and quickly extended.

That being said, I have no problem voting for things I personally do not think are true so long as they are well-supported in round. Fields like analytic philosophy, formal logic, and pure mathematics have a long history of rigorous justification for strange and counter-intuitive, seemingly paradoxical ideas. I’d say, if you can find an academic literature base for a wacky philosophical idea, go for it. I'm probably a better judge than most for the out-there stuff in debate. 

Decision Philosophy:

Debate is a game. It's a game with a lot of potential educational value (depending on how you approach it), but it's a game nonetheless. At the end of the day, I have to submit a ballot and pick a winner. I don't want to do this arbitrarily, so I will vote on the flow and only on the flow unless there is an ethics issue (offensive language, evidence ethics, etc.) 

Miscellaneous Stuff: 

I obviously don't care if you spread but I do actually need to hear/understand your arguments. I have zero qualms about voting on arguments I don't understand and if I have to keep calling clear I'll eventually just give up. I'll give you a little more leeway for arguments that you're reading and have sent to me (can go a bit faster for 1AC/1NC offs, pre-written analytics, etc.). I also have a minor hearing disability so I'd really appreciate it if you could be louder than your baseline volume. 

RFDs are cleanest when one side is winning offense on the highest layer linking to some framing mechanism. Do explicit analysis sequencing, preclusion, weighing, impact calculus, and clear interactions for maximum resolvability. The less of that you do, the more my RFD sounds like me rambling about my own intuitions. I don't like giving those RFDs because they make me feel like a bad judge. Debaters don't like those RFDs because they feel very arbitrary. Please make life easier for everyone by making the debate resolvable. 

I'm not super picky but I prefer arguments to be extended by content (as opposed to label, i.e. "sub-point A"). I have a pretty low threshold for extensions if an argument is cold conceded. It can help rhetorically to re-explain a warrant in a dropped argument; if you're using it to take something out in a way that's not blindingly obvious you absolutely need to explain the interaction/implication. If you do not extend an argument I'm ignoring it in future speeches. 

I try to default to paradigms implicitly accepted by both debaters because sometimes lack of extensions make debates nonsensical, unless I assume some kind of framing mechanism. For example, if both sides go for theory and no reads or extends their voters, I'm just going to assume its fairness/education or both (depending on the context 

Please no new 2NR/2AR arguments. If you read RVIs bad in the 1NC and the 1AR concedes that, then the 2NR does not get to suddenly change strategy and go for RVIs good.

I did debate, and continue to participate in the debate community, because it is fun. It is not fun when people are mean and rude to each other. I really do not want to be dragged into blood feuds, so please try not to read arguments about debaters out-of-round conduct. (Disclosure shells and things like round reports are fine since theory is distinct from casting aspersions on someone's character). 

I don't like blippy independent voters that are not linked to some framing mechanism. I actually think Reps Ks/Word PICs can be interesting, the impact just needs to be linked to a coherent framework, preferably of a normative nature. I really don't like voting on arguments that claim that a loss is a punitive measure against someone's behavior: I think 

Speaks: 

Speaks are arbitrary. Trying really hard to standardize them but I'm a human and fundamentally not programmed to think numerically. Basically I'm shooting for:

30 = no note, perfect; 29.5+ = near flawless; 29-29.4 = very good, going to break for sure; 28.5-28.9 = decent, some errors, may break; 28-28.4 = mediocre, still developing; 27.5-28 = major technical/strategic errors; 27.5 = weird/bizarre things happened that baffled me 

(once watched a debate where the 1N ROB was "vote for the debater who does a TikTok dance,” and the aff conceded after the neg did a TikTok dance; that gets something around a 26.5) 

Harker '21 - debated for 7 years in LD and Policy

email chain - 21akshaym@students.harker.org

Policy args > Ks >> Phil / Tricks

Policy args:

Vast majority of args I read in my career - i feel very comfortable evaluating these debates, go for it. love to see creative and well-researched strategies, which will be reflected in speaks

impact turns are some of my favorite debates - co2 ag, dedev, etc are all on the table, and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

politics probably a thing, but also probably can lose to smart analytics especially if your cards are bad. that said i'm a sucker for a good politics disad

i lean very heavily towards judge kick -- probably a really hard uphill battle for the aff to persuade me against that.

i'd be very hard pressed to vote on zero risk.

