Email - Maxinekyadams364@gmail.com

Prefs

1 - k/performance****, traditional

2 - theory

4 - larp

no tricks.

Important

-i am very flow centric (flow cross ex even)- tech matters a lot

-impacts are important to me. please give me framing and comparison, tell me the story of your impacts and how they outweigh.

-case debate - be very clear when you're cross applying arguments to the case flow - 2nr and 2ar must go to the case page and isolate what you're winning

-FW - ill vote on it if you win it.

More thoughts

- please collapse by the 2n/2a and use judge instruction.

- good analytics > bad cards

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!

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

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.)

Experience & Education
Carrollton HS Speech & Debate '08-'12.
CHS S&D (Assistant Coach) '12-'16.
-
BS Political Science - University of West Georgia '16
Master of Public Policy - Georgia State University '20

~~~

PF: I prefer that PF stays as close to it's original intent (in terms of the use of debate theory, jargon, etc.) as possible - i.e., I should be able to judge this round as a layperson with no prior knowledge of the high school debate space. If you're going to spend a considerable amount of time between speeches calling for cards please weigh every card you've asked for.

LD: I appreciate as much of a straightforward framework and/or case debate as you can give me.

FOR ONLINE DEBATE- please go 70% of your top speed

Success Academy High School

Debate at Wake Forest.

Email:debatesilma@gmail.com

Shortcut: Have fun and read whatever you want.

1-K's & K affs(pess, set col, cap, etc)

2- Theory/LARP/policy/FWK(T)

3-Phil

4- Trix

Background about me: I debated LD for 5 years for Hopkins High School in MN (2009-2014) and coached for Loyola Blakefield High School in Maryland for 2 years (2014-2016). As a debater I had moderate success, breaking at most bid tournaments, reaching 6 bid rounds, and qualified to NSDA Nationals my sophomore year. I am currently a staffer on Capitol Hill.

I am old and have only just started judging again. I do not know all the new trends/abbreviations and I am not great with speed. Please start at 40% and ramp up (especially since WIFI and computers can be weird). Maybe don't use some weird trick or spike in the round, or at least be very, very clear about what you're doing and how it impacts the round as early as possible. I like Ks and philosophy, policy is fine, theory and tricks are not my thing. I want to be on the email chain: Berman.mia11@gmail.com and if you ask for my email I am going to assume you didn't read my paradigm, which will make me sad :(

Re: Theory and T, it is not my thing and I don't think I would be great at evaluating it. HOWEVER, if there is real abuse don't let my inexperience dissuade you from running it, just explain why it's needed. For instance, on the LAWs topic, if someone runs an Aff about landmines, I think the Neg is justified in running T. I just don't recommend Theory or T as a strategy in front of me. I also do not tend to find Theory/T compelling against Ks, but you may be able to convince me otherwise.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The below paradigm is from the last time I judged: 2015. Don't hold me to any of it and ask questions about it before the round.

I advise caution when discussing sensitive issues. I will listen to these arguments, but would appreciate if you first offer a trigger warning and/or ask your opponent whether or not they would be comfortable debating it. This is not an excuse for you (if you are the opponent) to stop them from running this argument if you simply don't feel like debating it, but a way of not having to be triggered by such a sensitive issue in round. If you are opposing an argument like this in round, I ask you to be sensitive and respectful in how you respond to it. There are non-offensive and smart arguments to make, or you can simply preclude the arguments, or argue why you cannot argue against these. Happy to clarify this before the beginning of the round.

TLDR; Don't be offensive or rude.

If you can't find what you're looking for in here, feel free to ask before the round.

Short version:

--I will yell clear/slow if needed If I have to yell clear more than 3 times in a single speech you're getting 27.5 speaks max
--Please don’t run disclosure theory in front of me, it will result in poor speaks
--If you run "must run a plan" or "AFC,” you will get poor speaks
--Being sketchy is not ok
--I reserve the right to dock speaks for extreme rudeness or for being offensive
--Weird arguments/alternative approaches to debate and the topic are fun and good as long as you explain them
--Extinction good is fine
--Have fun, be nice

Long version:

Theory
I default reasonability, RVIs, and drop the argument. These are just defaults and can be overridden, however I personally find theory silly. If you like to run theory as the A strat I am not the judge for you. I will listen to fairness and education aren't voters arguments. If there is genuine abuse, I am glad to listen to shells that accurately point out the abuse and why it is bad. That being said, if you can prove why the abuse isn't there, I will vote on that too. Semantic "I meets" are silly and I have a low threshold for responses to those. Furthermore, I do not find theory against K's particularly persuasive. Specifically if the debater running the K makes arguments how your conception of fairness or education is coming from the dominate powers perspective, I will often find myself persuaded to look at the K before theory. In these situations, I would rather you either engage the K or preclude it with your case. I think some of the arguments that are often made against Ks and put into a theory format can potentially be persuasive, but when structured as a theory shell they become much easier to beat. (If you have questions about what I mean or how these arguments would function, feel free to ask)

Larp/Util
I didn't run straight up larp much as a debater, but that's not to say I won't judge it like anything else, however I am probably not the best to evaluate these rounds. Don't assume I know the technicalities of these arguments and make sure to explain how everything functions.

K's/Critical cases
Go ahead! As a debater, especially towards the end of my career, this was what I enjoyed running most. That being said, if I don't understand it after CX, I can't expect your opponent to understand it either and will have a difficult time voting on it. Don't be purposefully confusing; make it clear how the case functions and where I am supposed to vote. If you are running something denser than fem/cap/colonialism/anthro, please try to go a bit slower than normal to make sure it is clear. If I have to say clear/slow several times and I still look confused, there is a problem and you likely won't be able to fix it in later speeches.

Speaker Points
I assign speaker points based off diversity and development of argumentation, fluency/clearness, and general disposition/attitude. Humor can go a long way, as long as it is not at another's expense. If I have to yell clear more than 3 times I will begin to dock speaks, .5 each additional time.

Dense Philosophical Positions
In college I majored in philosophy and I find it fascinating, however I don't know every philosophical position and don't read your case at me like I do. If you know your position is more obscure and denser, make sure to slow down and be clear about explaining it in cross-ex and your rebuttals.

Sketchy
Don't. If you're going to do it, own up to it.

Overall Round Evaluation
I evaluate the round in layers. I tend to care more about the line by line but can be swayed by the big picture. I appreciate weighing, it is going to have to happen at some point, so either you can do it for me, or I will do it and you will likely be upset. Don't waste your time on arguments that don't matter; only go for what you need to in order to win. If that takes the entire time, use it. If you can win the round in 2 minutes in the 2N, I would rather you sit down than ramble for the remainder of your time.

Overall, I am here to judge you and hopefully the round can be enjoyable and educational for all of us. Choose well! :)

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

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.

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

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.

Hi, I'm Jeong-Wan, I debated in LD for Lexington High School. I qualified to the TOC in my senior year if that matters to you

email: jeongwanc@gmail.com

Quick prefs

1-2: Theory, T, phil

3-4: Identity/conventional Ks, policy

5-6: esoteric high theory, tricks

Overview

I'm comfortable with any argument you make, so long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. Obviously do not read/do anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc. If you do/say anything exclusionary, its gonna be the lowest speaks possible and an auto-L. I will immediately stop the round. However, if it is an argument such as a spike, where it is up for debate whether it is exclusionary, the debate will continue.

Debate is tech>truth. I will evaluate all arguments that are on the flow. That being said, less true arguments and those of low quality have a lower threshold for a response. But if you don't respond to no neg analytics, I can't intervene on your behalf.

Helpful quote from Derek Ying:

"This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner."

If you are hitting someone who is a newcomer to the activity, give them an opportunity to engage. If your opponent has certain accommodations that should be met, I expect you to meet those things. If you make the debate completely inaccessible, don't expect your speaks to be nice no matter how well you debated in round. If you do accommodate well then your speaks will be good.

Defaults

Don't make me set these. Worst case scenario, here are mine: Competing interps, drop the argument, fairness and education are voters, no rvis, theory/T > K/reps > post fiat.

If there is really no weighing and there are two competing arguments at the highest layer, I will flip a coin.

Preferences

I enjoy judging arguments that aren't as conventional. Try to be creative with original arguments and interesting implications.

Don't blitz as fast as you can. I'm not the best flower. Efficiency > speed anyways

Making funny remarks or good jokes in round will increase your speaks.

Good ethos will also increase your speaks. Utilize CX well. It also has a chance for me to psychologically side with you if the debate is close on one issue.

Speaks

I'll try to average 28.5.

I encourage/incentivize strategy, efficiency, persuasion, and rebuttals that don't rely on blocks the whole speech.

I don't disclose speaks

For Novices:

Please do WEIGHING. If there are competing truth claims, it is your responsibility to resolve them by saying why your arguments have more credence. This is how 70% of novice debates are won.

Make sure to Collapse. Don't go for every argument on the flow. Extend your best offense and weigh why that matters more than your opponent's offense. Concentrating on fewer arguments but explaining them more in-depth will be advantageous.

Do not do/read anything exclusionary - i.e: if your opponent is uncomfortable with spreading and you spread. Also please do not read anything that you don't understand; it will hurt your ethos.

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program.

For e-mail chain: melaco@gmail.com. Speechdrop is also great.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

Number of Years I’ve been judging debate since 2018.

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.…)

If you read nothing else, read this: I am a flow judge. (IMO, truth does not exist within the confines of a debate round. The setting of the resolution is the beginning of world creation, which you will build upon and participate in during the round and that is outside the confines of "the real world." I fall short of being a tech judge, but I lean tech.) I expect teams to warrant and clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. Be very clear in your final speeches on why you are winning the round. State clearly what your path to the ballot is. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. I prefer for you, in your final speech, to tell me the RFD you would like me to write.

I don't vote on anything in cross, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on new arguments brought up too late in round.

Happy to clarify any of my prefs, ask before round begins.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: I went to a critical theory-oriented art school MFA program, so no surprise, I love theory, kritik and tricks because it reminds me of grad school. I have a pretty broad background on much of the literature. That being said, it's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik/tricks. You need to completely understand your argument (and not just reading something you found on the wiki or that a friend gave you), and it needs to be clearly presented during the debate in an accessible way. I need well-explained, warranted voters. Please warrant your implications. Be very clear on why I should vote for you.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I expect you to also be keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you pause prep to call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Everything Else:
Cards (where applicable): I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during cross. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the debaters brought up in a speech and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tab immediately.

Judge Disclosure: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. As a judge, I should be able to give you a good RFD after the round. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Judging after 8pm: I'm a morning person. If it is after 8pm, I am probably tired. Clarity in your speeches is always important, but takes on even more importance after 8pm. Talk to me like I'm half-asleep, because I might be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown:
30: Excellent job, I think you are in the top two percent of debaters at this tournament.

29: Very strong ability. You demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round

28: Ability to function well in the round, however at some point, analysis or organization could have been better.

27: Lacking organization and/or analysis in this debate round.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. May have made a large error.

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

A little about me…

She/Her

I’ve been involved in debate for the last 5ish years (four in high school, one in college). I did LD in high school and debated for a year on the parliamentary debate team at Berkeley in NPDA/NPTE open parli, mostly running ks and k affs (this girl loves queer theory).

TL;DR:

tech > truth (but please don’t make me vote on this)

I will vote on anything as long as it’s not oppressive/violent - so k affs, theory, topicality, ks, literally anything. Please make the round interesting and debate how you wanna debate! That said, if you love a good topical debate I’m totally down for that too. Win your arguments on the flow, weigh them concretely, and I’ll be happy to vote you up. Don’t worry about an argument being frivolous as long as it’s not just a hail mary (weigh it properly and I’ll vote on it). Please, please, please don’t just say “perm do both” etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other team’s arguments. Don’t feel like you have to perform. I want you to have the debate that you want to have and that is valuable for you.

Also, please do not misgender your opponents.

**I’ve been out of debate for about a year, so I can still follow most spreading but if you are just unintelligible I will ask you to slow/clear. SIGNPOST. Please listen to me or I will be sad.

————————————————————————————————————————————

Case:

- I love a good turn.

- Please make advantages/disadvantages well-warranted and clear. I default to preferring two clear and specific disads to four.

- I default to durable fiat.

CPs:

- I love advantage CPs (as long as they are well structured and the advantage is weighed against the aff)!

- I default to perms as tests of competition unless you tell me why.

- I don’t love contextual competition :/

Ks:

- I am relatively well versed in K lit, but that DOES NOT mean that I’ll automatically understand all your warrants so you don’t have to explain them. I like this lit and I want the debate to happen on its substance, not because your opponents don’t understand your warrants because they are blippy and confusing. This will make me sad. I am most familiar with Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and a lot of queer theory so do with that what you will.

- If you choose to run theory against a team rejecting the resolution, know that I do generally tend to lean towards the impacts of the K rather than the impact of the theory. That said, I would love to see a good theory debate as long as you explain what you mean by fairness and education very clearly. I would prefer not to vote off of a fairness argument that is dropped but never weighed/explained.

- When I was debating, we mostly ran Ks and K affs so don’t be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.

- I will default to evaluating the alt as a CP if you don’t give me a reason not to.

- Please, please, please don’t just say “perm do the alt and the CP” etc. Give me a reason why the perm is better and them against the other team’s arguments.

- I love K affs. That said, I will definitely not automatically vote up a team for running this. I would LOVE to see a thorough, precise framework T debate… just make sure you give me a reason why education and fairness are more important than the impacts of the K

- Please don’t just run a reject alt…it makes the debate less interesting.

- I have a high standard for a framework T violation. You cannot just say “a k aff is unfair because we couldn’t prepare for it”. You must have a well-warranted, formatted T shell that picks apart how a K aff makes the debate unfair. I will lean towards the impacts of the k aff outweighing the standards. That said, it is very possible to win FWT against a k aff (and I would love to see you do it)! I just need a very clear, substantive FWT argument.

Theory:

- I ran a lot of theory when I was debating, so my threshold for “frivolous theory” is very low. This means that I default towards potential abuse v. proven abuse. I’m going to vote on the best norms for debate, and I think that potential abuse captures this better than proven abuse. I love a good theory debate, but I prefer that the responses and extensions are substantial and precise.

- I’ll pretty much vote on anything if it is well warranted.

- Theory should be responded to with a counter interp/counter standards and a “we meet” when possible.

- Weigh your standards. I will be skeptical if you just say “they didn’t respond to x standard” and leave it at that.

- I am skeptical of new theory in the PMR.

- I default to dropping the debater over dropping the argument. If you want me to just drop the argument, tell me why and weigh it.

- I default to theory being a priori to the rest of the debate. If you don’t want me to evaluate it this way, I will be skeptical unless your argument is well warranted and weighed.

- Don’t assume that fairness and education are automatically voters. You must tell me why they are voters in the specific context of the shell and the violation in the round. I tend to lean towards the idea that education and fairness as voters only benefit some debaters, so I will be skeptical if you don’t explain it to me).

Speaks:

- I am very skeptical of speaks as a concept. I believe (and have experienced) that speaks usually reflect race, gender, and sexuality biases more than they reflect in round “performance”.

- I will use speaker points to reward strategic decisions and penalize disrespectful behavior. The winning team should expect 29.0-29.5 and the losing team should expect 28-28.5.

Other:

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read:https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- Ask any questions before round. My old debate partner and beautiful human being June Dense has heavily influenced my debate philosophy. Look to her paradigm for more information on what I’m about.

<3

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

Yes email chain

zacjudges@gmail.com

1/21/2023 Update:

TLDR: I’m a circuit flow judge who qualified to TOC twice as a debater, and has since coached 10+ debaters to the TOC reading LARP, Ks, Phil, and Theory. You can read pretty much anything in front of me, I care more about you doing it well then trying to appeal to my opinions. If you want to learn my opinions to see how I will err in close debates read on:

My paradigm is long but perpetually a work in progress, email me if you have any paradigm questions or better ask before round.

Despite my technical background, I wouldn’t assume I have topic knowledge on any particular topic, particularly policy acronyms, nor what affs are common/topical. So appeals to intuition like this aff is obviously reasonable are ineffective.

Also you should use your full speech times in 99.9% of rounds.

Paradigm from 2020:

I have lots of thoughts. I bolded the things that will mostly matter when prefing or judging LD, the rest only applies to 1-0.1% of rounds I judge. In most rounds I will have an easy ballot on the technical level, these opinions only come in when I am forced to resolve two competing truths that are relatively equal on the tech, they can all be overcome by giving better speeches. (The exception is in-round violence)

Why did I put them in then?

One of the most frustrating things to me as a debater was judges telling me per opinions on arguments in the rfd that could have been in the paradigm, if I judge you and you think I should add something from my rfd to my paradigm please tell me. This way we can avoid people losing on affs because I just don’t feel the aff’s don’t clear the presumption burden even though the aff did great debating etc.

How much I like the args/how much in favor of you I would unconsciously err in close debates probably

0- 0 off, the order is case.

1 – Good Ks, Good/Topic specific Phil, Great theory

2- Good Theory args (condo good/bad, pics good/bad), Good unique LARP (new politics scenario), Good unique tricks (I found Alphabet spec funny the first time I saw it, I didn't the fifth time. Be creative) , Generic Ks (cap k with generic links)

3- Tricky Phil, (your tricky northeast Kant frameworks from 7 years ago), Bad Larp

4- Bad Theory (shoes theory)

5- Bad Tricks (resolved apriori)

Biggest Influences in Debate:

SunHee Simon

Lila Lavender

Jessica Jung

I attended both Victory Briefs Institute and RKS at Wake Forest, and both shaped my perspective and education in debate.

Background:

CMC 2024, yes I’m a first year out, but I coached and judged a lot in high school and worked with camps such as interning at the Victory Briefs Institute. I would not recommend ordinal 1ing me even if you agree with my views, since I’m still learning.

My name is Zachary Davis. I did Circuit LD for 3 years and qualified to the Junior and Senior Year Tocs, with an even 3-3 record junior year, and Coronavirus ending TOC senior year (2020 generation). Before LD I did both Public Forum and Parli for two years. I also dipped into policy occasionally mostly in my freshmen and senior years. I’m choosing to coach rather than debate in college.

I mostly read Ks, but went for theory and larp positions as well. My ideal neg strats were one off k or nc, 2 off k + t, and 5 off k, t, theory, cp, da.

I’m a technical debater/judge, in most cases I’d rather judge a theory debate than a traditional debate. Despite this, many debaters don’t realize how incoherent pers are too spectators, so err on the side of overexplanation, especially in the 2nr and 2ar, if there’s no warrant I won’t vote on it. Concessions mean I evaluate warrants/arguments as true, but if there is no warrant, than there is functionally nothing to vote on and nothing conceded.

Despite this I think the broader community trend to emphasize an ideal position as a tabula rasa judge is both an impossible goal and a false ideal.

What do I mean by this? 1. It’s impossible for judges to leave past experience and argument biases at the door. 2. Tech matters but truth does too, just because I agree technical debate is important, I disagree with only tech mattering which incentivizes debaters to read blatantly false arguments that have good time trade-offs ranging from spikes to incorrect das, because pointing out the fallacies takes longer than reading. 3. However I do think the judge should attempt to leave all past opinions surrounding the topic at the door i.e. even if I think nuclear arsenals are really bad, I shouldn’t let that convince me to vote aff if the debate becomes a stalemate.

Why do I, the debater, care? It’s likely that this won’t impact 99% of rounds I judge since I will usually act as a tech based tab judge, and I won’t actively intervene i.e. reading articles of the cards you read, unless asked too. However this means I am more persuaded that the reading of false arguments doesn’t just mean those argument are wrong and go away, but can be won as a drop the debater voting issue. I won’t intervene and make those arguments voting issues though, and I think there are degrees of wrongness.

Personal Requests/Accessibility:

1. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round.

2. I strongly believe in trigger/content warnings, if you think there’s a chance your arguments would benefit from them, read them before your first speech, or the speech in which the content begins. Be prepared to read different args.

3. Do not misgender your opponents or judges, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "per" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponent" “aff/neg” “person” etc. They/them isn’t gender neutral. I don’t want to debate or explain pronouns in this space either, post-rounding me on this issue specifically is unwise. I’ll publish a follow up at some point that you can check for my reasons.

4. Debate however makes you the most comfortable. I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand etc. I don’t care whether you ware shoes etc. My only clothes opinion is that schools should not force debaters to wear formal clothes. I don’t care what individual debaters choose to wear, and think policing debaters presentations is bad and as such want to work against schools doing so. I’m conflicted about punishing individual debaters because it’s not the fault of the debaters because of the school policy (so I’m not the judge for reading friv formal clothes theory against trad debaters), but I hope I along with other judges (such as Alan Fishman) help shift schools to change this opinion.

5. Don’t read identity positions if you aren’t of that identity. I will easily vote on arguments such as non-black debaters should not read afro-pessimism.

General Thoughts:

Usual Evaluation Flow chart looks like this:

1- Figure out the winning framing, use that framing to isolate which impacts matter.

2- Look through independent voters/arguments that attempt to uplayer the framing

3- Find Offense with warrants/full articulated arguments under the framing

4- (Take into account turns to see which way the offense flows)

5- Weighing between arguments, conceded arguments have full weight and often therefore outweigh, weighing arguments defense etc come in here.

6- If I can’t evaluate the debate on the above both debaters messed up and I start to account for implicit clash followed by my preferences/background understanding to fill in the gaps.

Do what you are good at, I’ll adapt to you, more than you should need to adapt to me.

I value framing more than average judge.

In round articulation is important, I’m going to evaluate your evidence how you explain it to me, if you explain it poorly I won’t grant you additional implications that weren’t made explicitly. Similarly don’t attempt to morph implications that weren’t there, every conceded argument in the 1ar is not a potential drop the debater 2ar (unless set up in the 1ar), so if you want me to vote on the 7. On the k it should have an implication in the 1ar.

I won’t vote on new offense in the 2ar and have a low threshold for 2ar responses to new 2nr offense absent circumstances in which I feel I must intervene i.e. slurs.

Risk of Offense>presumption, if your last speech only has defense you will probably lose the round. I will only vote on presumption if it is a major strategy, there is no offense in the round, or the round is a mess/I have no idea what’s going on anymore.

Cards vs Analytics, I value analytics and low author qualification evidence higher than average. I think unless your argument needs scientific evidence, or polling data etc. i.e. whether nuclear winter would cause extinction or whether Trump is predicted to win the 2020 election, it can be analytic. I don’t inherently value cards more than analytics in the way many judges view author qualifications meaning their opinions are somehow more legitimate. You don’t need to find cards to say every thing you want to say, you just need a warranted argument. In most cases analytic = card.

Offense>Defense, but defense matters it helps the weighing debate.

I default Epistemic confidence (aka I only evaluate impacts through the winning framework, not a mix of frameworks) , I have not heard a brightline that makes sense or a way too evaluate epistemic modesty that’s not just use my framework even if I lose, usually I think you would be better off spending your time winning framing or making arguments as to why your offense links under the opponent’s framework than going for epistemic modesty, but hey if you win a good brightline that makes sense I’ll use it.

Applying framing when responding or going for high layer issues i.e. ks, theory, and independent voters is good and makes decisions cleaner.

Weighing is great especially when it goes beyond impacts. Weigh between links and internal links, do evidence analysis and comparison, weigh between layers etc. Weighing clash is often what separates good debaters from great debaters.

People’s understanding of fiat is bad this article explains many of my thoughts https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/12/28/two-dogmas-of-fiat-by-jacob-nails/

Case:

Case first because case on top, and I value case more than average. Against an aff with 2 advantages, if the 1ar concedes two carded case turns one for each advantage, and the 2nr does a good job extending and warranting both of them, absent a higher layer I will be voting neg. The aff must win more offense on case then the neg, otherwise I have an easy neg ballot on case.

Specific case is always better.

Pick and choose what to contest well.

Terminal defense is a thing, but risk of offense is compelling when I don’t know the brightline.

Theory:

Default reasonability, but I prefer Competiting interps, I only default reasonability because debaters who don’t establish paradigm issues usually aren’t reading reasonable interpretations, or generate offense. If you want to win reasonability>competing interps you need a brightline.

Default Drop the argument>Drop the debater

RVIs are winnable but default no RVIs, I never went for RVIs as a debater and ld is getting more and more influence from policy so these seem to be on the outs, but 1AR is short and probably deserves a tool to beat back neg friv theory, if you’re going for this in the 2AR/2NR I think it’s strategic too commit hard and not just throw one in for 10 seconds.

I don’t evaluate intent that can’t be proven one way or another. I default that debaters intend to have good-will and be educational unless proven otherwise.

Paragraph theory – you can do it, it’s not an excuse to not have paradigm issues, I think having an explicit interp can be good for more complicated theory, but like condo bad is condo bad. I also only really think it makes sense in the 1AR, I think 1nc or 2nr should probably use shells, but do what you want.

Collapsing too one standard can sometimes moot most other responses on the theory flow, but sometimes it can’t, especially when debaters read two standards that relie on the same warranting i.e. if we have a condo bad shell with clash and time skew, clash relies on the assumption of time skew that the aff could not have engaged sufficiently in the neg positions, going for clash and assuming responses to time skew don’t apply can be dangerous. Generally I think if you are going for theory pay attention to every response on the flow, because conceding a one line response can often be damning in these debates.

I think condo’s bad I’m probably 60-40 aff on this debate, but also think condo bad theory time skews the neg. I also think both sides of this debate would benefit from innovation.

T

Default Drop the debater, all other defaults same as theory.

I think some larp affs are more non-t than many k-affs

I find the Limits concerns of Nebel T compelling (like 70-30 neg) and the semantics also flow neg but I don’t value semantics highly.

Tricks:

I don’t want to incentivize debaters learning how to beat back tricks, I don’t think it’s an educational skill

Neg kritiks:

I probably know your literature but explain it to me like I don’t, you can use jargon to refer to concepts that would take hours to explain, but do so at your own risk I recommend being able to win any round without relying on them.

Not a fan of root cause at the impact level, sequencing and prior question type arguments can be compelling when well warranted.

Links of omission can be links, they are the worst type of links but I’ll vote on them, especially if I have a good card or reason why these things are specifically omitted from discussions.

Specific links are good, but having a solid generic link with specific analysis is underrated.

Severence bad is a good arg, I’ll vote on it.

Aff vs the K

Default perms are tests of competition not advocacies, can be persuaded otherwise.

Please give a perm text

Put offense on the k and respond to framing and the k tricks.

K Affs:

Do whatever you want, reject the res or debate if you want or don’t. I mainly defended my affs as whole res general principle, and think those are the most topical versions of these affs.

T-fw vs K affs

Phil:

CPs:

Need a text

Not a fan of pics and word pics, but obviously will vote on them.

Trad Debate and Debating vs Trad Debaters:

Trad debate and trad debaters are repeatedly disrespected by circuit debate elitism. Don’t be an elitist prick, most everyone starts out as a trad debater, those who don’t are lucky enough to be exposed via an older sibling or teammate. Circuit debaters should be open and encouraging to trad debaters at circuit tournaments, especially relating to issues like disclosure.

For trad debaters if you pull up to an octos bid in varsity, I expect you to be able to beat opponents who can spread, I will not force circuit debaters to trad debate trad debaters, because that denies the hundreds of hours those debaters spend to develop circuit skills. That’s not to say trad debaters just should take the L, I think trad debaters can win these debates by focusing on their arguments and doing good comparative analysis and making intuitive responses. One of the best substantive debates I had on my Da Bomb psychoanalysis aff was against a traditional debater at Berkeley who made great intuitive analytic responses which were difficult to deal with.

Speaks

In my own career and as a judge I highly value pushing new arguments, types of debate, and reorienting both the form and content of debate, and reward clever innovative argumentation with higher speaks. This is usually done by performance and kritikal debaters, but this can be new da tricks with politics, or creating new voters on theory shells etc. At the same time, don’t expect me to vote on it because it’s new, please tell me how to evaluate it.

Collapse the debate to 2 flows max, when crossapplying tell me from what flow you are taking the arg and slow down if you want me to catch it well.

Make the most strategic choices, missed opportunities will be punished less than strategic mistakes, but please don’t read shoes theory when the neg is defending condo advocacies, pick better strategies.

Flashing analytics

Number analytics and name your arguments (i.e. analytic Das)

Having fun and making debate fun for your opponent

Being Funny

Having the email chain ready to go when you enter the round

Lying and rude behavior will reduce your speaks.

Being sketch in cx is a cx strategy, but fumbling or avoiding questions results in worse speaks, good answers increases speaks.

If you are unclear I’ll yell clear twice (maybe more if I’m feeling generous) and then stop flowing if you don’t get clear/slow down. Your speaks won’t be docked initially, they will be docked based on your response. There are degrees to being unclear, some will just result in lower speaks.

More random thoughts

I’m more down with shadow extensions than most, I’m not gonna treat them like full arguments but like if your opponent concedes 3 das that should count for something and you should still collapse to one. You can shadow extend to basically get the offense from the previous speech, I’d vote on it before presumption but it likely won’t factor into my decision.

Personal beef between debaters is better solved out of round, and uncomfortable too evaluate, that being said I’ve been in and seen other debaters in powerless positions regarding top down support and needed to take charge through per’s only medium – debate. As such if there are screenshots etc. of an opponents harassment I’ll drop them and attempt to resolve the matter according to the wishes of the one who experienced the violence i.e. whether that involves a conversation between the two debaters, or me lecturing the debater etc. The Debate community needs to stop ignoring this stuff otherwise it spirals out of control out of sight.

Flex prep is okay, you can ask questions during your prep time, you can also use your cx time for prep but your speaks will probably take a hit.

For Policy

TLDR: paradigm is mostly the same as LD, but I have explicitly judged, coached, and debated policy, and am aware of the differences, do what you want.

I know you're probably bummed you got an ld judge in the back, but it's not all bad, I unfortunately barely competed in policy at my school because I was the only one interested (therefore I initially did Lincoln Douglas because of the lack of the partner). However I was somewhat involved in the policy debate scene, and most notably attended RKS the Wake Forest Policy Camp and got to quarterfinals at the camp tournament there. Overall I'm going to evaluate these debates as close to policy as I can, but obviously I have some ld influences. You'll find I'm less open to frivilous theory than you may expect and some ld judges are, but have a lower bar for theory then you are probably used too. In general I probably have lower thresholds for warranting than most policy judges, although due to time I expect arguments to be better fleshed out in policy than in ld. Also you can still read traditional philosophy if you want too in front of me like Kant, but I doubt many policy teams will want to have those rounds.

For Public Forum

I'll evaluate these debates using my background, feel free to run progressive arguments in front of me, just don't spread against debaters who can't or try to actively make debate inaccessible. I did Public Forum for my first 2 years so I feel comfortable evaluating the more stock debates as well. Don't start a shouting match in cx or repeatedly cut off womxn.

Email: Ldiallo1@binghamton.edu (add me to the chain)

I'm currently a sophomore at Binghamton University and debated in LD my high school sophomore and junior year at Success Academy. I'm cool with pretty much anything. I don't keep prep time, please don't make me have to either, ya are grown.

Speed: I haven't debated in a minute, so you can spread but don't go too fast cause yeah I'll probably miss a few points. Make it accessible overall; if I stop flowing chances are I am lost and you should slow down.

I read a lot of black literature (Warren, Hartman, Gumbs), Ks, and performance affs, so respectfully, I'm most comfortable with these types of arguments/cases. I like LARP/Policy arguments too; all in all, I'm receptive to everything as long as you're not all over the place and you're organized. I'm not a big fan of T but I'm all ears, I'll still listen, I would recommend winning me over with education. I'm not a fan of technicality (truth over technicality). I'm more of a big picture type of person, so yeah go all out in the 2AR and NR. I like FW if it's a good and clear FW lol (emphasis on clear). I like K affs..when they make sense, so please make it make sense, the solvency, the methodology, the mechanism, all that. I also like when things are contextualized, do that :)

I do flow cross ex but not excessively, only if it's important to the debate.

In terms of speaker points, I'm real lenient with it.

Overall, I'm mad chill.

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF earlier, started LD this year.

I expect debaters to be polite and respectful to everyone involved. Please speak clearly and with concise arguments. Raising your voice will not earn you more points, it is not needed to convey your thoughts.

I expect participants time themselves with honesty.

I will not announce the result of a round right away, instead I will analyze the arguments presented and will give my reasoning in the ballot.

My pronouns are She/They. I have debated for 4 years total at Lincoln Southwest, the first year was congress, and the rest were LD. I now coach LD for Southwest High school

I'm cool with funky arguments like Ks (Kritiks) and stuff as long as you explain them to me well. If the round is over and I still have no idea what you are talking about you're gonna have a really hard time getting my ballot. I specialize in queer literature and I'm also familiar with feminist arguments so if you run that in front of me I will have a very good time and if you run it well you'll also have a good time.

I have no problem with disclosure and disclosure theory (figured I'd put that on its own line)

Please don't be disrespectful to me or your opponent in or after round, that is all I ask. If you even attempt to post round me I will change your speaks to 20. If you have questions after come find me, or even email me at droughtemma@gmail I will be happy to give you any feedback or answer any questions you have. If you would like me to time your round lmk, I would prefer that you did it yourself and you probably will too bc I don't always remember to do time call-outs.

Archbishop Mitty ‘21

Wake Forest University '25

Been both a 2N/2A

Done both Policy and LD ( 4 years policy, 1 year LD )

Yes Email Chain: archbishopmittydr[at]gmail.com -- please format the subject As “Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code]. Example: “Berkeley -- Dubs -- AFF Archbishop Mitty DR vs NEG Interlake GQ”

--

* Updated for Military Presence Topic * -- Arguments in support of zionism or that argue for the ongoing occupation of Palestine will warrant an automatic L and 25 speaks

"Coach for Break Debate: Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS."

I find paradigms to be largely useless because no one is ever transparent and 99% of times debaters and judges put way too much value into these things. I could care less about argumentative preferences -- I have coached, judged, and participated in debates where teams have gone for everything from Politics DA, Process CP’s, K’s, Trix, Phil NC’s to T. TLDR: Stick to your guns and you do you.

At the end of the rebuttals -- I start by looking at what the teams have flagged as the most important pieces of offense. 2NRs and 2ARs rarely do enough judge instruction. The best type of RFD is where I don't have to do too much work and I can parrot back to you what the rebuttals said.

I guess I’ll do the thing about argument Preferences (although it would behoove you to stick to what you are good at). In the words of Debnil Sur “Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor”.

Speed: Fine -- just make sure you are clear (especially true in the context of e-debate). Yes I will have the doc open, but no I will not be flowing off it -- only what you say will be on my flow.

Insert or Read: All portions of evidence that has already been introduced into the debate get to be inserted. This is a way to provide an incentive for in depth evidence comparison while also creating a strategic incentive to read good quality cards. Any portions of evidence that hasn’t already been introduced into debate should be read.

Paradigm Issues: I will almost always default to an offense defense paradigm -- if you argue about stock issues, I will most likely get bored.

Tech vs Truth: Seems like one of the most asinine things on everyone's paradigm. Obviously if you drop an argument or something on the flow it is considered true, but in a world where another team clashes with you Truth (argument/ev quality) becomes an important tie breaker.

Policy Affs: Do your thing. 1AC’s with 3 minute advantage and framing page is fine, but please do not just make it a bunch of probability indicts have some offensive framing in either an alternative understanding of ethics or a kritik of the way that impact calculuses are framed. Affs with as many impact scenarios stuffed together as possible probably have terrible ev that should be re-highlighted and pointed out.

K Affs: Not dogmatic about whether or not you follow the resolution. Make sure you have offense on framework that isn’t just you exclude our aff. I’m fine for impact turn or counter interp strategies -- just do impact calculus. The easiest way to lose reading a K aff in front of me is just saying buzzwords in the overview without unpacking what the aff does -- I am not scared to say I vote neg on presumption because I don’t know what the aff does. Neg teams debating K affs do whatever you think is best -- just remember impact calculus wins debates. Going for framework is fine, fairness can be an impact, but oftentimes it's a better impact filter, and having something external to fairness will be more persuasive. I've thought about this a little bit more now that I finished my first year of college debate and the 3 most convincing AFF turns to FW are 1] K v K debates good + offense about the model of clash they produce 2] An Indict of the performance of the Negative team that i should evaluate prior to the debate and proof of how violence gets naturalized in debate and 3] A critique of FW that articulates its relationship towards the history of debate and why the negative team shouldn't get to kick out of such baggage.

K v K debates are dope -- make sure you have offense on why the perm doesn’t shield the link.

Topicality: While freshman and sophomore year being my least favourite argument that I dismissed as negative teams whining, it has honestly become one of my favourite arguments in the activity. My senior year I was undefeated going for T-Substantial. I think a lot of teams do not put enough practice into debating teams making it one of the most strategic arguments for neg teams. I probably lean towards competing interps -- reasonability is a defensive argument for filtering how I evaluate interps. 2NR’s and 2AR’s shouldn’t go for every argument on the T page but collapse to one impact and do thorough weighing. I am a huge sucker for a precision 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans: Love em -- go for em. Cheaty Counterplans are cheaty only if you lose the theory debate. Having a solvency advocate or core of topic cards will go a long way to helping you win that debate. No strong predispositions on counterplan theory -- its up to the debaters.

Disads: Yes -- Do them. Not sure what's a good topic DA on this year’s policy topic. I have a soft spot for politics DA with a thick link wall -- just do impact calc. Teams don’t do enough of link turns case analysis that if conceded is just gg.