Theory

good for more stock theory args (mostly CP theory) than frivolous theory -- i am more receptive to reasonability and arbitrariness args against spec, new affs bad, etc. good for regular disclosure but not niche args like "round reports", etc

i prefer paragraph theory on the offending page (eg condo on a CP) then as a "new off"

i lean neg on most counterplan theory except for international fiat.

i find competition arguments against cheating counterplans more persuasive than theory arguments

default drop the arg (unless it's condo), competing interps, no rvis

i'll flow by ear for these debates so slow down

have warrants for your arguments beyond "vote aff for deterrence" or similar stuff

Ks:

better for these debates than you might think based on the arguments I read as a debater. I read through most literature bases during my time as a debater, and I feel comfortable evaluating these debates. 2nr link contextualization (e.g., drawing lines from 1ac/1ar evidence) factors heavily into my decision calculus.

Negs will do best by saliently dealing with the case -- either with robust link turns the case, alt solves the case, and unsustainability arguments, or with a *heavy* push on framework. the case page should make the 2nr. I find critiques of extinction impacts more persuasive than "structural violence outweighs". that said, i think most critiques have more compelling extinction impacts than a good deal of policy affs. i find aff ballots most persuasive when the negative underexplains the reasons behind their structural claims (especially regarding ontology arguments). equally debated, i think the aff generally gets access to the case, but specific framework evidence goes a long way for the negative (especially regarding epistemology claims). ROJ/ROB are silly/contrived mechanisms.

For the aff, I find 2ars on case outweighs or impact turns most compelling. impact turns are often underutilized. please explain perms -- "perm do both perm do the alt perm double bind" in one breath can be answered by a thumbs down from the neg. weighing is most important for me when judging this genre of debates.

between debaters of equal caliber, i think soft left affs would consistently lose to the critique. hard left/topical K affs (that assert a theory of power) seem extremely strategic to me *if* well-researched and germane to the topic.

line by line >>>> big overview

floating piks should be identified in the 1nc.

K affs:

Prefer affs that are within the parameters of the resolution. better for k affs that have a spin on the topic rather than impact turning every element of limits/debate. if you're negating, i mostly prefer arguments about skills or clash over fairness on framework. K affs probably get perms. the 2nr should cover the case. I think K v K debates can be incredibly interesting (and what I normally went for in these debates), but specific link and alt work by the negative is crucial.

Topicality

update: *not a good judge for nebel t - i very often vote affirmative in this debates*

probably lean towards competing interps. i'd prefer a substance debate to topicality but good T debates are enjoyable to watch and get good speaks.

i prefer topicality to be well developed in the 1nc, and I find many 2nrs to be almost completely new in explaining their standards. i dislike how prescripted these debates tend to be, especially with regards to nebel T -- I’ll lean against pre scripted nebel 2nrs and underdeveloped 1nc t arguments when pointed out by the aff.

Phil

i appreciate philosophical literature but find these debates to usually be exceedingly blippy or underwarranted -- not the judge for you if that's your style. i prefer ACs & NCs with evidence justifying the framework. slow down on dense or niche framework explanations. I did not read these arguments in high school but debated them a number of times.

Tricks

just read a disad please

"underview" of more than a minute caps your speaks at a 27. please debate the topic.

presumption always flips neg, unless the 2nr includes an advocacy.

Other things --

fine with inserting rehighlightings

i will definitely read your evidence. i'll reward good ev with good speaks, and punish bad ev with bad speaks. evidence quality caps your truth claims, even if they're dropped -- please reference ev quality in your speeches in general (this shouldn't substitute for explanation though). good topic knowledge is also good for speaks

smart analytics can beat bad cards

"independent voters" are usually not independent voters -- i am unlikely to vote for args flagged as such without a theoretical justification for doing so

dropped arguments are still influenced by how true they are -- e.g., dropping no neg arguments is not an issue. i won't be too interventionist/this is more aimed at tricks but dont prioritize lots of terrible blippy offcase or arguments in favor of a smaller more substantive strategy

good humor/sarcasm is very good for speaks

NEBRASKANS:if you show me undeniable proof before round, that you've read indexicals in two rounds this year at local tournaments, then I'll give you +0.5 speaks than I otherwise would have. Depending on who the judge(s) was/were in that round and the importance of the round, I might give you even more.(One of the rounds cannot have been in front of me).

Dear Novices: I very much love and appreciate you, but will a little more if you 1. have some framework interaction (tell me why I should use your framework and why I shouldn't use your opponent's) and 2. do some impact weighing (explain why your impact(s) is the most important compared to the others in the round). Keep up the good work!! you can ignore the rest of my paradigm.

Online: I wasn't very good at flowing online debate so please speak clearly and use inflection in your voice to emphasize key things you want me to get down.

For the email chain or whatever feel free to shoot me an email: iansdebatemail@gmail.com

My Debate background:

I debated 4 years at Millard North, 2 years of policy, and 2 years of LD. I had success on a mixed bag local circuit(progressive and traditional), winning tournaments and speaker awards. I was okay on the national circuit, breaking at some tournaments. I qualified for Nationals 3 years. I was a flex debater running mostly Kritiks, theory, phil, and tricks.