Kritiks: Despite my reputation as a K hack, I’m pretty agnostic here. My decisions tend to start from the framework debate and this guides how I evaluate the other parts of the flow. This determines the threshold needed for link UQ, whether the aff gets to be weighed, etc. That being said if you impact turn the K -- you can make f/w largely irrelevant. K teams should do more link turns case analysis -- it allows you to short circuit a lot of offense on the case page. If not make sure you make persuasive framing arguments about why the case doesn’t outweigh. If you are aff, your best bet is either to go for a big framework + Extinction outweighs push or just impact turning the K. Not the best for a team that wants to go for link turn and perm because I typically don't tend to find a net benefit to voting aff that the alt doesn't solve.

Theory/Trix: Not my favourite argument in the world, but I will vote on it. I’m pretty neg leaning on conditionality in traditional policy vs policy debates, but have heard some pretty fire kritiks of condo by some K teams. No real dispositions regarding anything else. Theory interps need to be impacted out and have a claim warrant and an impact.

Speaker Points: I’m gonna steal Debnil’s scale which makes a lot of sense to me.

“Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.”

Ev Ethics: Clipping will receive a 25 L. The team going for ev ethics needs recording as proof and must be willing to stake the round on it.

Any other alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team going for the ethics violation whether they would like to stop the debate and stake the round on it. In this case, like Debnil, I will let both teams offer a written defense of their practice and decide based on such defenses. This is important because I feel that this will disincentivize ethical disintegrity, while also letting the accused have a chance to defend themselves (especially when ev ethics has been weaponized against small schools using open ev or otherwise widely circulated ev cut by bigger schools that has a flaw that the debaters didn’t know when receiving the ev). If teams would rather let the debate continue (which would be my preference), I will evaluate it like I would any other theory debate.

.

FSU '25

Bio: Hi everyone, I'm Fabrice and I debated for Fort Lauderdale High School in Florida where I debated in LD for four years. The last two years of my debate career I spent debating on the national circuit where I broke at most of the tournaments that I attend during my Senior Year. Also, my pronouns are he/him/his, and my email is Fabriceetienne830@gmail.com for the email chain.

Basic Stuff:

1. I'm definitely Tech > Truth, which means I have no problem voting for any argument with a warrant and an implication, as long as it isn't repugnant and justifiably makes debate unsafe. If I find an argument to be nonsensical in a way then most likely it does not have a warrant behind it and has no implication in terms of who I voted for in the round.

2. Don't be blatantly anti-black, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. Also, if your opponent calls you out for one of the actions that are listed above I will drop you.

3. I do disclose speaks, but I will only disclose if both debaters are fine to have their speaker points disclose at the end of the round.

4. Please show up during the tech time the tournament has given. If you're ten minutes past the tech time then I will start docking speaks, so show up on time.

5. If you're debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower than usual. The whole point of debate is for people to build their knowledge of the world by learning new arguments from different competitors. This most likely won't happen if you're spreading as fast as can against someone that can't even pick up a word you're saying just because they have no experience in tech debate.

6. For online debate purposes, it is probably best that you record your speeches in case someone gets disconnected or cuts out for a split second during their speech.

Quick Pref Sheet:

K - 1

LARP/T - 2

Framework/ Theory - 3

Tricks - 4

General Stuff:

Ks/K affs: I spend the most time thinking about this type of debate and I feel most comfortable adjudicating it as well. Some authors that I am familiar with when it comes to K debates are Wilderson, Warren, Sexton, Hartman, Baudrillard, and Tuck and Yang. I also have a little bit of knowledge of Eldeman, Beradi, and Lacan. One thing I should note is that just because I like K debate does not mean I am going to hack for you if you read one in front of me, especially if you do not know what you are talking about. Also, I expect that your K has a link or links that are specific to the aff and the alternative should resolve it in some way. Another thing I would like to add is that I am not a big fan of big and long overviews, for that, it is probably better to line by line what is necessary. Now, in terms of K affs, I am fine with whatever you read since this was what I mostly read during my time on the circuit. My only concern with K affs is that you need to make sure that you link your aff to the resolution or why talking about the res is inherently bad. The last thing that I have to add is that if you are reading a non-T aff you need to answer the question of what you do? If that answer is not answered by the end of the 2AR I probably won't vote you up.

LARP (Policy Args): I am fine with LARP since it was the first type of debate that I started with once I was starting to debate on the circuit. Affs with a creative/unique plan text is always fun and if you have one, by all means, run it. The same goes for Neg and any unique CPs and DAs. In these kinds of debates, weighing is gonna be key in front of me.

T/Theory: Obviously if theory is called for because of in-round abuse, don't be afraid to run it. That being said, loading up on as many T shells as possible probably isn't the best strategy for me. This also applies to topicality as well. One thing that I would like to add is that I am not fond of voting for an RVI, but if it is warranted then it fair game.

Framework/Phil: I am fine with this as well even though I barely think about this type of debate at all. Some philosophers that I am familiar with are Kant, Levinas, Deleuze, and Lacan. Philosophers that are not the ones that I listed above might need a little bit more explanation when it comes to articulating their philosophy and how it relates to the res. Also, if this is your style then you need to win why your framework is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense or defense underneath that framing mechanism.

Tricks: This type of debate is probably my weakest place in terms of adjudicating, but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and reading tricks is your thing then just make sure you err on over-explanation and implicating whatever you are reading and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.

Performance: I am cool with this type of debate as well, but you need to make sure why your specific performance relates to the resolution in some way or why talking about the resolution is inherently bad in debate whether you are the affirmation or the negation.

Extra Stuff:

1. Since debate is online again for this season, it would probably be best to not speak as fast as you can from the jump. It would probably be best to start at 50% of your usual speed and then work your way up as the debate goes on so that I can get accustomed to your voice.

2. If you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afro pessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds or shows that you read the argument specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go.

3. If you are accused of an evidence ethics violation/clipping/cross-reading I will stop the debate and confirm with the accuser on whether they want to stake the round on the violation. After that, I will render a decision based on the guilt of the accused.

4. I don’t mind you post rounding me, for that, I believe it makes judges learn sometimes too and it can be good to keep judges accountable. However, if you start to be aggressive while you are post rounding I will meet that energy as well.

Email: rexyman212@gmail.com

Santa Monica High School 2020

Tech>truth but arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact—I'm likely to hold the line on underdeveloped arguments and will only vote on arguments I understand as presented in the debate.

Strong impact calculus wins debates whether it's policy, theory, philosophy, kritiks, or topicality. This is often the first place I look when making my decision. You should do comparative impact calculus and answer your opponent's.

Not a fan of most theory arguments--reasonability and reject the argument are often quite persuasive.

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments.

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

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 zero 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

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. 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 (spin, highlighting/cutting). 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.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. 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 to make that happen.

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 - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). 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

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

Background

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

General

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

Speed

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

LARP

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

T/Theory

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

Phil

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

Ks

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

Trix

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

Lay Debate

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

For the email chain: noah0036@gmail.com

2024 MN Sections/State:

-For speed: I can flow the high end of rapid conversational pace and the lower end of true spreading. If you are double clutching while spreading, that is likely too fast. I will give verbal "Slow" or "Clear" instructions if needed.

-I'll vote on pretty much any argument (but tricks might not be arguments).

-Signpost Signpost Signpost. I prefer "Contention x, subpoint x" or other language that describes where in the case I should be looking over the use of only card names when extending arguments.

-Engaging in warrant comparison, describing your argument in straightforward terms, and doing specific weighing between impacts makes me happy. Quality over quantity for warrants. Write my ballot for me and you will get good speaks.

-If you are running non-traditional arguments, please read this

1. Distinct offs are highly preferred to "layified" cases where C1 is a DA and C2 is a CP ect.
2. I hold the debater that introduces the non-traditional argument to a higher standard of structure. (i.e. if you read a K, I expect labeled FW, alt, ect. but your opponent can read competition args and I will treat those as perms even if they don't say the word "perm").
3. Overall higher bar if you are reading circuit args into a traditional debater. I think theory, counterplans, and Kritiques are good for debate, but when those strategies are used to confuse and exclude your opponent that makes me sad. Don't be evasive in CX about how arguments function, and I require a more explicit delineation of why pre-fiat arguments come first in order to vote on them. The brightline will be if a typical JV debater who has never seen your argument couldn't follow why your uplayer comes first, you didn't explain it enough.

Who am I:

I'm a debater who graduated in 2018 and got a whopping total of 0 bids and competed in 0 bid rounds. I still enjoyed circuit debate, but this means I am probably not the best judge for late outrounds. Graduated from Lakeville North High School with 4 years of LD and did four years of Parli at the University of Minnesota. That most recent Parli experience shapes a lot of what I think about debate. The other important disclosure is I do not keep up with the circuit generally so I am not going to be as up on the current LD meta.

Things I like:

Engagement! I'm going to like rebuttals that don't just sail past the prior speech based on some prewritten frontlines, but instead address the core issues that the other side brings up.

Respect also goes a long way. Debate is an important space and when people act in good faith it makes me happy.

Analytic extensions. I debated in Parli where carded evidence isn't a thing, I find it much easier to follow a straightforward couple sentence explanation than words cut from different parts of a paper where they might not reach the same conclusion that the powertag on top of the card would suggest they do.

Things I don't like:

Being deliberately difficult to engage with. Dodging CX questions with vague answers when in the next speech you all of a sudden can articulate the thesis of your arguments in very concise and definitive language is not debating, it's running from engagement (and cowardice is a voting issue). Don't rely on your opponent not understanding your arguments well enough so you win.

Relying on the speech doc to get arguments across. My personal belief is that the speech doc is to make sure you don't clip cards and give the judge and opponent something to look back on as a record of what was said, but I see it be used more and more as something that lets debaters artificially inflate their WPM by decreasing the clarity by which they speak and letting the doc pick up the slack. The doc doesn't argue, you do.

Specific arguments:

These are all just preferences. I think saying "I'm Tab" doesn't mean anything, but I will try to intervene as little as possible. That being said here are some mindsets I have coming into the round. Unless otherwise noted I can and will vote on any argument presented, some bars just might be higher than others.

LARPing - This is how I debated most of the time, so I like to see it done well, and a CP 2DA neg strat is always fun to watch.

Tricks - If you rely on aprioris or weirdly worded spike that are extended as game over issues I'm probably not your judge. I won't reject you on face but my interp of the burden of rejoinder (the thing that makes dropped args true) is that if the first reading of an argument was shifty or arbitrary, even if none of that argument was addressed in the following speech by your opponent, a new characterization or explanation of that argument is just that: new. This means I am significantly more lenient to responses to blips that get blown up. However, if these arguments are clearly labeled as voting issues the first speech that they are read then a lot of my reservations about this style of debate are alleviated. This goes back to prior notes about avoiding engagement.

Phil - Label everything. I probably don't understand Kant or whoever as well as you do so implicating the important parts of the case as soon as possible make it a lot easier for me to track. I think well done phil can be leveraged well against anything but making these arguments as clear as possible helps me a lot. I think phil is often used by tricky debaters so see above to make sure I don't get sad with you.

Ks - Ks are cool! I didn't read a lot of them in high school, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them in front of me. What is does mean is that I don't know the lit and buzzwords are useless. I am familiar with some Cap, Ableism, Anti-blackness, Setcol and Neocol lit bases (in that order) but mostly in a conceptual level not a "I've read the book" level. I know some surface level info about a tiny bit of pomo things, but that please do not assume I know what your buzzwords mean. To make me love you and your K, explain it to me in simple, concise terms. I would prefer a paragraph analytic tag about what it means to find lines of flight than a D&G card cut in language I don't understand. This also applies to alts, I'd really like to know what the alt does. If it's a mindset shift, cool let me know. If it's micropol rejection, cool tell me that's what it is. I think the best alts also incorporate post fiat offense i.e read "Endorse Violent Socialist Revolution" in front of me instead of "Interrogate the epistemology of the aff through a lens of historical materialism."

Role of the Ballots- I find it really hard to frame any offense out of the debate. I default to "Vote for who did the better debating. Everything else is just impact weighing." That being said, if you are winning reasons why your role of the ballot is good it make it a lot easier for your impacts to outweigh those of your opponents, but I don't think it moots them entirely absent arguments that the impacts for their RoB don't matter (i.e. conceded fiat illusory claims means without arguments about how fiated impacts have importance outside of the imaginary will let me completely ignore the extinction claims of an aff)

Theory - Multiple frivolous theories are not good, you can read your spec args or whatever theory shell that might be strategic but probably doesn't actually impact the meta model of debate but reading more than one of these just seems like you are reading a lot of low risk uplayering offence that skirts clash in favor of dropped tidbits. I default to Competing Interps, Theory is top layer, no RVIs but my bar for aff getting RVIs is much lower than neg getting RVIs. Condo is on a round per round basis, but multiple condo are probably not the best, PICs can be good or bad, spec is boring.

Non-Topical/K Affs - I used to absolutely hate these, but I most certainly do not now. I think they are a good part of debate and allow people to take back power, so I will absolutely vote for a non-topical aff but see my notes on Ks and K lit. If you happen to be debating an affirmative that is not topical, FW will work if you win it even if I'm not happy that you read it, but if the aff is disclosed please at least answer some of case. That being said I don't think theory is inherently violent and that means there are smarter interps that don't have to indite the ability of these types of affs to exist in debate but can challenge the specific implementation of a given non-t aff. I.e. must defend fiat but not necessarily resolutional fiat, may not garner offense off a rejection of the resolution (but can off non resolutional things), no Utopian fiat ect. I would also recommend counter methods (and I am a bit partial to the argument that there are no perms in a methods debate) or method piks as long as you actually engage in questions of the affirmative I will probably be happy.

Misc:

Speed - I can listen to you if you are clear. I'd put myself at about 6/10 of top speed, but this being said be careful with blippy args. Not only would I rather hear 2 actually warranted case turns, I probably will not flow half of your twelve point case dump if each of the twelve are only one sentence answers.

Ways to boost your speaker points in front of me -

1. Know what you are talking about. Being well versed in the lit is a great way to make me like you.

2. Jokes. Tournaments are long and can get boring so if I laugh that is a good thing.

3. Be nice.

4. Be organized, if you are all over the place that is a bad thing

5. Creativity will also make me happy.

Hey, I'm Joey, and I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2021.

Add me to the email chain, and please have it set up before round. I also am fine with fileshare or speechdrop, whatever is fastest.
For online rounds, if we can start the round sooner (if all debaters are there before time), I'll boost speaks, but no pressure I'm fine starting right on time as well

josephgeorgesdebate@gmail.com

PF:

I prefer theory debates; otherwise, I'll adjudicate more similarly to a traditional judge since I'm not as immediately familiar with extension logistics and whatnot.

assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic/topic jargon

LD:

!!Note: I am usually highly preffed by debaters who read tricks/tricky positions, so if you are not fond of that style of debate, be wary in preffing me.

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh: Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction: You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

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!

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

pls read the whole thing!:)

do what you are best at, and try to maintain good spirits while doing so!

the innate purpose of education is healthy, reflexive, and fruitful for any parties involved

at the end of the day, you are educating yourself to an extent that the average human will not reach, and you also have the ability to test that knowledge competitively with your peers- that's really an amazing thing, and something that should be remembered even in the heat of competition.

i'm not including any information about my debate history, as i am not currently coaching: far less (personally) concerned about the inner-workings of debate procedurals and standards being set within the community. on the flip-side, i am much more concerned about evaluating debates purely for the sake of deciding a winner, as well as being able to provide students with ample constructive criticism that allows them to elevate competitively, as well as foster more creative educational possibilities in future rounds, whether winner or loser.

and most of all, have fun- the more you can laugh and reflect on a round with a grin, on even your worst mistakes (or biggest successes), the more you will be able to be kind to yourself and become better, not at the expense of your mental health. and remember, never have fun at the negative expense of your opponent- a brilliant troll becomes ignorant the moment they become a bully.

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

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

Hi, I am a junior at Williams College studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I currently debate APDA and debated LD for three years on the local and national circuit, with one career bid (i.e. I was decent but not great at circuit LD). My general paradigm is explained below, but there are some exceptions to it for novice rounds.

General:

Online Debate!

Blatantly stolen (with mild modification) from Evan Engel's paradigm:

***Online Debate***

• Here is the procedure I will follow if a student drops off a call, or I drop off a call: students are expected to maintain local recordings of their speeches - if they drop off, they should complete the speech and immediately email their recording upon completing it. I will not allow students to restart speeches / attempt to figure out how much time they had left, particularly in elimination rounds.
• If someone drops off a call, please do not steal prep time
• It will make the round easier for all of us if you figure out a way to be able to see both me and your opponent on screen - non-verbal communication is really helpful for e-debate working at its best, and if we both nod at "everyone ready," you need to be able to see that, not just be waiting on us to un-mute ourselves and speak up! if you do not hear from me or see me indicate I am ready in some form, you should not assume I am ready. One thing I think this means is that "is anyone not ready" is no longer the right question to ask - "is everyone ready" is gonna be key to ensure no one misses anything.
• Slow down. I think online you should be going at 70% or so of the speed you would go in person. If you do not slow down and technical difficulties mean I miss arguments, I will not be very sympathetic to the post round - You may be unable to hear me saying slow bc of the way zoom handles microphones - I am sorry if you do not hear me say "slow", but I cannot emphasize enough the need for you to slow down.
• You should have an email chain - if you are flight b, the chain should be set up before you hop on the call if possible.

Topic Knowledge Note

-I know your is topic is "A just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike." I have not researched it, but I basically understand its meaning and probably the associated stock arguments. Adapt how you will.

How Tab am I? / the tldr; on what I'll buy

-I'm pretty tabula rasa. Just don't be offensive, please. That is, don't demean your opponent or advocate for arguments with clearly repugnant conclusions. Genocide good is unacceptable, but extinction good is acceptable - the latter is egalitarian, the former discriminatory. The acceptability of, say, death bad is contextual, e.g. please don't use death bad arguments to impact turn structural violence arguments that terminate in death. Also, don't say slurs that denigrate any group that you are not a member of, even as an example of something people should not do. That will LOSE YOU THE ROUND (unless both sides do it? Please, don't give me a round where I'm inclined to drop both sides because of this). I do understand that my conception of what is problematic may deviate from what others believe, and I am not all-knowing, so feel free to run discourse Ks if you think that the opponent did something that warrants a loss. If your points make sense to me, or I can extrapolate them to something persuasive (not just plausible, but persuasive), then I will vote on the discourse K even if you are losing it on the flow. I think it's bad to create norms in which people can only feel included in debate if they can win, in round, that something offensive is offensive and that such behavior warrants a loss. Of course, even if I am not persuaded, I will vote for the K if you are winning it.

-I am open to almost any debate style (K-Affs, performance, plans, CPs, T vs. K has no default, etc.). Below, I say there are things I dislike - running these will not lead to a conscious speaks penalty, and I will evaluate such arguments, but I thought providing such warnings was only fair since I could be subconsciously influenced by those preferences.

-I will intervene if necessary. For example, if both sides concede each other's impacts without weighing them, I have to weigh them myself. If each side concedes a supposedly round-winning trick, I'll have to choose one of the trix or try to resolve the debate on another flow, etc. But, see the section on presumption.

C/X

-I'll pay attention to it. I'll even flow it. So, feel free to leverage C/X concessions.

Spreading

-My current format, APDA, is slower, on average, than circuit LD spreading, and three years have passed since my last circuit LD round. At its fastest, APDA is ~200 WPM. You can try going faster at your own risk, and I will say "slow" if you request that I do so before the round. There is a limit to this, though - if I have to say "slow" too often (I know, subjective), I'll just give up on following your speech. Also, you may not hear my slows because of Zoom.

-Add me to an email chain if you're spreading. Please don't spend too much time with emailing. Use the email address tai.henrichs @t gmail (d0t) com

Framework / Philosophy

-I am a Philosophy major and enjoyed philosophy rounds in high school. I can probably follow your philosophical arguments (util, social contract, freedom as non-domination, Kantian constructivism, Rawls, pragmatists, virtue ethics, etc.).

-You can debate framework or concede to your opponent's and link to their standard (or both). I won't be bothered by either. Just do what's strategic. I mention this even though it seems like an obvious point because some judges disliked when I did this myself.

-See the trix section if you like Phil trix.

Kritiks

-If you want to run a non-topical affirmative, K/performance or otherwise, I am cool with that. But, if you want to win, it helps to clearly link my ballot to whatever your advocacy is. Also, your advocacy should be clear. By advocacy, I just mean what you are specifically defending, e.g. the end of the world in some Wildersonian K-affs I have seen in the past. I have no default on T vs. K.

-If you have a performance position that is supplemented by additional media, like music, please send those as well (e.g. in case the lyrics of a song or poem become important to the round). Also because I may have difficulty hearing you over your music, so having a text copy of your case is extra important in that scenario.

-I am open to a variety of links (substantive, discursive, whatever) to Kritiks.

-I am not well-versed in critical theory, though I have read some.

-I don't think Kritiks are actually different in nature from phil, but I divide my paradigm this way since they are often treated distinctly in the debate context. Basically, if you have a k vs. phil education debate (for some reason), I will view it as irrelevant by default.

T / Theory

-I tend to dislike theory and T debates, but this is just because they often become a war of random, tiny pull-throughs. If you can have a clean theory / T debate, I am all ears.

-I'm fine with specific, tailored shells, e.g. "5 condo pics bad," but I'm also fine with arguments that such shells are inconsistent with norm-setting or competing interpretations. Or regressive, or arbitrary, or whatever.

-I have no defaults on the priority of T vs. K, reasonability vs. competing interpretations, norm-setting vs. in-round abuse, drop the debater vs. drop the arg, jurisdiction vs. fairness, etc. This means that if no one tells me the implications of a theory/T violation, the violation has no implication. Also, competing interpretations is not equivalent to norm-setting. If competing interpretations is accepted because it creates a clear bright-line for resolving whether violations have occurred, it is still up for debate whether we should evaluate theory rules based on their application to all of LD vs. just this round.

-Violations should be verifiable. Note: a failure to disclose is verifiable, either by providing a screenshot or just directing me to check their disclosure page. I distinguish between what happens inside of the round and what is readily verifiable based on what either side presents to me (this can include screenshots, etc. to prove events prior to the round). This stuff also applies to evidence ethics stuff, though tab may get involved if they have a policy indicating as much.

-I am fine with T in response to plans (e.g. I assume some plan affs on this topic are "[X] just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike," to which one response I will evaluate is "T: usage of the word 'a'"). I am also fine with effects-T and the like (e.g. on this topic, against "[X] just government ought to recognize an unconditional right of workers to strike," I am open to a "T: definition of just" shell whose violation is dependant on the framework debate defining what justice requires, and hence whether [X] is just. Note that I am aware this is not strictly an example of effects-T).

-I dislike what I perceive as frivolous theory/T but will evaluate it.

Trix

- I generally dislike trix (a prioris, NIBs, trivialism, skep triggers, [A/N]FC, etc.) but will evaluate them. I dislike trix less if they are clear to find, rather than buried between points or inside taglines or whatever.

-Also, trix need warrants, not just assertions. If you spread 50 different statements that X wins you the round, I will not vote for you if the other side just says "These are all warrantless. Ignore them," assuming they are right.

Policy Arguments (Plans, DAs, CPs, PICs, etc.)

-No defaults on conditionality vs. uncondo vs. dispositionality, etc. If you can win it, it's yours.

-I ran lots of DAs, CPs, PICs, etc. Running a CP requires proving you are competitive - please give reasons for this in the 1 NC.

-Also fine with agent CPs.

-I am fine with plan affs, but see the T/ Theory section for plan-related T/Theory issues.

Truth-Testing vs. Comparative Worlds

-I think this distinction is often irrelevant, but my default, since I have to have one to resolve the round, is truth-testing. Note that under utilitarianism, winning the affirmative world is better also means your world is the one that ought to be pursued, rendering the resolution true, so this distinction is not as big a deal to me as it is to many people. Yes, this also means I think that CPs, Ks, etc. are often coherent under truth-testing because the truth of "I ought to X" is contingent on the alternatives available to me, at least under some frameworks like utilitarianism, under many ROBs, etc. I only default to truth-testing because it seems more tab to me, in that it permits relevance to more arguments. For example, it's not clear to me how the "the resolution should be interpreted as a vacuous conditional, vote affirmative" trick should be evaluated using world comparison.

-feel free to deny anything just said in the above paragraph. e.g. you can argue that I should use world comparison or that truth-testing precludes CPs if you want.

-Truth-testing is how I evaluate the round if it is accepted that my role as the judge is to adjudicate the topic. If there is, say, an ROB that establishes my obligation to vote for the side that better deconstructs capitalism, this may disalign from voting for the side that makes the resolution more or less true (e.g. obviously true if this is a non-T aff vs. cap K round, potentially true if the K runs discourse links that are not particular to the discourse of the resolution). Such framing issues will implicitly take precedence in the event that they conflict with my default truth-testing paradigm. Of course, there could be a live debate about how ROBs interact with truth testing, or the like, in which case I will defer to the flow.

Presumption

In the absence of other arguments, in a round that is truly a wash, I will flip a coin. Note that a truly offenseless round is nearly impossible to achieve short of neither side making arguments. What seems like a presumption triggering round to you is probably a round where, by default, I'll vote on some marginal point (trying to find some layer somewhere that someone is ahead on). If you make explicit presumption arguments, I will listen, and I will be less willing to intervene (e.g. by default, if necessary, I'll weigh unweighed impacts, but if presumption is a live issue, I'll just treat conflicting, unweighed impacts as canceling each other out, no matter how unsensible this appears to me).

Novice:

-Please don't spread or read trix, theory, kritiks, plans, or CPs in novice. If you do, I will have a much lower threshold for responses than I would for J/V or Varsity. The opponent may agree to allow these, either explicitly or by employing such arguments/practices in a manner that makes clear their facility with them, in which case I will evaluate the round like a J/V or varsity one.

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.

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.

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever you want)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

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.

CONFLICTS FOR TOC 2024: Los Altos AK, Lynbrook (BZ and OM), Monta Vista (EY and KR), Walt Whitman HZ, Horace Greeley SG, Flower Mound AV, Village SZ

(I go by Sai + they/them)

Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22

(skaravadi.2001@gmail.com) -- Pls use speechdrop, fileshare, or add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging, but pretty extensive notes here!

If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, pls don't hesitate to reach out!

I don't know how much this matters, but this is my 9th year in debate -- pls I'm so old. I debated for Quarry Lane in high school and then for NYU in college. I had 9 career TOC bids in high school LD, broke at the TOC, won a college policy tourney and reached late elims at others, and coached LD debaters who reached late elims at the TOC and other bid tourneys. I've also judged like 300 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments since 2019, including bid rounds and late elims. I care about my role as an adjudicator and educator, and also think extensively about my paradigm when making decisions, meaning I try to make sure nothing affects my decision that is not on here and I avoid intervention as much as possible to ensure the debate is in your hands, not mine. :))

UPDATE FOR TOC:

This is my last tournament in debate, so I am feeling more generous with speaks than usual, unless I get the ick! Check the bottom for more on how to avoid that.

Will be taking a bit longer to decide than usual since I know rounds are more high stakes for y'all (and will likely be closer), so please bear with me.

No tricks pls! :D

(Moral uncertainty --> util, regress and bindingness, aspec and plan flaw = yes, these are just framework or theory arguments -- those are fine and are just, but no im not evaluating the round before the end of the 2AR or voting for the resolved a priori -- you can ask me if I will evaluate/vote on X argument before the round, but the litmus test should be whether or not the argument is relevant in discussing the aff irl -- plan flaw is and paradoxes are not imo)

TLDR:

Pls go 70-80% speed. Sucker for a good K, techy phil debate, smart impacting on a spec shell standard, well-researched small advantage plan aff, etc. -- framing and impacts!!!!!

Tech > truth -- I aim to be as tab as I can and have experience reading, coaching, and judging every style of debate in LD -- I'll vote on anything, within reason. My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity.

I have specific sections below for everything, but larp is cute but please comparatively weigh, phil is dope but please collapse, K's are fun but you need to be clear and warrant things, T is I love and I default T > case, and theory is cool but idk what the brightline for spreading is and yes on disclosure but meh on docs, new aff's, open source, etc. -- not discouraging general disclosure theory tho. I am willing to vote on impact turns, perf cons, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I don't like lay debate -- you can spread, but just still answer stuff. Also, misgendering, slurs, etc. -- those are voters.

Also check my rant at the bottom on speed and off's!

My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfort evaluating certain strategies or arguments.

Defaults only matter if not debated, but:

Substantive: comparative worlds, tech > truth, epistemic confidence, presume neg unless neg reads a counter-advocacy or reads 3+ off

Procedural: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater

SIDE-NOTE: If you don't want someone in the room, feel free to ask them to leave (or email/contact me privately if you are uncomfortable with having to say it yourself and I will ask them to leave).

For prefs -- I like to think I'm a good judge for you regardless of what you read (except tricks -- im over it), as long as you warrant and explain how I should evaluate arguments. I read everything during my career and have actually mostly judged non-K rounds (despite having mostly read K's as a debater) -- I feel confident I'm a good judge for really any style of debate because I'll grant anything with a warrant -- the bigger the claim, the more established the warrant should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So yes, I will grant your non-T aff and be interested, I will grant your framework warrants and be interested, I will grant your interps and be interested, and I will ALWAYS grant a well-researched and updated DA story, but I will also easily grant answers to any of these -- read what you want, just be creative!

SPECIFIC SECTIONS/TYPES OF ARGS:

Policy/LARP:

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me.

However, these debates do end up getting quite messy, especially in LD. I am a sucker for strong link overviews with impact calc that's also comparative. I think collapsing, impact overviews, and framing analysis can help here.

I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison -- when I say comparative, I basically mean that you should also make sure you answer/deal with weighing arguments made by the other debater -- these debates can sometimes become frustrating to resolve as a judge because there's a lot of impacts thrown out in later speeches with weighing implications attached to them, but I'm often left having to resolve them or figure out who did that tiny bit of comparison that I can vote on -- you can easily win my ballot by telling me how to evaluate this/compare between weighing args -- you can call it what you want, framing or comparative weighing or second level impact calc -- I find it super persuasive and a smart technical move that often wins my ballot.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations. I think 2 condo PIC's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Butler's work and Kant, but also have experience with Epistemic Humility, Civic Republicanism, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, Deleuze, Levinas, Hobbes, Rawls, Locke, Descartes, and skep (also of course, util of all forms). I've read into the literature of and/or defended all of these, but never studied them too in-depth academically and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine. Also I love Kant LOL.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

I think phil arguments are strategic due to the amount of credence I must grant them -- i.e., I don't think someone can ignore independent framework warrants like shying away from answering bindingness or regress -- but I would need you to slow down a tiny bit and collapse harder in later speeches. Again, you do you! I am happy to judge anything and love framework debate a lot.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.

I also really really like phil vs. phil debates -- these are some of the most interesting debates and I am impressed by both the technical proficiency and critical/logical thinking skills that debaters employ. I am likely to grant both debaters very high speaks in these debates if they are done well, but also really feel like I learn a lot in these rounds. This also includes like Kant vs. util, but I think something like ordo amoris vs. Deleuze would be so so interesting.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't auto-vote on Kant (as in the guy) is racist, unless someone proves that his theory itself also is and does the work of proving that thus the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but again, it requires a LOT more work than simply saying it. Of course, this does not mean I won't vote someone down if they drop the argument and its implications, but you need to give me those implications.

To that end, you can't just end it at Kant or Hobbes (or X author) is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading against aff's that don't actually even cite primary source philosophers. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is NEVER ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks.

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card (like citing Immanuel himself lol) and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a real no link argument or a way to prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary (i.e., they could just cite Korsgaard instead right?) -- at which point, the author is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me (this is true regardless of whether it's a philosopher) -- however, this is pretty rare and it's 2024, so update your authors.

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to ROTB spec to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (I basically won't vote on clothing-related theory) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me, but the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also have some notes on a couple specific shells near the bottom of this section.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.

Reading paradigm issues in your second speech collapsing to a shell is a bit late and persuades me to grant the other side leeway on controlling them, but still debatable I guess (does not mean I will give leeway to brightlines on reasonability, just reasonability itself).

On IVI's -- impact turns are not RVI's, but rather independent voters/offense, and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too or make args for why the shell is a prior issue in the case that you go for it -- however you deal with it, deal with it. I feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA/impact turn doesn't link, why the shell comes first, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turn/independent voter.

Random note on disclosure these days -- I'm not that persuaded by these shells that you should send full on docs before rounds or that you must open source in order for negs to prep, etc. -- not to be an old zealot, but the norm when I was in high school was mostly just to disclose cites, tags, and the first 3 + last 3 words of cards -- we were fine and had more in-depth clash than what I've seen people read these days, so I am not that convinced -- THAT BEING SAID, I will still vote on it, but don't expect me to be that excited bout it or give you the highest speaks + I will have a low threshold for answers. However, if someone is fully not disclosing past rounds or telling you what the aff is gonna be, that changes the matter ofc -- still fine for disclosure, just not convinced that people need to give you every single word that they're about to read

Also not sure how I feel about spreading theory -- feels arbitrary to delineate as a judge where I draw a line between what is too fast and what is not. I'll vote on it, but idk -- the argument that it is impossible to delineate what is too fast prolly makes reasonability super persuasive. That being said, if you're obviously going fast, then LOL it seems reasonable that I would consider that to be spreading and evaluate the debate based on the standards. Either way, going for this in the 2N isn't really the move for me and I hope it's not for you. I'll still vote on it, but ugh, you and I both don't want to bring the debate to this issue (pls). If you read spreading bad and spread, I will prolly tank your speaks. Should be self-explanatory why.

Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with.

Topicality:

I read topicality against most K aff’s that I hit my senior year and every time I hit one in college -- including both defend the topic and read a policy action -- and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my senior year too. I love T, despite reading a ton of method/performative K aff's, but I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think either having offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive, and also useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me rather than pretending T has nothing to do with the aff. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people. I'll vote on it either way if you win it on a technical level, but this also leaves room for the aff to grandstand on your model being exclusive.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on and love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best rounds. I am here for it.

Most of the arguments for why I shouldn't vote on independent voting issues are terrible and not persuasive, BUT I still need y'all to answer them. Collapsing to a single DA on T in the 2AR is a great strat for me and I've done this myself in the past, but you have to answer these args. That being said, I've also been on the other side (kicking T) and feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA doesn't link, why T is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters ---- (also check my note on impact turns in the theory section since some of this is copied from there/similar).

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me cause it sounds like a colonial norm and I'm not American/English was not my first language -- this does not mean I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why the argument is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on English grammar is racist.