Currently on my demon time as an assistant coach at Millard North, coaching LD.

Pref Cheat sheet:

K- 1 or 2

Theory-1 or 2

Phil-1 or 2

Tricks- 2 or 3

Larp- 3 or 4

General things to know/things I default to:

tech>truth

truth testing>comparative worlds

Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty

Permissibility affirms, Presumption negates.

No RVIs(it's not hard to convince me otherwise though.)

Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.

Competing interps>reasonability

I tend to give pretty high speaks, 28.5= Average Debater. I base speaks on efficiency and the quality of your arguments, I don't care how pretty you speak so long as I can understand you.

Be Nice & don't say anything blatantly offensive (Racism, queerphobic, etc.)

Event Specific:

LD & Policy- I'll evaluate these two the same way.

Larp: Didn't do much of this in either event, just make sure you give me a justified framing mechanism so I can evaluate and weigh impacts, instead of just assuming I care, I.E. if you make Cap good impact turns on a cap k even if you end up winning them, if your opponents ROB is the only framing mechanism your impact turns mean nothing (unless you articulated a way in which they weigh under the ROB).

Phil: I read a good amount of phil, I'm fine with Normative or Descriptive frameworks. I read Kant, Hobbes, Functionalism(or constituivism), Realism(IR), International Law, Contractarianism, and maybe some others that I can't remember.

T/Theory: You can see some of my general things I default to above in my paradigm. The voters are my lens in which I use to evaluate the theory debate and the standards are your impacts. Make sure that you do weighing between your arguments don't just repeat your arguments verbatim in the rebuttals and expect me to somehow resolve the debate for y'all. (In front of me yes policy kids you can debate paradigmatic issues like yes or no RVI.)

Kritiks: I mess with Kritiks, one thing I'll generally note on them is that their ROBs are typically impact justified, either don't have a impact justified framing mechanism or explain why being impact justified is good or doesn't matter (if this is an issue brought up). I'm most familiar with Modernist Cap ks. I'm familiar with D(& G), Puar, Buadrillard, Foucault, Agamben, Afropessimism, Queer pessimism, maybe some others you can always ask. Please still explain your arguments, I will try my best not to commit the sin of judge intervention by doing work for anyone.

Tricks: I ran tricks a little bit, they're fun please just make sure they're clearly delineated and are actually warranted and implicated in the first speech that they're made in. Also try to read them slower.

PF- Never did PF, just give me a clear framing mechanism in which I can evaluate the round and weigh between impacts. I'm open to arguments being made that aren't typically in PF, just make sure you're running stuff you understand.

Congress- I did congress once, if I end up judging, you should probably try to appeal to the other judges more, I don't care how you speak, I like clash and I like the content of what you're saying.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

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.

WDM Valley '20, Williams College '24

As a debater, I did mostly LD and debated framework, tricks, and theory, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I also have experience with traditional debate.

For online debates: Do not go your top speed! 80-85% is fine

Add me to the email chain -- bella.nadel@gmail.com

Framework>>>>>Theory>>Tricks>K's=LARP>>>High theory

***The only debates I do not enjoy judging are bad tricks debates. Also full-on LARP debates but to a lesser extent. So yes, I do enjoy watching/evaluating K debates, even though I am probably less qualified to evaluate them. I am the least comfortable with high theory positions***

General stuff:

1) I believe debate is a game with real-world implications for its participants, so have fun with whatever you're reading but be conscious of other people present

2) "The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more"

3) Disclosure theory = not a fan. It will make me sad :( Exceptions for very obvious violations like lying about the aff

4) I will say clear or slow if I can't understand you, but at I'll eventually just stop flowing if you don't make adjustments

5) Don't be rude. (Note: There is a fine line between being aggressive and rude. If you have to question which, you're probably being rude)

6) Defaults: no RVI, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, presume aff, permissibility negates, truth testing, theory > K. I will ONLY use these if there are no in-round arguments read one way or another.

Speaks:

1) Things that will boost speaks: a) not reading off a doc, b) NC/AC strats, c) good, substantive framework debates, d) otherwise clever, well-executed strategic decisions, e) quality puns, f) if there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent and you win the round in a way that they are able to understand and learn from--that shows strategic flexibility

2) Things that will decrease speaks: a) obviously pre-written 2n’s, b) being abusive in rounds where there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent

3) Things that will not affect speaks: in-round arguments telling me to give you high speaks

Just ask me any other questions before the round/over messenger!

About Me

I competed in policy in high school and college at Copper Hills under Scott Odekirk and then at Weber under Ryan Wash. Both coaches heavily influenced my views of debate. For reference on what I'm most knowledgeable about, I always read a K aff that focused on the experiences of migrant women, but read a diversity of arguments on the negative, ranging from performance-based K debate to classic DA/CP/T strategies. I don't support the exclusionary and uneducational practice of deciding rounds based on one's ideological preferences. I am willing to listen to any argument and will judge it based on the competitive framing done in round.

Since graduating high school, I have coached and judged policy, LD, and Congress on and off. 2023 - 2024 will be my fifth-year judging.

Congress

There are four things I evaluate when ranking, in order of importance:

1) Quality of your content: Construct your arguments effectively and efficiently. I define effectiveness by the ability to use credible sources, FRAME YOUR IMPACTS, display strong evidence analysis and introduce new claims and warrants for why we should pass/fail. After the first two speeches, each speech should have some matter of refutation. Efficiency is shown through clear and concise verbiage, sign posting, and only using repetition strategically.

2) Speech delivery: The best congress folks recognize that body language is more than half of our communication. The speech triangle works because it makes us use intentional movement in our transitions. If you don't understand the reasoning behind why it works and apply it to other parts of your speech, you are limiting yourself to the culture of "doing things because that's what other people do" found so often in Speech and Debate. Being cognizant of your hand motions, foot movements, posture and facial expressions and then using them to your advantage will set you apart for me, particularly if you demonstrate a large range. Project your voice. I strongly prefer that students do not read off of their laptop, particularly if they are doing it because it is the best way to have the most pre-written content available. In general, only reading pre-written content cuts you off from your audience in body language, doesn't translate well to spoken word, and limits the possibility of vocal emphasis. I've noticed that these speeches also tend to not be timed well.

3) Cross ex: Use your questions to establish presence and style in the round. Maintain control of the tempo of the discussion, meaning that you don't try to give a speech in cx or try to speak for your opponent. In my opinion, the goal is for you to get them to say what you want them to say without saying it yourself. Defend your points or set them up effectively, depending on when you give a speech in the session in relation to the cx at hand.

4) Round awareness: Demonstrate that you are capable of assessing when to speak, what arguments are important on the bill in discussion, and most importantly, what refutations or framing will be most convincing. I think all three of these are dependent on you asking yourselves questions throughout the round that determine how you change your behaviors from session to session. What hasn't been said? Who are my judges? If that representative has already said "these framing is going to clarify the debate," then should I do the same thing because I always do? What other formulaic behaviors do I need to adapt?

Policy

debatewrecksmyinbox@gmail.com

Add me on the email chain now rather than later (if there is one)

Basiz Biz

Time yourself. Tag teams fine. Don't be explicit about your racism/sexism when interacting with your peers if you don't want me to evaluate it. Evaluations tbd.

"Anyone not ready?" doesn't work in online debate. If my camera is off, then you can presume that I am not ready.

Clarity is a prerequisite for me flowing the debate. If I have to say clear more than 3 times, I will stop. Any instances of clipping will stop the round and be an auto loss.

Card quality is important in the sense that it shouldn't be cast aside as a) author credibility only being something PF discusses b) overcharged tag lines being accepted as fact and c) presumably having warrants for each of the claims that you are asserting. I will read the cards that are referenced in the last speeches.

Affirmatives

I think I have a lower threshold for presumption arguments. I usually believe going into a round that most affirmatives don't solve as much as they say they do, nor do they have internal link scenarios that are as cohesive as their tag lines would suggest. The first thing I look at after round is whether the burden of proof (however that is defined based on the framework of the debate) for the aff has been met.

If you are reading a kritik, I believe having a method is necessary.

If you have a topical plan - please write out the full version of acronyms under tags if they are not in the body of the card or your tags themselves. I don't usually research the topic prior to judging at a tournament, so there are some terms that may not be familiar to me even if they are a common phrase under the topic.

Framework vs K Affs

I view these debates as competing models of the activity. Debate is inherently competitive, but how we compete is also important. I am not easily persuaded by "you destroy the activity" impacts. I prefer arguments centered around creating better interactions, whether that be a dialogue, political, accessible, fair, educational, etc, and default to how that affects debaters. If you want me to default to something else, please tell me in your speech.

Kritiks

Connect the theories to events / experiences / history and the affirmative if you want to make it more compelling for me. Connecting it to the affirmative may seem self-evident with the K requiring a link and all (at least if you want to win), but in most debates I find myself not being told how the K relates to the answers the aff has given or certain parts of the AC. I'm not saying you need a link for every word they say, but that a link to the story of the affirmative is important sans an explanation of why the part you are critiquing comes before or outweighs other parts of the aff.