That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating and what I've spent the most time debating, coaching, and also studying academically. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit -- buzzwords need to make sense. That being said, I'm pretty familiar with almost every area of critical literature that I've heard of or know of in debate. I like seeing how people use K lit to formulate interesting advocacies or methods, I like seeing new K shells and scholarship (like 2023/24 lol), and I also simultaneously like when someone defends a classic K but does it really really well.

I’m most familiar and comfortable with identity based lit -- especially Critical Race Theory and Antiblackness, Queer Theory and Queer of Color Studies, South Asian/South Asian American Studies, Postcolonialism, and Performance Studies. I'm most familiar with antiblackness, postcolonialism, queer theory, biopolitics, and necropolitics -- some of my fav authors: José Esteban Muñoz, Sarah Ahmed, Tiffany Lethabo King, Alexander Weheliye, Jasbir Puar, Achilles Mbembe, Marquis Bey, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I'm also comfy with Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. -- all the pomo shtuff is fair game. I don't really think there's a K you'd read that I'd be completely unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but I also don't care what K it is and am happy to listen -- get creative. :))

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your K tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory ABSENT some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the K, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that. This doesn't mean you need to run from reading the K -- just be able to answer these questions and defend your position. This applies to black studies, indigenous studies, queer theory, etc. -- I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues.

Update -- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimism without any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about.

Along those lines, since this has become a serious area of discussion on the LD debate circuit -- non-black people reading antiblackness is ok BUT you should be prepared to discuss what your role as a non-black person is, both in reading the K and in relation to antiblackness, and pls do it well. I will vote on arguments for why non-black people shouldn't read antiblackness, but I am also open to voting the other way. I think y'all need to stop running from the challenge of answering the argument because the scholarship is great, BUT be prepared in case the argument is made.

I am also not happy that everyone has just decided to turn to reading (and commodifying) literature about Native American/indigenous peoples instead, especially when debaters actively say they don't pay attention to the authors or only read "X" argument so it's fine -- I am persuaded by arguments that this should not be allowed and find it more persuasive due to this occurrence that literature or images of suffering about a group being used to justify a ballot are instances of detached commodification. You don't need a card, but do need warrants. Bringing up the history of debate and also specific practices in LD is great. Pessimistic claims are somewhat problematic, but more so is using violence against a group as an image to claim you're radically decolonial and using an arbitrary method or alternative to claim you do care about them. I will watch these debates very closely due to the way that debaters are behaving.

On the issue of queer theory -- I am skeptical of whether someone should be able to speak from the closet to read ontological/epistemological, etc., claims about queer people, especially being a queer trans* person of color myself -- if you are reading queer theory, I think you should be prepared to defend whether a cishet person should be allowed to read it, since if you are unwilling to disclose your queerness then that would enable the practice of non-queer people reading queer pess. I don't think outing DA's are that persuasive to me (in these specific circumstances only) if someone asks you whether you are queer while reading this because it should matter whether or not you are and you can choose to say that you are unwilling to disclose that, BUT that still begs the question of whether or not one should be able to do that. That being said, I will vote on an outing DA if it's won, but this is an answer that debaters can make that I believe is a relevant discussion and legitimate answer. I am vexed by openly cisheterosexual people turning to queer theory because they think that they can win every round on an outing DA, so I have decided to add this here to pressure more authentic engagements with the literature base.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them for like 7 years, I've coached them for like 5 years, and I've debated/judged them for longer. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it. I also did read topicality/framework against most non-T aff's I debated lol, so I am happy to vote either way, but I am definitely a good judge for these aff's.

From the moment that I realize the aff is performative and/or critical, I am watching very closely to see how you perform it, defend it, and frame it. I also physically am usually watching you and making eye contact because I know that part of your discussion is also about me and the fact that I am not a passive decision-maker. I know that can make some people uncomfy, so I apologize in advance and promise I'm not like staring at you with bug-eyes or anything, but just noticing the choices you make and the way the aff is presented. I appreciate the fact that you made a lot of intentional choices when writing and formulating the aff, so I am respecting your use of them, especially in CX as well.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do not read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got you. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal and successful CX strategies when done well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real and pls warn me about flashing lights (personal medical reason). In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't. I won't be happy and coaches/schools won't be happy. Other than that, have fun! I like hearing creative arguments and fun stuff that makes me pay attention and wake up. :))

ANSWERING THESE -- Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I prefer presumption arguments to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

State good is an underused and undervalued strategy, clashes with these aff's so enables you to avoid impact turns on T or other issues that rely on the aff winning internal links for why certain state-oriented procedures are bad, and is a great option (be wary of your language, but hasn't been an issue so far).

I do not like Rickert or other arguments that are like "oh subjectivity is not real in debate, but is elsewhere so please leave" type args -- I think these are actively racist. BUT I think there are certain specific issues you can push on.

What is the advocacy/method past the 1AC? What is the value or impact of the performance? Why is there a binding reason to vote aff? How does the aff resolve skep/induction issues? How does the aff relate to the other debater and/or the judge? Why is debate bad, but also shifted to being good through the aff/voting aff? etc. etc. -- all of these are relevant considerations and valid points of contestation -- i.e., whether or not the ways the aff responds to these questions are good or sufficient.

Also really like K links as case turns against these aff's, skep is fair but be wary of your language and type of skep ofc, counter-K's are fun, T is great, and phil is so interesting and I wish more people did Kant vs. K-aff's (or other frameworks) because these are some of the most interesting rounds I've had or heard.

For Policy/CX Debate:

I'm cool with whatever you read and would prefer you do what you're best at! I'm chill and will follow anything -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I've also judged and coached high school policy, read every style of debate, and I still currently actively cut both K lit and policy args -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you. Specific sections below might be useful (minus the tricks stuff for LD, etc. -- not gonna vote on tricks, frivolous theory, etc. in policy).

I don't care if you read an aff about great power competition and extinction or a K about settler homonationalism -- I feel comfortable and confident in my ability to render the right decision no matter what you read, but my favorite rounds are when a team reading a plan aff really knows their scenario and evidence super well or when a team reading a K provides really in-depth explanations and examples -- don't adapt your style itself to me, just focus on what you do best and win it. :))

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cross-ex, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts -- judge instruction, collapsing in later speeches, and framing are your best bets.

I especially think framing specifically is important -- this doesn't mean winning util or a role of the ballot necessarily, but rather please just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round in later speeches.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you (unless it's overtly discriminatory).

I do really like K's though and this is where most of my background in debate lies -- through debate and my undergrad coursework, I read a ton of Muñoz, Puar, Spivak, Said, Halberstam, Stanley, Ahmed, Lamble, Mbembe, Tinsley, Hartman, Warren, Wilderson, Weheliye, Wynter, Spillers, Gumbs, King, Edelman, Preciado, Bersani, Nash, Bey, Gilmore, Davis, Gillespie, Mignolo, Rodriguez, Morgensen, Eng, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, and I'm sure I could keep going -- this is mainly to say that I will likely contextually understand what you read, regardless of my familiarity with the literature. I think I am a great judge for any critical arguments and feel super comfortable evaluating these, but also thoroughly enjoy the scholarship and the creativity that debaters employ when reading these arguments. Personally, I also read cardless aff's using original poetry as well as critical aff's that were very close to the topic/resolution -- I don't care how specific or generic your arguments are, I care about how well you go for and explain them!

For policy/plan aff's and teams -- I usually get bored in these debates ngl, but I think I'm a sucker for a really good link story on a DA, straight turns, and strategic advantage counterplans. I think condo is good in policy debate and feel like the condo bad debate is lost on me. Despite everything above, I enjoy the state good or heg good defense and think that I can easily be persuaded to vote on arguments about why we have to focus on policymaking/reform. Do good weighing, impact framing, internal link warranting, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing. I also love T-framework, T-defend the topic, and other topicality arguments -- I also like T or spec bad against non-topical/extra-topical plan aff's -- but I need these arguments to be well impacted out. I think fairness is just an internal link to education really, but I'll vote on either one and I just need the ballot story to be clear. You do need to answer impact turns, TVA's and switch side seem like game over you won T type issues, most T arguments are just about limits or prep and clash, and I am great for T.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

For PF:

Pls read the TLDR right below this, but I am relatively experienced with debate, so I don't think you need to adapt much. I also went to Quarry Lane for high school till 2019 (QLS was very involved in PF so I'm no stranger to the event) and traveled with the PF debaters everywhere, but also did a bit of PF at smaller tourneys and judged it before. I am down to vote for anything, just don't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, etc. I also read a lot of performance args and K's as a debater, so that's something I'm comfortable with -- BUT don't read it just to read it, I'm also very chill with policy-esque args and general topic area args + would rather hear what you're good at than a random K that you pulled up.

ALSO -- I have trouble following card names sometimes cause y'all do be paraphrasing and moving past things real quick, so please reference arguments rather than X author name so I can follow you -- I don't expect this to be a big issue, but if you're ramping up the speed and gonna give me one-liners as you move between cards, either send me the doc so I can follow OR reference impacts over last names.

Speaks:

So you want a 30? -- I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

1. Pls do NOT use my name unless we know each other LOL
2. + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
3. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
4. If you are able to give a solid speech at a good speed where I can write/type out every word and feel very part of the process, I will be VERY happy
5. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
6. I like tasteful references to things -- drag race, anime, Marvel or Disney, sitcoms, etc. -- don't really know much about sports so that might go over my head, but I like creative args that draw on other art forms, whether media/film or otherwise
7. I average a 29.5+ and give higher speaks when you slow down, are very clear, or when you collapse really well
8. If you go on your phone during someone else's speech, you are likely to get the lowest possible speaks I can give without having to talk to tab :))

I have become quite generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution is the key! I'm more than willing to give out a 30 and have increasingly done so. Do you and make sure you signpost, warrant, and slow down on important things -- I appreciate passion, strong research and/or analysis, and well-crafted strategies! I also think a smart CX helps with ethos and also definitely will help bump your speaks -- many debates are also lost and won in CX ultimately.

If you slow down to an easily flowable speed and give a good speech, I will be far more likely to be persuaded to vote for you and give you a 30 (or 29.5+). I find that I am also most persuaded by debaters who close doors, slow down and impact things out, and avoid silly args. Go to the bottom for more qualms of mine!

Please give me trigger/content warnings -- go for it, just warn me -- important to me as both a judge and participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about graphically sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally

Speed and Off's Rant: I am going to say clear a lot more to ask you to slow down andI think I will need you to go AT LEAST 70% of your top speed. I want to be able to hear every word, but I also think this is important to check for clipping. I think that we should preserve the value of debates through contestation, which I find is less possible when someone spreads through a ton of arguments waiting for something to be dropped, and I also just find myself exhausted listening to those debates because it feels like a waste of everyone's time. I also am just unable to flow some of this most of the time, which is not unique to just me and is a common shared experience of many judges. I believe that the ways that people are spreading through a ton of off case positions at incredibly high speeds is problematic because I find it rather difficult to follow and I should not need to rely on docs to flow you but I cannot hear these words, I find it hard to check if someone is clipping, I don't think I should encourage this practice, I don't think there is or has ever been a need to speak that fast, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have found and experienced situations where debaters use speed to get away with performing/reading racist and violent arguments, which I think I have an ethical obligation to correct for by at least making a relevant note here.

SO with that in mind -- please do not spread through analytics -- there is absolutely no way I am going to get all of these down and if you spread through these, it makes me very sad because I do want to get every argument but I just will not be able to.

I also will not be flowing after the 4th off and will dock speaks. If there are more than 4 off's, I also feel comfortable with the 1AR getting up and telling me not to evaluate it since this is on my paradigm. I also think that more than 4 off's will lower my threshold for responses and 2AR spin.

Finally, I have also decided that more than 3 off means I should definitely presume aff under a role of the ballot where I am supposed to vote for the better debater. I think that more than 3 off makes the debate quite structurally difficult for the aff, so I believe the aff did the better debating.

That being said, if you read more than 4 off after seeing me on the pairing, I think we have bad blood from the beginning of the round. Choose your positions with care, defend them, and focus on relevant substantive discussions. If you think you need more than 4 off to beat an aff, you are reading 4 bad off's.

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

1. I will not give you a 30 if you ask for it.
2. Non-black folx who read anti-blackness specifically against black folx will prolly lose in front of me (I have not yet seen it happen), but I am likely to give you pretty low speaks either way -- however, non-black folx reading anti-blackness generally is fine.
3. I am happy to vote on non-black folx should not read afropess and/or antiblackness, but also to vote for the idea that it's ok -- this is a debatable issue for me -- and I also think that it's debatable whether a non-indigenous person should be reading certain strains of set col (i.e., people who are not Native American reading set col about Native Americans) -- I can be persuaded to vote either way and think this applies to every group-specific strain of literature
4. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
5. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better
6. Evidence ethics is quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when) and so are clipping, etc.
7. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
8. Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways -- I will vote on misgendering
9. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- be prepared for CX and please flow
10. Please send a doc as soon as you stop prep -- putting together the doc is prep time imo (emailing is not, but I will be upset if you spend more than 30 secs before saying "sent")

Lake Highland ’18

Stanford ’22

Email: muhammadykhattak@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Momo, I debated for Lake Highland for five years primarily in LD and dabbled (4 tournaments, 2 each) in PF and Policy. I've taught at NSD, TDC, and TDI. I was an assistant coach at FlexDebate and am now head coach at Bronx Science.

I believe the only essential feature of debate that I should uphold as a judge is that an argument is characterized by having a claim, warrant, and impact. You should read whatever style argument you’re most comfortable with and I’ll adjudicate the best I can. In that sense, I consider myself pretty tab, and I care about making the right decision. That's all to say, I think debate is a game so just play it how you see fit.

Whether it's phil framework, Ks, tricks, policy, theory, PF, traditional debate, or anything in between, I'm here for it. My aim is to always make the least interventionist decision as possible; so as long as you aim to justify why your model of debate is comparatively better than your opponent's and win offense linking back to that model, you will win.

Don't do anything blatantly offensive or actively aimed to make your opponent feel uncomfortable, could lose you the ballot or speaks.

Notes on online debate

1 - you should time each other ; if someone who is speaking gets kicked, most likely they are unaware of this and continue to speak. The person who is flowing, alternatively, should pause their timer at that moment and continue to flow under the assumption that their opponent is still reading their doc at the same rate.

Once the person who was kicked gets back, if they had already stopped because they realized they were kicked, time restarts at the time the other speaker paused their timer with, although generally you should try not to stop since you should have a local copy of your speech anyways (see 2). The reason why you should try not to stop is because either (a) you're reading cards off a doc in which case your opponent is already flowing anyways or (b) there were extempted arguments which should be confirmed in flex prep and the local copy will help your opponent and myself hear what exact arguments were made. If the person who is kicked rejoins and is still giving their speech, then the point at which the timer was stopped should serve as a timestamp for when to read listen to the recording.

2 - Record a local copy of your speech, either on your phone or QuickTime, so that if the speech cuts out you can send a copy of whatever we missed. I'm not too keen on letting you redo speeches since the wifi may just cut out again, having a local copy makes it easier to navigate these inconsistencies in connection.

3 - You should probably slow down a tad bit*, the bits and bops of Zoom always makes it tough for me to hear what you're saying, and I'm not one to religiously flow off the doc.
*slow down and build up in speed please please i'm a terrible flower

you can implement this method if you'd like - in constructive speeches, read taglines slower and glide through ev or long nondense ev; emphasize what needs emphasis for you to win and transition between flows with large overviews that compare layers. You can follow this up in speeches where you're pressed to collapse (2n/2a) the debate by giving an overview on how the layers of the debate interact, what layer you are collapsing to and then speed up once you get into the substance of winning each particular layer.

all of this is to say, try to go a bit slower in areas where you can. Also using efficient strategy and breaking down rounds in a discrete way that isolates all relevant voting issues or layers can help in later rebuttal speeches and be opportunities to slow down

My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is braedon-kirkpatrick@uiowa.edu.

Notes on Speaker Points:

The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.

Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.

I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)

Online Debate:

- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.

- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.

- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.

-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.

The Core:

I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.

For Prefs:

I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.

Specific Stances:

Defaults:

- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds

- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise

- I assume flex prep is A-OK

-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise

-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise

-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise

Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.

K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.

NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.

Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.

Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.

Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.

Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.

LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.

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.

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.

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.

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. If you think your opponent has done something bad in round, I will of course factor that in to my decision, but I will never use my ballot to hash out interpersonal disputes that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

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.

hii i'm shweta

policy/pf/ld