Counterplans

Be explicit about the NB in the 1NC. I do think some CPs cheat more than others but have not seen enough tricky counterplan strategies to have a strong opinion on whether some are just bad for debate. Feel more than welcome to inform me through a theory debate that has clear explanations of your impacts.

Disadvantages

I have a very vague understanding of Politics DA theory, so if you're going for it you should contextualize it to the round (ex. winding way, bottom of the docket, anything w fiat).

Theory

Enunciate as much as you can or slow down on your blocks for theory. It always seems like going bloop bloop bloop fairness and education is a common practice, and like I said at the top, clarity is a prereq to me flowing.

Everything is up for debate as far as what should be done in debate.

Topicality

My third-grade knowledge of grammar is not thriving. Any standard relying on English grammar tests runs the risk of my Google interpretation being incorrect.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 2/19/23

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash of civ and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T. Usually that ends on the TVA flow.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

Hi, I'm Breigh!

Legacy Christian '21; UT Austin '25

platbreigh@gmail.com

I qualified to the TOC twice with 6 bids. I mostly read postmodern Ks, theory, and topicality; but I'd strongly prefer if you debated your best layer, the way you'd like to (and will be disappointed if you read something just because you think I'll like it).

Prefs Shortcut

1 – pomo/high theory, theory, T

2 - id pol Ks, phil

3 – cp/da/pics, security/IR Ks

Ks

I think the most important part is the framing — ROB/J need to defend your theory with the same rigor as a dense phil framing.

I feel comfortable adjudicating: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bataille, Glissant, Yancy, Weheliye, Hardt + Negri, Muñoz, and Ahmed. I have sufficient knowledge about: Foucault, set col, Virilio. I have the least knowledge about: ableism lit, security, anthro, and IR Ks.

K Affs (non T/performance) + T-FWK

Reading K Affs: These affs need an explanation of why the topic is bad, why debate is the space for the aff, and why I should vote aff. Make sure when answering framework to have both a counter interp and impact turns, not just the latter.

Answering K affs: T-FWK is fine but I find it kinda unimpressive. I’ll strongly reward a good case press!

Theory

I like it as a time suck, as an integral part of your strat — whatever you want it to be. I tend to think most shells aren't frivolous, so take that as you will. The only shells I don't like are those that comment on a debater personally (e.g. formal clothes).

I think disclosure debates are a little annoying but I'll vote on them.

I’m think most evidence ethics challenges should be debated out in round; however, if the accuser wants to stake the round on it, I’ll stop the round, read the ev, and decide w the correct debater getting a W30 and the opponent an L20.

Phil:

I’m most familiar w most conventional phil frameworks (Kant, Hegel, existentialism, Levinas etc.) and feel fine adjudicating more nuanced frameworks. Triggering skep is fine + so are calc indicts.

Tricks

I prefer theory tricks (winning one layer to affirm, one uncondo route, etc.) to substantive tricks (trivialism, condo logic, etc.), but I’ll vote on either.

I won't vote on arguments that don't warrant their conclusion (e.g. "the sky is blue so vote aff"). However, even if tricks are silly, that just means it is your job to call them out.

Policy Arguments

I know the least about policy arguments but responded to them more often than virtually any other style of debate. I'm not a fan of doc bots and strongly think smart analytics can often beat cards.

Other -

Robby Gillespie coached me so naturally, I did a lot of thinking about debate with him/he informed 90% of my debate opinions.

Content warnings are not only good, but necessary. I have a zero-tolerance policy on this — ask before round and/or choose your words carefully in round.

If you're debating someone significantly worse than you — you can read basically anything you want as long as [1] you go slowly and explain your positions clearly and kindly in cx [2] you make a genuine effort to make the round educational.

I'll boost your speaks +.3 if you send a nice/encouraging message to someone else in the community and lmk before round — debate is super toxic and we should do everything to make it a kinder space.

Likes!:

- Nebel!!!! good semantics 2ns!!!!

- theory underviews with creative 1ar implications

- making k fwks like analytic phil fwks

- judge instruction, especially in the following areas: fiat/circumvention, 2nr/2ar weighing

Dislikes:

- arguments that disparage the legitimacy of another style (“bad tricks,” “dumb policy args,” "Ks are cheating")

- conceding the aff

- "gut check"

- reading "let us weigh case" in the 1ar v a K when the 1NC didn't preclude you from weighing case

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

please add me to the email chain 26kirura@gmail.com

--Experience--

3 years of high school local/national LD and Policy

4th year of college policy for the University of Wyoming

NDT twice

--Quick Notes--

- my email is 26kirura@gmail.com if you have questions about the RFD. If you're confused about a result feel free to reach out to me

- tech > truth

- I won't do work for you (aka extend unique offense speech to speech, I won't cross-apply arguments if you don't tell me to, etc).