- quick notes: i debated policy for 4 yrs @lexington high school, have next to no pf/ld/policy topic knowledge (for these topics), am comfortable with speed, and am probably going to be fine with whatever you do (generally tabula rasa).

specifics

policy

- i generally lean tech>truth

- From Andrea's paradigm: Just please clearly delineate a ballot for me in the 2A/2N. Don't just extend arguments, explain why they're important to the round and weigh.

- I love framework debates and probably lean neg (55-45). However, I have also voted on/read kaffs so please don't let this scare you off of reading them. i'd much prefer familiarity w/ your kaff (esp if it has a creative/strategic topic connection! big fan of those affs) than reading a rando policy one. Fairness is an impact.

- tabula rasa for everything else

ld

- i'm generally fine for arguments that overlap with policy (k's/larp)^all of that holds true

- phil: not familiar with them in the context of debate but i'm a phil major so i'm generally familiar with the arguments! feel free as long as you're linking args and weighing back to your framework, to quote andrea

- not super familiar with theory but can judge it

- tricks: please do not/if you do please please explain them. theoretically wouldn't mind judging them but i don't really have experience with/really understand them.

pf

- anything is fine, genuinely tabula rasa

- clash!

- add me to the email chain- kondapidebate@gmail.com

- stole this from andrea's paradigm but *IMPORTANT* - I expect debaters to give trigger warnings before reading material with graphic and/or sensitive content (sexual assault, graphic descriptions/images of racial violence, etc.). If you defend not giving a trigger warning, I won't hesitate to auto drop you and give zero speaks. also pls don't use racist/sexist/ableist language because i will tank your speaks/will not hesitate to vote on discourse. Also, please be polite to your opponents- do not be rude in the name of being assertive.

UPDATE FOR ‘23-‘24: I have not done any topic research so any arguments that rely on a deep understanding of the topic would most likely not work in front of me. That being said, if you explain the logical syllogism and properly articulate your arguments, I should be able to flow them as you would like. Please slow down as well, I have been out of debate for a couple of years - would go at 70-80% of your full speed. I’ll say clear or slow if those become an issue in round.

Hi my name is Kartik and I debated for McNeil high school in Austin and competed in LD regularly on the TOC circuit from 2016-2020. I have coached individual debaters and taught at TDC.

I would like to be on the email chain: kotamrajukartikeya@gmail.com

I have been coached by Dominic Henderson and Cameron McConway so my opinions will be most similar to theirs.

Conflicted for McNeil HS

Don’t want to use too much space to write something down that should already be obvious but don’t say anything in front of me that would make me immediately think of you as a terrible person because that will not help you in the round. Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Have fun in the debate and enjoy the round, make it a pleasant space to be in.

Short Version for Prefs:

K: 2

LARP: 1

Theory/T: 2

Performance: 3

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

Speed:

Spreading is a strategy and I understand that, do not use it as a weapon against somone who clearly is new to the activity or not experienced enough to listen to you spew 300 WPM. Use it when you need but tone it done when you know your opponent obviously will not be able to keep up. Keep the debate educational and take something away from it.

K:

K debates are great in my opinion, I know there are large pools of peope that would not agree with that statement but those debates are fun to judge. If you’re going for a K aff, I would really appreciate it if there is an actual affirmation of the resolution as opposed to doing the negative’s job for them. If the Aff you’re running is more performance in nature, that is completely fine but I would like to see you relate that performance back to the resolution from the Aff’s lens. If you’re Neg and reading a K, I don’t have anything in specific to say other than make sure that there you’re doing the work of weighing between the ROTB and the framing of the Aff because I promise you I will not do that work for you on the flow. If I cant discern a specific reason as to why the framing of the K is more important than the Aff’s then you will most likely not win unless you have more offense under the dominating framing than your opponent does. I would imagine the debate round I just described would be incredibly messy and would really prefer not being in the back of the room for that debate - please do my job for me and don’t leave it up to me to identify the true meaning of your arguments.

IIf there is a T-debate, I think having an expectation of theoretically justifying your practice is not too high of a bar and I should see you doing that but that does not mean that things like impact turning theory are not going to be evaluated but I think coupled with a proper counter interp, it leads to a more fun debate.

Literature that I am familiar with: Deleuze, Saldanha, Warren, Wilderson, Set Col, Butler, Ableism, Yancy (a bit)

Literature that I am not familiar with: Foucault, Weheliye, Anthro, Bataille, Glissant

Literature that I will have a very hard time evaluating: Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis literature (my former teammate convinced me that psychoanalysis debates get very convoluted in LD debate and has interactions on the top-level rather than creating nuanced debate like it would in policy debate so trying to explain psychoanalysis to me during round will be an uphill battle but I will be open to it)

If what you plan on reading isn't here, then just ask me before round

Even though I am familiar with certain literature bases, err on the side of overexplaining to make sure I get your argument

Theory/T:

I went for 1ar theory a lot as a sophomore and junior and probably collapsed to T in 75% of my 2nrs in those 2 years and went for T/FW quite a few times my senior year. There is a very clear and distinct line between frivolous theory and actual theory, I will obviously be as TAB as possible but I will be more lenient towards minimal responses and will probably err on the side of reasonability if the justifications for it are won.

I am a firm believer in disclosure theory and will vote on it if it is read. There are a multitude of reasons for why disclosure is good. I do expect that the person who is reading disclosure theory discloses to the level that they want the other debater to do as well i.e. if you're reading open-source disclosure then you should be open-sourcing all your docs. If the debater answering disclosure brings up the fact that you don't disclose but has no screenshots, I will look on the wiki.

LARP:

This is the style of debate that I was taught by my policy-oriented coach so things like CPs, DAs, and Plan Affs are things that I am very familiar with and went for in most of my rounds so please feel free and don't hold back with these types of arguments.

Performance:

Please explain the offense that the performance generates for you in round, i.e. why does playing a song matter in the round, is something that should be extrapolated if you are going to go for them as offensive reasons to vote for you. If you are reading a performative aff and I do not vote for you, please don't take it as me not caring about your experiences but rather that in the game of debate, your opponent did the better debating and that's just the reality of the activity.

Phil/Tricks:

Phil is fine, Rawls and Kant are the phil arguments that I'm the most familiar with and will have a better time evaluating. Regardless of what phil argument you go for, always err on the side of overexplaining just so you make the debate more clear and so I can properly understand what your intended articulation of the argument is.

Tricks are a different story completely, I don't think they're the worst but please make sure you're not just speeding through 15 different spikes with absolutely no warrants.

Evidence Ethics:

Things like clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence are things that are problematic and raise questions but these claims would not be a reason for me to stop the round but rather a reason for me to look at them after the round has finished to see if the way in which the cards were structured have a large implication on the round.

Speed is fine, please be clear and slow down on tags and cites

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, drop the debater, and comparative worlds

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

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

julian kuffour (any)

julianjudging@gmail.com

slower = better. won't flow until the 1nc on the case (reading the cards), won't clear you or say i understood what you said if you're unclear or i do not follow your argument.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

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

Last Updated: 12/16/23

***TLDR***

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

I am hybrid, trad/prog.

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

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

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

Evidence ethics and courtesy please.

***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***

I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.

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

For safety slow down about 20-30%.

***OTHER COMMENTS***

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

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

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

Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns

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

Junior Minotaur Developer - Prescient Edge Corporation

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

Conflicts: Brookfield East

***ABOUT ME***

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

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

***GENERAL GUIDELINES***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**SPEAKS**

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

30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.

<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

***ROUND PREFERENCES***

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

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

* General Strat

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

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

- Structure well

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

• Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues

* Speed

- Spreading is fine

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

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

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

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

* CX

- Be assertive, not overbearing

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

- Flex prep fine

* Flashing

- Flash everything not extemp

- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell

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

* Disclosure

- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu

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

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

* Tech > Truth

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

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

2. Despise friv theory, don't read

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

* General Tech

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

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

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

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

- Would prefer explicit kicks

- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should

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

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

- Severance perms seem bad

* K

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

- Be genuine, especially if running performance

- Know what you are running

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

- Develop your thesis and link story

- Err on the side of overexplaining

- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations

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

- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story

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

* K v. Topicality

- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well

- Clear sequencing and defense will save you

** LARP

* Plan

- Text is explicit and specific

- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical

- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency

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

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

* CP

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

- Prove competitiveness

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

* DA

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

- Functional warrants throughout link chain

- Weigh

* Theory

- CI, DTA, No RVI

- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense

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

- Slow down for analytics

- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention

- Independent Voters: same as found in K section

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

* Tricks

- Zero experience with this stuff

- Won't vote off of hidden text

- Implicate and justify well

Hi, I'm Leo (he/him), and I debated for Bronx for 3 years, doing mostly circuit my senior year. My paradigm is mostly the same as this one here

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

(If link isn't working search under William Freedman in paradigms)

For any further questions feel free to ask before the round, and the order of stuff I like to evaluate is listed here:

Tricky Phil > Phil > Larp > K's > T> Tricks > Lay

Non T stuff is fine but I do lean towards TFW being true especially with a compelling TVA.

I've also been out of debate for a hot minute so please ease into speed and err heavy on explanations.

I also read a lot of tricky Phil, so if you can do something fun with a Phil case and know ur stuff well you'll probably get decently high speaks, but I'll err higher on speaks in general as long as ur good at whatever ur doing.

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.except for judge kick - do you want me to tell you what to go for too? no thanks. However, if the block says judge kick and the 1AR does not say no judge kick, i will begrudgingly judge kick. if the first i hear of judge kick is the 2nr - the 2ar just has to say 'no' and i will not judge kick.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

**Conflicts for TOC 24: Harvard Westlake, Scarsdale, Westridge TW, Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, San Mateo YR, Monta Vista KR, Los Altos AK, Amador Valley EM, Brophy TJ, Stanford OHS AY, Horace Greeley SG, Bellevue WL, Concord Carlisle FZ, St Agnes EH

**TOC Specific: if you're a senior and would not like to hear the RFD, just let me know!

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past two years/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

If you are going too fast for me to tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not. I will call clear and slow, please listen or we will all be sad.

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

Greenhill 2022

Top Level

I will work hard to be the best judge possible for your debate. I will flow your speeches and cross-ex and base my decisions as much as possible on your words. I love debate and know how much work you put into it and the least I can do is be the best judge I can be for you. Tech over truth. I’m doubling down here this year because so few judges do this in practice. I would rather vote for high quality execution of untruthful argument that is won than interject myself into the debate.

Some thoughts you may care about when doing your pref sheet in no particular order:

1. I don't have any massive preferences in terms of argument content. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense. I don't care what you do as long as you do what you do best. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Judge instructions are good. I prefer lbl to long overviews.

2. Evidence quality matters a great deal to me. I enjoy debates where cross-ex is spent digging in on your opponents claims and referencing their ev. Re-highlighted evidence should be read.

3. T - I rarely see 2nr’s that go for T unless a massive mistake has been made by the aff.

4. KAff/TFW - Appeals to Fairness and clash are both persuasive. I find it extremely difficult to overcome the notion that an unlimited prep burden for the neg is undesirable. To me that means the aff should probably be related to the topic in some way. That said, I often vote aff in these debates. The neg either isn't prepared to deal with case cross-applications and impact analysis of the team they are debating, don't do sufficient work establishing the impact to limits , and sufficiently leverage TVA's and Switch Side arguments to mitigate aff offense. Aff teams often lose when they are too defensive, insufficiently develop their counter model of debate, or make mistakes on the technical portions of this debate.

5. K - Like most judges, case-specific links pulled from ev, tags/rhetoric, established in cx, etc. are what I'm looking for. I find that too much of the debate often devolves into reading framing blocks which means argunents aren't ansered in a satisfactory way by both teams. This means that framing is rarely decisive. Moreover, I am not usually persuaded by arguments that say that aff offense just poof goes away unless the neg is substantially ahead on framing. The sooner you realize that framework may not be decisive, begin to engage what often become comparisons of apples and oranges (in round scholarship vs the results of hypothetical policy scenarios), and give me a way to wade through that muck, the better. Please do us a favor and stay organized - clearly label different portions of the debate on the k. Signpost! Please stick to the line-by-line. Short overviews are ok but long are not.

6. CP - Case-specific is best here again. There's almost nothing better than specific cp with high quality evidence. 2ac permutation explanations are your friend. Later in the debate, I tend to think your explanations are just flat out new and not spin. Just invest a bit more time to unpack your initial permutations and I will hold them to answering the nuance.

7. DA - Not a lot to say here. Good evidence matters. Creative spin is welcome. Zero risk is possible and extremely small risk of an extinction scenario can matter a great deal or not much at all depending on the evidence and analysis accompanying these arguments.

8. Theory - Defaults: Condo -> drop team. Everything else = drop argument.

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.

LD judge:

On Speed, your welcome to spread your evidence however, I would prefer you slow the rate of speed for the actual articulation of your argument.

-A participant can likely sway me to their persuasion with strong empirical evidence. While more recent generally is stronger, but depending upon the topic, some evidence/data can be older if tied to a relevant argument.

I prefer qualitative supporting contentions that link to your philosophical framework. I prefer traditional LD.

-I prefer debate rounds that are on the actual resolution...you may note when you feel the opponent is abusive and will be considered...but if your entire argument shifts to become non-topical (aka theory or kritiks)...it will be tough for you to win the round.

PF Judge:

All of the above applies.

My favorite type of PF round is when the competitors argue the pros and cons of the policy proposal imbedded in the resolution.

You can reach on your impacts, but the more practical go further with me in most cases.

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

debate style tier list:

S Tier - Policy v k, Policy v Policy, Debates about Debate
A tier - K aff v Policy, K aff v Framework, Performance debate (either side)
B tier - K v K, Theory,
C tier - Phil
D tier - Trix
F tier - Meme/troll

about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips.

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. 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.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Name: Alex Nelson

Background: I debated for St. Croix Prep (MN) for three years. During that time I competed in LD, a few policy rounds, BQ, and World Schools. I am familiar with circuit style LD, but the majority of rounds I debated in were mostly traditional with a bit of Circuit Debate.

General Overview/TLDR: The majority of rounds I have judged recently have been traditional LD rounds and policy. I know the basics of circuit LD, anything that is niche or not super common will need to be really well explained. I’m ok with most arguments and won’t vote against you for anything specific unless the argument is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I can handle some speed, as long as you slow down for authors and tags. Value and Criterion are a must. Link arguments through the framework and on the flow and you will do just fine. Don’t be a jerk in round and have fun.

Argumentation

In general, I am ok with almost all arguments. I will not listen to any arguments based on racist, sexist, homophobic, or other degrading attitudes. I judge the round based on who won the framework debate and best linked and impacted their arguments back into the winning framework. I evaluate based on the flow, so be sure to signpost clearly and be organized in your rebuttals. Extensions are always great but explain why you are extending the card. Don’t just say “Extend My Nietzsche Card” and expect me to do so. Dropped arguments are not immediately a game over issue for me. You must explain why the dropped argument is or is not important. I think philosophy and philosophic inquiry are really central to LD, so I love to see philosophy in round. I always like to see voting issues in the final speech for both aff and neg. The 2AR especially should be a crystallization and summary. I don’t need line by line in the 2AR. Also, don’t be a jerk in round or after the round. Treat both me and your opponent with respect.

Speaks

The whole speaker points system has devolved into a kind of arbitrary and subjective estimation. I will start at a 26 for an average performance and go up from there. To get a 30, you need to be a fantastic debater and a fantastic speaker. If you are vocally abusive or personally criticize your opponent, you will get a 20 or lower.

My view on National Circuit Debate

I am familiar with Circuit LD and have a pretty solid notion of all the basic concepts (K’s, Topicality, Plans, CPs, PICs, Fiat, etc.). Anything really esoteric or nuanced about circuit style or organization I am not super great at. If you are running "circuity" stuff, keep in mind the preferences for each thing listed below.

Framework

I am a one hundred percent believer in the Value and Criterion framework. If you don’t have a Value Criterion (V/C), It is incredibly difficult to weigh or impact your arguments. You should be linking and impacting arguments through a V/C, whether it is yours, your opponent’s, or both frameworks. Even if you run a plan, it is very difficult to evaluate anything without the Value and Criterion. For me, the framework provides the best way to evaluate arguments, crystallize the round, and convince me on voting issues.

Topicality

I’m not a huge fan of running topicality in LD rounds. If you are going to run it, it should be because your opponent is clearly and obviously extratropical. Don’t run Topicality if you and your opponent have competing definitions that are somewhat similar, just explain to me why your definition applies better or some similar argument. If, however, your opponent has a definition that is really stretching the meaning of a word, or is not all reasonable, then run Topicality. Please do not use it as a time suck to bog down the aff.

Plans/CP’s

I am not a the biggest fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but I will listen to them, provided they are well run. If a plan has not been read, please do not read a counter plan. You can read the cards and just frame it as a kind of alternative option to the aff, but I don’t like hearing CP’s when no official plan text has been read even if the aff seems like a plan. I also would prefer if a plan was linked through some sort of weighing mechanism.

Kritiks

I love Kritiks. They are rooted in philosophy and are thus perfectly suited for LD. Make sure if you run a K that you have the essential parts: Link, Impact, Alt, and are very clear about what those are. Vague alts like reject the aff are very weak and easily permed or turned. If you are kritiking a speech act or something outside of your opponent’s arguments, you will have to explain to me why that matters in debate.

Theory

I confess that I have not seen or read a lot of theory arguments. From my limited perspective on it, I am not a big fan unless it acts as a check on legitimate abuse. You will have to really walk me through theory arguments that don't address something that is clearly abusive.

Speed

I can handle a decent amount of speed. I probably cannot understand your fastest, but I did do a bit of policy, so I bet I can understand more than most traditional judges. The important thing is to SLOW DOWN FOR AUTHORS AND TAGS. Seriously, like normal or traditional debate speed. This is because I need to be able to understand the basic outline of your argument. If I miss a little detail in the cards, that is something that can be overcome. If I don’t know what your third contention is, it becomes very hard to evaluate your argument. If I can’t understand you, I will say “clear”. If I say it a second time and I still cannot understand you, I will audibly drop my pen and stop flowing. This should be a sign that I am not putting any of your arguments on the flow, and thus I cannot evaluate them. If there is an email chain, I would love to be put

Good luck in round and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

I'll vote on anything so long as it is justified and I can follow the logic (I do not take a sense on if the logic is truly logical, rather if there is a chain I can follow), absent anything grossly offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). Please be nice to your opponent. I give high speaks and take the time to make a decision that I can fully justify the logic of.

Especially over zoom, try to slow things down. It's been 5+ years since I competed in VLD, so not as good at keeping up with spread as I was. Dense phil Ks I'll have trouble understanding. I'll vote on them (as I'm open to any type of argument), but it will be a dangerous strat. I love theory and think the curcuit needs more of it. I also think that the general structure of theory/Ks are beneficial to judges understanding, but I make no requirement that anything be structured in a standard shell.

PF (everyone, but PF especially) - I will be highly skeptical of any cards and will probably call for them if the warrant is paraphrased. I highly recommend cutting the cards with direct quotes instead.

Include me on email chains.

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I do policy at Emory. I debated for and now coach at Durham. If you will be on the Emory debate team in the fall you should put me as a conflict.

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round. It's better to hop into the competition room early as opposed to email me since I might miss your question.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. Sending docs is good. It lets both me and your opponent verify the quality of the evidence you are reading. Sending docs is not an excuse to be unclear. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time. If we reach the round start time and you are just starting to set up the email chain, I will be very sad. Even if I am judging on the local circuit, I would like a card doc since I like to look over evidence and just sending cards out from the beginning is easier than me trying to call for cards while the decision time ticks away. On a somewhat related note, although I do think disclosure is good, I'd rather not watch debates about this. This is especially true if your opponent does disclose in some fashion, even if it's not what you consider the best norm.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. I find many of the ways that people classify themselves as debaters, such as being policy or k or traditional or circuit, largely artificial distinctions. I similarly don’t particularly care whether your arguments are properly formatted in line with whatever norms exist in various local, regional, or national circuits, such as if you read a standard or a value and a criterion. I do care that you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate. Smart arguments will win rounds.

I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but I think the distinction between tech and truth in debate is largely silly. That means there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Lastly, be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity and teaching me most everything I know about debate.

Specifics

Policy – Plans, CPs, and DAs are great! Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should also be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo counterplans, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. I lean negative on most competition issues, and I think I am better for process counterplans than most other LD judges. The 2nr is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or other new arguments, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr on most positions should just be in the 1nc. If you sandbag reading your CP competition cards until the 2nr, for example, I will be sad.

T – I love a good T debate. Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – K debates are great, just know the literature and be ready to explain it. If I don't understand your argument, I won't be able to vote for it. These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means. Alternatives should be tangible, and you should have examples.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. Whether you are going for an impact turn to the K or extending the K itself, you need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than most other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Regardless, I don’t think the negative needs the TVA to win, but it also won’t hurt to make one and extend it. Cap and other kritiks can also be pretty good if you understand what you’re doing. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love philosophical debates. I think phil debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

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

I’m a parent judge with 2 years of judging experience with LD (traditional debate). I have a few preferences that need to be followed in order to persuade me:

· Speak clearly so that I can comprehend everything you are saying.

· Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.

· Be civil and respectful within the round. There will be no racism, sexism, misogyny, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these characteristics I will stop listening to you and drop you with low speaks.

· Framework is very important. You should have a clear value and value criterion that is well-warranted and explained clearly. You should apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end. I should be able to tell what contention you’re speaking about and all of your separate points.

· The debate will be weighed on whose arguments and framework were the most clear, consistent, and carried throughout the round.

· Evidence should be extended, if your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, make that clear to me and carry it throughout.

· Spell it out why I should vote for you, especially in your last speech.

· Having confidence is a huge key to winning. If you sound confident, you’re more than likely to convince me. 

Add me to the chain: nrastogi5@yahoo.com

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

CP

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

DA

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

They/Them/Theirs

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

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

I am not currently actively judging debates

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

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.

Collin Smith -- collin.smith8941@gmail.com

Most of my argumentation has been on the K side of things in debate. My research interests, however, are very broad, and I do not really care what form your arguments take. As a judge, I value specificity, evidence comparison, and in-depth explanation. I generally decide debates by identifying key points of offense and sifting through the evaluative mechanisms set up by either team to discern whose impact matters more, and how I should conceive of solvency.

Framework – I will vote for it, I will vote against it. I think neg teams win these debates when they win clash/debate-ability as an internal link turn to aff and some type of procedural impact, but I see the utility in switch-side or topic education arguments in some contexts. Neg’s also need to win a framework comes first/case doesn’t matter argument. I think the aff is set to win these debates when they win an impact they can solve, an impact turn to the neg’s interp, and apply that disad to the 2nr’s arguments. I do not think a counter-interpretation is necessary, though often it is quite useful.

Case/disads - I really enjoy a detailed, specific case or disad debate. I am willing vote on well-executed defense to mostly minimize the risk of an advantage or disadvantage.

Email: realprathamsoni@gmail.com

PGP: He/Him

TLDR:

Water finds the path of least resistance; make me vote with the route that is the least amount of work for me. I don't want to do mental gymnastics to reach a decision.

I love super techy debates where the debate is around extinction-level scenarios. Ks is also fine with me, but I hate K vs Larp debates, especially when there is 0 clash. Pref me if you aren't a tricks debater.

Background:

I am currently a Sophomore at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign studying Cyber Security. I did debate for all 4 years, I did Cx for my first two, then LD for my last 2. I debated on the national circuit. I did LARP debate but in Cx and increasingly during my senior year, I read Ks.

Prefs (1 is good, 5 is worst):

Policy/LARP - 1

K - 1.5

T/Theory - 2 (but not friv theory)

Trad - 2.5

Phil/Framework - 3

Tricks - 5 (please don't do tricks, I had this phase but its not fun to judge)

General:

Tech and Truth are two separate things, it's stupid for someone to say tech over truth, what they mean is they like util, but that doesn't exclude K args from the round.

Debate is game with educational implications. Presumption is neg but flips aff if there is a CP (or a different interp). Make sure that your 2AR/2NR has weighing so I can vote for whatever is easy for me to vote on. I don't really know what to put in this section. It will keep expanding as I keep judging, but ask me any questions you have please, so its beneficial for both you as a debater and me as a judge.

LARP:

Most of my LD experience is in LARP debate, I love it. I love the policy aspect of it. I like it when the neg reads 7 off, just make sure your DAs have actual weight to them.

K:

I have had a love/hate relationship with K debate. I love it when you are actually genuine about the topic you are stating. Like identity politics, but if you're running a K because it is strategic to this round, then it will come off as super bad and make me disincentivized to vote for you.

CP:

The counterplan is conditional unless said otherwise, the burden of the neg if nobody lays out a framework is "the neg has to prove an instance of when the aff doesn't work/provide a better way to approach the problem". This being said, if you are debating conditionality I will be Tabula Rasa

DA:

I love DAs, especially econ DAs and politics DAs. If there is a unique DA you have, I will enjoy it. I love extinction-level impacts, but be careful if the FW isn't util then I can't weigh through extinction.

T/Theory:

Disclosure is a must, I will literally just stop flowing if someone brings up a valid disclosure shell.

Other theory is something I'm cool with but please don't be a tricky debater and run like 5 theory shells. Theory is supposed to be run when your life is genuinely harder because of something the other debater did.

SEND THE THEORY/T SHELL OVER EVEN IF ITS JUST ANALYTICS, I will not flow it unless the shell is sent to everyone.

Trad:

My local circuit was very trad, I enjoy a trad debate, and am willing to vote on trad arguments. LARP debates however can easily argue against a trad debate, and I prefer LARP so its not in your best interest to read trad in front of me, especially at a nat circuit tournament.

Phil/FW:

I don't really enjoy philosophy because there are so many different interpretations of it. If you are reading a generic phil like Kant, I'm chill with that. If there's phil I don't understand, I just simply won't vote on it. If you are planning on reading Phil/FW, just ask me before the round, I will probably tell you I know your author/idea.

Tricks:

L

Things to make life easier:

- Set up the email chain before the round, I'll know you've read my paradigm

- Sending cards is a must, but please don't be extra and send only the cards, if you're gonna be reading analytics at 350 wpm and I don't understand it, I won't flow it.

- If you sing 30 seconds of Kanye, I'll give you 30 speaks

- Don't be dumb, I woke up at 8 AM on a Saturday when I could've been sleeping, please don't be extra.

camera update: 9/3/2021- I live in an apartment complex with spotty internet. So I will be defaulting to keeping my camera off during the speeches. If the speeches sound clear after the first two constructive lsu I’ll try turning my camera on. Also no need to ask me if I’m ready, just default that I’m ready, and if I’m not I’ll unmute myself and let you know.

TLDR: Not super in touch with recent trends in debate, and very heavily prefer policy. Speed is no problem for me, just start slower and slowly work up to about 80% Max speed. Please note if you’re reading Non T or Phil, please do a good job explaining it to me. Oftentimes in these rounds I’m not getting enough info about why I should be voting one way or the other. I do not disclose unless the decision was extremely easy. Otherwise I prefer to give detailed info on my ballot and am open for questions using the email chain that you sent me your case in.

1: LARP/ Substance

2: Kritik

3-4: Theory

5-Strike: Performance, High Phil

Add me to the email chain: abbusp@gmail.com (REMEMBER send me cards before your speech that you'll be reading. If you're spreading analytics send me that as well. If analytics will not be spread I don't need them in the doc)

1. Speed: Here's my take. I've been debating for a while so I can keep up with speed. HOWEVER, with everything being online clarity has become a HUGE issue. Please go much much slower than you normally would. You don't have to go at a lay pace, but just remember I only say clear twice, before I put my pen down. What I miss will be held against you.

2. Theory: Remember fairness and education come first. Debate is an activity about fairness, and theory is meant to address that. IT IS NOT meant to let you opt out of substantive arguments. For this reason, I don't really enjoy theory and RVI debates. Keep everything on the resolution. Theory just serves the purpose that the debater running the shell, lets me know the violation and why it should warrant dropping the other debater. The debater going against the shell, just defend yourself and move on, don't drop everything and go for winning off the RVI because it won't hold any weight for me.

3. Stylistic: I'm very lenient with speaker points and usually give extremely high speaks. Please give me concise voters in your final speeches. They will have the most magnitude for me because it allows me to determine what the main issues you are going for are. Please impact everything, don't just read random cards and move on. Also don't just card dump, I want to see you construct meaningful arguments.

4. VERY IMPORTANT: Please Read. Before your speeches I want the cards you will be reading. Too many competitors send the cards after their speech, at which point there is not enough time to evaluate the cards because the next speech has started. I want to be able to follow along as you read your cards. Please note that this means sign posting will be VERY important. If you're going 600 WPM, and not sign posting anything you've already lost me. SLOW DOWN On tags and authors. Let me hear those clearly before you ratchet up your speed. Any analytics or non cards not in the case doc need to be at a reasonable speed. You can spread what's on the doc.

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, i want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations: Ivy Bridge Academy, Georgia State University, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

+.2 speaker points for gender minorities

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

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.

Please do not read arguments that can be interpreted as glorifying suicide. This is a specific vein of death good that I do not want to hear. If you have questions, please ask before round.

I EXPECT YOU TO USE SOME WAY TO FILE SHARE FOR ALL DEBATES!!! THE IDEA THAT EVERYONE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE CARDS YOU READ IS SILLY AND MAKES FOR BAD DEBATES. FAILURE TO SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE WITH YOUR OPPONENT AND MYSELF WILL RESULT IN A MAX OF 25 SPEAKER POINTS AND A LOSS IN ELIMS.

Disclosure updates in things i vote on section

I prefer for us to use speechdrop.net for file sharing but if we have to use one, add me to the email chain: dieseldebate@gmail.com

"debate is bigger than any one person. I believe in debate. I believe in the debate community. I believe that debate is one of the most valuable educational programs in the country and I am proud that it is my home."- Scott Harris

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college??? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. We have scholarships for dedicated debaters who want to invest in our program and would love to welcome you to our team!

_______________________

Experience:

Competing

2012-2016: Policy Debate at Lee's Summit West High School, 2x national qualifier [Transportation infrastructure, Cuba Mexico Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance]

2016-2020: NFA-LD at University of Nebraska-Lincoln [SOUTHCOMM, Policing, Cybersecurity, Energy]

2020 NFA-LD debater of distinction

Coaching

2018-2019: Justice Debate league Volunteer

2020: Lincoln Douglas Lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Institute

2020-2022: Assistant NFA-LD Coach for Illinois State University

2019-2023: Head LD coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

2022: Lab leader for the Collegiate Midwest Lincoln Douglas Cooperative

2022: Varsity LD and progressive argumentation lab leader for the Nebraska Debate Conference

2022-present: Assistant Director of Debate for the University of Nebraska- Lincoln (NFA-LD, some NDT-CEDA)

individuals who shaped my perspectives on debate: Justin Kirk, Adam Blood, Nadya Steck, Dustin Greenwalt

_______________

SPEAKS

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correct in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Disclosure theory - if you read disclosure on either side and do not have open sources available for both sides on your wiki, I will massively doc your speaks. This argument exists to create better standards for debate. Failure to do so will result in dreadful speaks and a very easy out for your opponent to just say that you did not meet the burdens expressed in your argument.

theory out of 1AC

Speed theory (if justified, see speed section)

Framework v. K affs

Framework turns v. other positions (Ks, DAs, Case args)

CPs in HS LD

CP theory

Ks in HS LD (See K section in policy for specifics)

Speaking for others arguments (There are ways to not make this problematic. However, identity is very individualized and commodification of someone else's identity for your own gain is a problem for me. For instance, do not be a white male debater reading the narrative of a black woman.)

______________

NFA-LD/ Policy

SPEED: I can do speed. I do have some conditions though. READ T SHELLS SLOWLY!!!! I need to hear the definitions, standards and voters. Bottom line is if it isn't on my flow I can't vote for it. Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be respectful of individuals and their experiences.

TOPICALITY/THEORY: needing proven abuse is wrong. Affs that say dont vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterinterps that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad then warrant that out in the standards debate. I do say if you want to win T you need to go all in in the NR and win the full shell. When it comes to theory I love it. I tend to flow it on a different sheet so tell me when I need to pull one out. That being said I don't see theory as a means of winning the ballot. It is just a means of getting me to not evaluate an argument. This can be changed though. I have done a lot of weighing condo bad v. T. Theory v. theory is always a fun time. Warrant out why some shells are weighed first in the round and explain to me how different shells interact with each other. T is never a reverse voter though and neither is theory. Predictability is not determined by whether or not something is on the wiki or if you have seen it before. Predictability is based on whether or not an interpretation is predictable given the resolution. The same goes for reasonability. Negs who read T should be able to provide a TVA or establish that the education we get from judging the 1AC is bad for the topic.

DISADS: Run them. This is one of my favorite arguments to see and evaluate. I think it is the best way to establish comparative offense. However, if you run generic links that's no bueno for me. generic links from the Neg means generic responses from the Aff are acceptable. I don't want a generic debate y'all. give me some links that pertain to the case at hand.

CPs: They exist. I never really ran them but I do know how they work and I will evaluate them. Also prove it competitive. (Hint: I like Disads. that can help.) I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove them to be competitive as long as there’s a perm on the CP.

KRITIKS: I like the k debate and will vote for them but explain the literature. I have read some of the authors including Deleuze and Guattari, Puar, D’andrea, Ahmed, Wilderson, Tuck and Yang, and most of the authors that relate to neoliberal subjectivity as it applies to consumption. I have also seen antiblackness and afropessimism rounds that I have enjoyed a lot. But that does not mean I am entirely up to date on the newest literature or how your lit plays into the round. Just explain it to me. NEVER RUN MULTIPLE IN ONE ROUND!!!! The Alt debate turns ugly and I don't want to deal with that. Affs should either have a plan text or an advocacy statement as to what they do. I don't like performance debate as much as just reading the cards, however I have voted for poetry performance in rounds. I will listen to identity args. Race, disabilty, and queer lit are all acceptable in front of me and I can/ will evaluate them. Neg should be able to defend alt solvency. I am not going to automatically grant that. I will not kick the alt for you. saying "if you do not buy the alt kick it for me" is not an argument. If you do not explicitly say "kick the alt" or something of that nature I will evaluate the alternative. If it does not solve then I will be persuaded by risk of aff offense. I also want to point out that P.I.L. was correct, Anger is an Energy. If structures upset you, feel free to rage against them. This can include the debate, economic, racial, gendered, and other spaces. If you are oppressed and you are angry about it, I will not limit your ability to angrily refute the system.