- this is a shared space, so help make it enjoyable & safe for everyone!

Important stuff:

- impact out your arguments

- do impact & evidence comparison

- the only work I will ever do impact calc if I'm forced to.

- speak clearly. This is especially important with online debate. I can handle speed if you articulate and signpost. I will not say clear if you don't see me flowing I can't understand you

Kritiks:

- I have gone for k's on the aff and neg as well as policy arguments

-I like Kritiks but you need to explain your alt and the links in a way that makes sense because you are the one that has done all the research on it and I haven't

-how does the world of the alternative function and how does it compete with the world of the AFF

-you need a specific link to the aff and impact out your links

Topicality:

-make sure that you have clear impacts for T though why is it a voter?

-don't just say limits and ground but give examples and explain why limits are important and contextualize your interp

Theory:

- I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, on conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. 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 judge kick unless the aff tells me not to and has a good reason why I shouldn't

CPs and DAs:

-nothing special here run what you are good at

-as far as CPs go I don't care how many you have or if the planks are conditional

Very traditional. I am a parent judge. I am not familiar with spreading, please do not spread.

I really like strong, meaningful evidence and clear argumentation with solid warrants.

Cross-ex is vital! Some debaters never seem to focus on this. An effective cross examination will get you high speaker points. If you listen well, you will do fine here.

A good debater is consistent throughout the entire debate. This means crystallization, weighing, and making clear and strong arguments. Write my RFD for me, that is the entire point of your last rebuttals. Everyone in the round should know precisely why you deserve to win.

My email is taj@unitingthecrowns.com

2023 NDT Champion

2023 CEDA Champion

I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.

The Black Chorus Sings

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

Conflicts for TOC external to my school: Cary Academy, David Huang

Shortcut:

Philosophy - 1

Theory - 1

Non-Identity Ks - 1/2

T - 2

Identity K's - 2-4 depending how you read them

Policy - 5/Strike

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

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

Important Stuff is Bolded

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

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

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

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

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

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

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

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

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

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

Two things of note:

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

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

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

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

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

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

Debater Behavior

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

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

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

Judge Behavior

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

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

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

LD Prefs in-depth

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I look for in a good LD round

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF in-depth prefs

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

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

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

That's all folks.

About me:

- Pronouns are she/her

- I debated for WDM Valley for 4 years - policy for 3 years and LD for 1 year. Graduated in 2017.

- Currently in my first year of law school at the University of Richmond.

- Primarily a k debater, faves were fem rage, Nietzsche, and Deleuze.

- I've been out of the activity for a hot min, so I'm not as up to date on the literature anymore. Just be clear and weigh your offense plsssss. I like cool strats and I like sass (don't be snarky or rude tho pls, especially if there's an obvious skill differential between you and your opponent. No one likes a jerk).

- Add me to the email chain: manasisingh2017@gmail.com

In general, I think debate should be whatever you want it to be. As I see it, it’s up to the debaters to tell me what is or isn’t important in deciding the round, and I think it’s important that you use the debate space as a way to hone new skills and learn how to think creatively. Here is a list of my random thoughts about debate:

1. I don’t care what you read in the round; I will reward smart strategies/punish messy work

2. Fairness is harder to prove than education/skills.

3. There’s no such thing as a bad argument – just bad debating

4. Speed is good, but clarity is better. I have a high threshold for speed, so I'll say slow or clear a reasonable amount of times, but don't make me work hard to understand you.

5. I love kritiks, but that doesn’t mean that’s what you should read in front of me. Debate what you like debating, and do it well

6. Phil debates are hard for me to flow, so slow down a little. I was never a phil debater, so don't assume I know the exact implications of your args, otherwise you might not like the conclusions/decisions I come to.

7. Crossex is a valuable tool that not enough people take advantage of. That said, arguments made in cx are way more persuasive if they’re grounded in your speeches

8. I’m a sucker for creative strategies, and I LOVE creative cross-applications

***Everything above does not include blatantly offensive statements. Be mindful of what you say and be respectful.

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

Hi, my name is Jacob Tamkin, I am a sophomore at USC and have been debating and judging public forum for 4+ years. Please talk slow and be respectful to one another. Make sure to reiterate and carry your points through to the end. Good luck !

note for toc 23: if you are in the recruiting process for or committed to attending wake forest university or have any affiliation with the current wake debate program, please conflict me.

american heritage palm beach ('21), wake forest university ('24)

put me on the email chain: nikkidebate@gmail.com

tldr: i was very flex & will be fine with whatever you do. debate how you debate best and take this with a grain of salt. i don't think true 'tab' judges exist so i won't say that i am one; debate well and you'll win. if your opponent debates better, they'll win. speaker points are awarded solely for good debating.

important things:

[1] i don't flow off the doc (mostly, sometimes it's early and i am sleepy)

[2] i simply do not care about postrounding - do it if you want but but know i couldn't care less and nothing will change!

[3] taken from sai karavadi: "i will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable and yes, that means i will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — you can @ me if you want"

[4] don’t be morally repugnant. don't misgender people. no -isms.

[5] "evaluate [part of the debate] after the 1ac" is not a real argument

[6] taken from nigel ward:"have the email chain setup. there is no reason you should be fumbling with an email chain 10 minutes past start time. it makes me seem late and leads to tab (understandably) sending runners to annoy me...and that annoys me. put differently: even if i’m late, have the email chain set up and ready to send upon my arrival."

[7] please say the number along w the speech name (ex: it's 1ac not ac, or 1nc not nc). i switch between ld & policy, so it just helps.

the kritik

if this is your cup of tea, go for it. if it isn’t, please do not subject me to 45 minutes of warren when you don’t know what humanism is.

i'm pretty good with adjudicating these debates and am pretty well read- just read what you want and explain it well. not a big fan of setcol debates where debaters aren't indigenous.

tldr: extend offense, use overviews to your advantage (i flow them) and answer perms well. "k tricks", whatever your interpretation of the term may be, are cool. please clash. have a theory of power and know it well.

win your theory of power, whatever that may be. every kritik is an orientation to the world through a certain lens, and absent winning that orientation, it becomes extremely difficult for me to adjudicate these debates. you should have a clear explanation of this theory of power, not just buzzwords. examples are your friend. the most effective 2nrs on going for the k should collapse.

the link should be specifically implicated to the affirmative and should not rely on loose generics. this does not mean you need to cut a link card to every part of the aff, but rather be clear in your contextualization of the link, and in explaining why that link matters in context of your theory of power. the impacts debate is where i start to filter out offense and would like to see early comparative weighing.

alternative: tell me a) what the alt does, b) how it resolves the links, c) how it solves, d) what the world of the alt looks like. the alt needs to be explicitly extended and explained.

permutations: permutations must be appropriately handled- do not misgroup perms that shouldn't be grouped. dropped perms are easy aff ballots. carded perms (esp from 1nc authors) = i'll bump speaks. explain what the world of the perm looks like - perms should have net benefits- saying "perm do the aff" isn't enough work to win.

performance/non-t affs

you do you. win why the ballot matters, why debate is good/bad, what the aff does, etc. a lot of judges are anti overviews, i do not care so please use overviews. i love these debates, but you will need to do the work to persuade me on why i should vote aff/neg and why your model is good. k affs tell stories, and absent hearing what the story of the aff is, it's going to be really hard for me to actually vote on it.

fwk v non-t affs

it can be smart and strategic- operative word here is "can”. be efficient, answer the aff, compare methods (fwk v k is a methods v methods debate), do work on standards and the counterinterp. good 2nrs on framework make me very happy. i have no bias to either side of these debates; i've been on both sides.

k v k

taken from dylan burke: "these debates often get very messy because they are incredibly shallow. the only thing i have to say in this section is that you should be articulating your theory of power in a very comprehensive way as to a) why it better explains structures that the other team b) why the alternative solves those structures c) why the links make the action that the other team is advocating for bad."

the impact debate to me is just an extension of the methods debate that is inevitable (or at least should be) in any clash of civ round - in these debate, that work should be done early (not just in the 2nr/2ar).

tricks

read them if you want idc, i just have a lower standard for answering things like silly aprioris than you may want me to have. i don’t consider truth testing + an nc like monism to be tricks, i mean blippy, unwarranted, 1 line arguments. "what's an apriori" was cool in 2018, it isn't anymore.

truth testing + nc combo: underrated and i miss it. bring it back.

t/theory

i’m fine with it- do what you would normally do. i have personal opinions on good v bad theory but if it's warranted and extended i’ll evaluate it (except theory arguments that implicate a debater's physical appearance). sending interp/counterinterp texts is probably good and limits the chance i get it down wrong. i default to no rvis, competing interps, drop the arg, and text over spirit. if none of these are arguments, however, i will probably be very unamused.

phil

i was not a phil debater in high school; i am a philosophy major at wake. i’m probably not the world's best judge for evaluating these debates, but as long as you extend offense, impacts, and explain niche terms, i’ll be fine. syllogisms are like stories, so i will hold you to the same level of explanation as any good kritikal aff.

larp/policy

i do policy debate. obviously you can read these arguments i just will be bored lol so do it but do it well. please do not pref me for dense larp v larp rounds if you are incapable of collapsing – most of the times, i will not be able to adjudicate these debates as well as you want me to. weighing is your friend; collapsing is your significant other. i love good recuttings.

taken from ben waldman: "i'm pro-spin but anti-lying, know the difference."

cx (the event)

i go to wake forest and believe in the big tent method. what that means is that i have no ideological preferences as to how you should debate, i just want you to debate in a way that you are comfortable with. i’m a 2a so i love seeing interesting affirmative strategy. basically, do whatever. all the ld kritik and larp stuff above applies but i should be chilling in the back for you to debate how you debate best!

cross-ex

some people can be rude in cx. if that's your thing, i don't care. the exception being if you are a circuit debater debating a novice/someone with vastly less experience than you. in that instance, be nice - it'll hurt your speaks otherwise.

speaks

i currently average a 28.7534 (29 rounds)

28.5 is average; they go up and down from there. "material" speaks boosters are capitalistic and exclusionary in nature, hence my discomfort in offering them.

i'll disclose numerical speaks if asked, but if it's the first question after a decision i will probably roll my eyes.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.

Affirmatives should usually be topical.

Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.

Extra T is probably bad

Severance is bad

Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps

Conditionality is OK

PICs are OK

Alt agent fiat is probably bad

Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually

Probably no RVIs

Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality

I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. (There is an emerging practice of hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks to the AC without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is mis-disclosure and will result in an automatic loss.)

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping. By sending those analytics you're representing, they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

Can Flow policy and evaluate policy as long as you don't go too fast.

I was a College LD debater, running anti-blackness on both Aff and Neg. I will evaluate all arguments, more of truth over tech judge. I am good with moderate speed, if you are not enunciating I will clear you.

I do not like phil/tricks debate for example I do not want you to tell me nothing causes anything or that the world doesnt exist etc.

I am also not all that intrested in dense debates about ancient white philosophy.

I Like K's and Policy Args.

Debated at Katy Taylor and TAMS. TOC qualled my senior year.
Email chain: mayaxia2018@gmail.com (Please add me to the email chain!!)

Tl;dr: I like LARP style debates. Your speech should write the ballot for me- I want to be able to pick out a sentence or two word for word that I can write on my ballot to justify why I’m voting for you.

I haven't judged since before Covid started, so please go at 75-80% speed of what you normally go at so I can follow along effectively. If I didn’t hear it because you’re too fast or unclear, then I won’t flow it.

My personal preference for arguments goes as follows:

1. LARP

2. Theory

3. K’s

4. Philosophy

5. Tricks

LARP:

I like good LARP debates with in-depth topic research and strong evidence comparison. Good debaters should be able to properly collapse and explain the scenario in both the big picture and the line-by-line fashion. Super specific plans probably need to be topical and have solvency advocates, so if you don’t meet both qualifications, I can be pretty persuaded by theory. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but I can be persuaded either way.

Kritiks:

I’m not as familiar with most K literature, so if you’re reading a kritik, please don’t just use buzzwords to explain your argument. You should be able to coherently explain the thesis of the kritik using the vocabulary of a kindergartner so that I can effectively understand and evaluate the round. Your 2NR should not be 100% prescripted because in those cases, debaters tend to lose anyways. I also need a clear articulation of the alternative does- if I don't know exactly what happens and what happens after the alt, then I can't vote on it.

Theory/Tricks:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater, but you need to justify them. Please don’t blaze through the shell. Slow down for the interp and pause between standards. Have interps/counter-interps pre-written and sent before the speech starts. Weighing standards is super important. I like smart theory debates where the interp solves for most abuse in the shell and has clear offense. 1AR theory is smart, and you should go for it if there’s clear abuse. Please do top level theory weighing (1ar theory first, topicality outweighs, fairness first, which shell comes first, etc.).

I’ve never read or debated tricks, so you’ll probably confuse me a lot if you go for tricks.

Philosophy:

I didn’t debate much philosophy/framework, so if you’re reading a phil AC/NC, please, again, explain it to me as you would explain it to a kindergartner. I default to comparative worlds, so if you’re truth-testing, please justify it, although I’m more convinced that comparative worlds is the better model of debate.

Non-T Affs:

I was essentially 100% topical my entire debate career, so I tend to lean against non-T affs and believe that T-Framework is true. If you can beat T or whatever arguments they read, I’m fine with non-T affs. If you’re reading T, don’t drop thesis level arguments in the aff that can take out T because I’m not going to grant you leeway for answering these args in the 2NR.

Other Stuff:

PLEASE EXTEND ARGUMENTS. I have a lower threshold for extensions in the 1AR, but they still need to be there. I won’t vote on any morally repugnant arguments. Flex prep is fine with me. I think disclosure is EXTREMELY important. I was the only debater from my school and I always disclosed, so I probably won’t be convinced if you go for disclosure bad.