K's that I am v familiar with: SetCol, Cap, Afropess, fem, ableism, militarism, Biopower/ Necropower, Islamophobia

k's that I know a bit less: queer theory, Baudrillard

CASE: I am always here for the growth, heg, and democracy bad debates as well as the prolif good ones. My strategy typically was to go T, K, O so I enjoy hearing why heg is bad and how the alt avoids it and how the aff isnt topical.

PRESUMPTION: I will not vote for terminal defense on the flow. I need an offensive reason to vote for you. Whether that be a disad, K, or advantage I need something to evaluate to give me a reason to reject the other team. Find it, win it, and extend it. Also, do the calculus for me of what impacts matter and why they matter. When I do the calculus I look to magnitude, timeframe, and probability. Explain why you fit into those please.

CONDO: I find it disingenuous to read more than one condo advocacy in one round in NFA. You can do it if you win the theory debate but I will be more lenient to theory in a world of multiple conditional advocacies. If you are running multiple advocacies please make it only be CPs. I don't want to see a CP and K in a round because almost always the CP will link to the K and I think that's cheating. That is different for policy and I consider it much more debatable then.

PLANLESS AFFS: I believe the aff should do something. How that happens is up to the aff. I do not reject planless affs on face but they should at least have an advocacy. otherwise, I am persuaded by vote neg on presumption because the aff functionally does nothing. arguments about the importance of rhetorical challenges is a way to do this.

_________

HS-LD

For any arguments that relate to it see above. In terms of how I evaluate LD rounds I rely heavily on the framework debate to determine how I will evaluate the round. Pay it it's due and try to win it. However, if you are able to show how your arguments fall into your opponents’ framework then I will be willing to vote for you if they win the framework shell. Also please clash with each other. I have seen too many rounds where each speech is just explaining 1ACs and 1NCs and I don't have a specific reason to vote against one or the other. At that point my personal morals let me decide how I feel about the topic. You don't want that. I don't want that.

I think a lot of LD debaters fail to recognize the importance of uniqueness to their arguments. If the squo is in the direction of the arg you are talking about, you need to prove uniqueness for whatever point you are making.

I tend to default to the idea that Fiat does not exist in HSLD until I am told otherwise. This is an easy arg to make especially with a res that uses the word "ought".

I am more progressive when it comes to LD due to my policy background. This means PICs, Ks, CPs and DAs are all acceptable. weigh them and explain the args as they apply to the aff case.

Phil cases and I do not get along very well. It confuses me and I find that debaters are not the best at explaining philosophy in the limited amount of time we have in debate rounds.

I prefer single standard debate as well. Death is bad and morality is good (but subjective) I dont need a specific mechanism for how we prevent or entrench one or the other. if you read it thats fine but I probably won't look at it that much unless you thoroughly explain it to me.

how to pref me

policy style args (CP, K, DA)-1

Theory-1

phil-3

tricks-these are typically not arguments and hold minimal weight for me

______________________________

PF

If you have me in the back of the room for NSDA most likely it will be for public forum. That being said, I am not extremely experienced when it comes to public forum debate. I have coached and debated it in an extremely limited capacity but have substantial experience in other formats. The debate is yours but I have a few things that ought to be known before you walk into the room and start doing your thing.

1. Debate is a game of comparative warrants and impacts. Too many people in PF try to rely on just making claims without substantiating those claims with proper warrants. Just giving me a number is insufficient to prove the causality of an argument. I need to understand what the reasoning is behind WHY a number exists.
2. Uniqueness MATTERS! I have seen too many debaters (in all activities) fail to explain the uniqueness of their claims and arguments. The resolution provides an overarching truth claim that provides some direction as to how the world reorients itself post implementation. What does each world look like and how is it a shift to the status quo?
3. Evidence is incredibly important to me. If you choose to paraphrase, it will negatively impact your speaker points. I emphasize the use of actual properly cut cards in PF. I understand this is not a common practice so if I ask for evidence that you have read, you need to be able to provide the source and the lines where your arguments came from. Failure to do this will result in me not evaluating an argument, filing an ethics complaint, and tanking your speaks. Don't plagiarize or lie to me in a debate.
4. Speaker position does not influence me too much. I keep a rigorous flow that consists of all of the arguments made by both teams. You should pref the side you want before picking the order in front of me.
5. PLEASE provide an actual impact in debates. most PF rounds I have judged do not express an actual impact story and get stuck at internal links. you need a reason that your contentions are a problem
6. Finally, for any of it that applies above, please consult my LD and policy sections of my paradigm to see if any arguments should or should not be read at this tournament. Also, ask any questions that you may have before the round. I enjoy talking to people and hope to enjoy the debate you present me with.

__________________

At the end of the day it is my job to sit in the back of the room and listen to discourse on the issues presented. It is your job to determine how that discourse happens. Just because I say I do or do not like something should not change your strategy based on the round. I have voted for things I never thought I would and have changed my opinions about things a lot. I give higher speaks to anyone who can read my paradigm and change my opinion or do something that is incredibly intelligent in round. Do what you are comfortable with and I will adjudicate it based on what is in front of me.

Other than this PLEASE feel free to ask me. I only bite on tuesdays. Pref me a 1 and I'll be able to give you an experienced and fairly well rounded and open round.

Currently coach of Minnetonka High School

Hey Y'all I love weighing and extentions and plzzzzzzzzzzz signpost for me.

Ive done circuit for 1 year for LD. Done 2 years of LD, 2 years in other formats, and also 1 year in Congress

LD - Make sure to sign post when speaking. Use weighing mechanics to weigh impacts. Clearly explain framework and why your fw matters. If you don't signpost while doing your rebuttal I will drop it.

• Idk lately why a lot of debaters don't link their case back to their fw.
• Also weighing too duh????
• Signpost plz so I don't get confused lol
• Tech>Truth

If I yell out clear 3 times I will stop flowing

Circuit LD - Plans, Disads, CP, K and Theory only. I will not vote on tricks arguments.

Plans,Disads,CP>Theory>K>Other things

I will vote you down for any Tricks

Congress - Speeches must be clear and concise. The only way you will get a good placement if you actually have clash.

*Little rant: I don't know why nobody in congress have clash. This is a real debate hence you would need some clash. Don't just go up and say your side without talking about the other sides points.

How I vote on congress. Argumentation/Content>Speech points/Quality>Quality of Questions> Following Procedures

Email chain send to trinh120@umn.edu

2023 NDT Champion; 2023 CEDA Champion - Wake Forest

Iyanarobyndebate@gmail.com (Add me to the email chain)

"I am not a judge, but if you introduce these arguments (and by these I mean white mediocrity) I will be your executioner" - MWAH NO BARS.

**And so the chorus sings. I believe that all debates are performances and you are responsible for what you say and do in round. Because that is true, you should be prepared to debate the justifications and epistemologies of your arguments as well as the way you have performed in this debate. I have grown increasingly concerned with the language of “adhoms” and “violent arguments” in relationship to black debate and kritik arguments as ways to devoid accountability for instances of antiblackness, misogynoir, transphobia, classism etc. The phrasing of adhom attacks and the punitive measures adjudicators are taking (in the form of assigning losses, docking speaker points etc) is an indicator of the physical manifestations of antiblackness in the debate space. It is the “wrong forum” Framework argument being acted out. But, if debate is about compeititve incentives, where is the argument development from the plan side?? What are the other ways to address the antiblackness when yall run from and do not engage black debate in any way?Instead of taking the concerns people are raising about the activity and the students and programs in it that have caused actual antiblack misogynoirst violence - the decision has been made to frame performance and black debate as anti-educational and bad for the activity. This is an age old tactic that we’re used to. Calling out antiblackness is not violent. Calling out misogynoir is not violent. Calling out the ways the debate arguments that are “just for the game” spill into their personal lives and actions is not violent. What IS violent, however, is the reduction of Black debate to adhom attacks and violence. What IS violent is the sudden authority and clarity white people have developed about what constitutes as a violent act all because they haven’t won a debate; all the while, justifying and staying silent on the legacy of this activity and it’s theft and pathologization of black debate. In the words of Rashad Evans, “eat, pray, love, and cut some better cards”. GET GOOD! Happy Debating! **

I answer respectful questions, do not post round me rudely or I will respond accordingly.

I do not flow docs - I flow what you are saying in the speech. Be clear.

Do what you want! I've done Black Feminism, Pessimism, Afro-Futurism, Framework, Racial Capitalism, Eroticism, RSPEC, Counter Performances, Body Politics, Critical IR Theory, Academy K etc.

I stop listening after 5 off.

Hi, I use she/they pronouns

Experience: I debated LD all throughout high-school, I mainly did traditional but I dabbled (and I say that generously) in circuit before. I also have a general idea of other debate events (policy, PF, Congress). I have been coaching speech and debate for three years.

LD

Speed: It’s fine, if you’re going to spread I’d like to be on the email chain.

Disclosure of round result: Yes, so long as it's okay with all participants, but I won't disclose speaker points.

Framework: If you're doing an extremely complex, esoteric framework, I expect that you can explain it well. If you don't know the arguments you shouldn't be running them. Please be sure to slow down on tags. Please impact clearly. Even if framework gets conceded at the beginning of the round I still want to see how it interacts in the debate. I will never evaluate a framework that validates oppression, discrimination, death etc.

Ks: Make sure your RoB is clear and actually feasible. I am not a fan of K affs. Please try to run something topical. I am not well-versed in K literature.

Theory: I like tech over truth. If there is a legitimate abuse in the debate space then go for theory and I will 100% vote on it. Please don't just run 3 theory shells for time sucks. Slow down a little on RVIs please. In saying that, please don't make me do too much judge intervention.

CPs/Plans: Make sure it's topical, make sure it's competitive. I'm fine with conditional CPs. Slow down on the plan text please and be sure its well-explained.

DAs/Advs: Make sure it's topical. If you want to run it as a normal contention I do not care.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author. If you don’t read credentials that is fine.

PF

Speed: I’ll tolerate it to an extent. No spreading. I don’t judge on presentation but I think PF is meant to be accessible to the public and spreading doesn’t really promote that.

Evidence: I will drop an argument if evidence is miscut. At minimum I want date and author, though I prefer to have credentials too. I only really call cards if it is contested in-round/it is absolutely integral to my decision. I will give 3 minutes (with the exception of uncontrollable circumstances such as bad wifi or a paywall) to procure called evidence before I start docking speaks. If it takes more than 10 minutes (again aside from uncontrollable circumstances) I will drop the card and any other cards from that author.

Standards: I expect clear, concrete arguments for why I should prefer your standard. Link all arguments to your standard and tell me why it matters. I want all voters to be cleanly extended through to the final focus.

Theory/CP/Kritiks: I don't like them at all in PF. If your opponent makes an argument about it being abusive, I’ll likely vote on it. If you’re running them I expect your arguments to be well-explained and cleanly extended.

Cross: Be respectful. I flow it and consider it binding. However, I will only evaluate what is said in cross on the ballot if it is brought up in a speech.

Arguments: You can go for just about anything though I really really would prefer it to be topical. For me to vote an argument I want the uniqueness, impact and link to be extended. I won’t vote on any argument without a warrant.

General

If you do anything to intentionally disrespect someone I will automatically drop you. Let's keep debate a safe space for everyone.

Trigger warnings! If you don’t provide a trigger warning for a topic that needs one I will dock speaks or drop the argument depending on how severe the content is.

gatlingdoescollege@gmail.com for any email chains

I am a lay judge and debated when I was a student. I prefer you debate traditionally, so read substantive arguments and speak slowly. This does not mean that you have to stick to a value/criterion structure, but your cases should be easily understood by someone without much topic knowledge or circuit experience. I will take notes to the best of my ability, but know that I won't be able to flow as well as you. Please crystallize and weigh between different arguments/frameworks in the rebuttal speeches and explain why I should vote for you. I think debate is about communication, and as such, I will give good speaker points if your arguments are clear, persuasive, and substantiated with good evidence. I will not vote for arguments that I don't understand, or ones that are under-warranted. Please be respectful, professional and courteous, especially in cross examination. Lastly, please record your speeches so that you don't have to repeat them in the event of a technical difficulty. Best of luck and have fun!

I coach on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.

I debated for Walt Whitman for 5 years. I accumulated 10 career bids in LD and 1 in PF and qualified to the TOC in '19, '20 and '21. I currently attend the University of Chicago. I am most familiar with framework and theory positions. My pronouns are he/him.

Send docs to: bmwaldman0918@gmail.com

Note for Harvard: I have not attempted to flow a real debate round in over a year. I still coach, so I shouldn't be totally lost when judging, but I would not pref myself very highly! If you do get me in the back, please do not go top speed, please enunciate, and please do not read one sentence analytic tricks that I will be unable to flow. Best of luck!

Unconditional Rules

Speech times are absolute. If you clip, you lose. I will evaluate every speech. Arguments need warrants and implications in the speech they're read, or I won't evaluate them. I won't evaluate out of round arguments except for disclosure. The more unintuitive your argument is, the higher bar for explanation it has. I will drop you for evidence ethics violations if the round is stopped or if I notice it on my own.

General preferences

I like strategies that contain fewer, well-developed positions. I dislike strategies that are designed to avoid clash, whether that is due to intentional obfuscation about the content of a position or due to spamming of many underdeveloped positions in the hope one is dropped. I tend to dislike theory and tricks debates but am willing to listen to them. I think 1NCs should rarely contain more than 3 off, and I think they should devote a substantial portion of the 1N to answering the case.

I do not judge or think about debate very much now. This means that you should slow down in hyper technical debates and do more impact calc and overview work. If you do not do these things, I will still try my best but the odds you will be frustrated with my decision increase substantially.

Philosophy

Framework positions should be comprehensible in the speech in which they're introduced. I think many frameworks are consequentialist (and thus turned by extinction impacts) or are absolute nonsense or both. I've probably read some of your literature but that doesn't make explanation less important. I think I am best at judging framework debates and also enjoy them most.

Tricks

I'm not good for any argument that you wouldn't feel comfortable going for if it was competently contested. I'm not great at flowing (especially now), and I don't flow off the doc. I'm happy to judge creative philosophical or logical positions as long as they're meant to be defended against meaningful contestation. I think triggering skep can be fun if done well. I have no problem refusing to vote on theory spikes/tricks because they lack a warrant and have done so on many occasions.

Theory

I'm good for reasonability (without a bright line), drop the argument, and the RVI (though probably not in conjunction). I'm bad for any theory argument concerning a debaters clothing or appearance. Paragraph theory is fine. I wish people would read less spec but I'm willing to vote on it. 1AR theory is usually strategic even if it makes me sad to judge.

I have noticed that I seem to be worse for frivolous theory positions than many people expect when they pref me. I have also noticed people seem to get the most annoyed with my decisions in theory debates.

Policy

I have no ideological bias against policy debates, but I didn't have them particularly frequently and I don't usually coach them. I'm pretty sympathetic to many policy pushes against other styles of debate. I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. I'm sympathetic to the aff in most CP competition debates. I like impact turns (including death good).

K

I'm good for Ks that are well-explained and implicated clearly. Good K debate is techy K debate. Being sketchy in the 1NC is bad and will make new 2NR spin less viable. I think T-Framework is probably true, but I won't hack for it. I'm bad for poorly developed independent voter arguments that become entire rebuttals.

Miscellaneous

I tend not to give very high speaker points.

I will pay up to 500 dogecoin for information leading to the arrest of Zara Chapple.

Updated 11.02.2021

Coach at Kent Denver School; he/him/his; HS LD 2014, TOC/NSDA competitor; second season coaching policy, LD & PF; conflict with KDS and Valor Christian High School.

> Please include me on email chains - andrew.wixson@zoho.com <

POLICY:

JUDGE INTERVENTION — I try to be as tabula rasa as can reasonably be expected — an argument is claim, warrant, impact. My paradigm is an abstract list of preferences and while I obviously live for its incorporation in front of me, it does not mean I will outright refuse to vote for you if you do certain things, but I will naturally accept weaker responses to problematic arguments. Bottom line: be as explicit as you possibly can about why I should or shouldn't vote for certain arguments so that I'm not forced to intervene, leaving everyone far more frustrated than they would've been if you simply said out loud how I ought to write the ballot.

DISCLOSURE — Please please please disclose early and often to the wiki and in-round and don't cheat. My thoughts on this have evolved, but I'm at the point where I think that radical transparency is a good hard policy to have and I really don't think there should be much dispute.

BEST STRATEGIES — The vast majority of my debate experience is in LD so I'm rather biased towards philosophical debate since that's what I came up on. I absolutely love Ks, but if you're running them in front of me, please make sure you're actually making it count and not just using a generic K purely to confuse your opponent with no deeper substance. Empirical debates that whittle down to an evidence dispute are very interesting to me, but I'm not the most skilled at making informed calls based purely on the data, so be careful to over-explain and not assume that hard data will win rounds by default. Obviously, theory's the only way to check abuse and debaters definitely need that guardrail, but please don't run non-applicable theory for strategy's sake or I will be very sympathetic to I meets and counterclaims of abuse.

AFF BURDEN — You have to have a present a topical advocacy, by having a well-warranted plan text. I tend to prefer concrete advantages, but justify anything, there's great ways to subvert this expectation if executed properly. I default NEG unless given topical offense by the AFF. This does not mean that AFF teams are bound to only reading topical offense in their constructives, it just means that at the end of the round the AFF has to have some shred of topical offense survive that I can hinge my ballot on.

NEG BURDEN — I default NEG, which means just cast as much doubt on the resolution as you can by any means necessary. Please make sure off-case positions are relevant: DAs and CPs only work on plan texts and word kritiks/PICs only work if your opponent used the actual language ascribed in the literature you're reading. Too many NEGs have one strategy that they use to answer every AFF regardless of its relevance so please be careful to avoid giving this impression.

CX — CX is the fun part of debate. CX is binding, but take a deep breath and relax, be funny and likable, and perceptually dominate and you're good to go. Please don't use CX as an opportunity to abuse your opponent, especially if they are obviously a weaker debater than you, it will make me uncomfy and that should not be the goal.

KRITIKS — Krit lit is awesome. Don't assume I know your K — even if you think it's generic, make everything crystal clear as K debates often get way too muddy to justify an objective decision. If it's obviously policy backfiles, I won't be impressed. I won't vote on what I don't understand, so if you can't extend it without reading verbatim from the author nor explain your argument to your opponent in CX, I will be very hesitant to vote on it. If you're running a K with no alt, I don't have a reason to vote on it unless your opponent massively fumbles it. Please do the explicit weighing for me since Ks are inherently ambiguous and don't hesitate to back up any argument you're making with a theory justification.

THEORY — Be careful to address substance first and foremost and avoid cheap tricks that don't actually contribute to anyone's understanding of the round. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and fairness over education and competing interps on T. I'm much easier to convince with "I meets" than most judges — i.e., theory should only be run on real violations and the threshold for those violations is high enough that you should be using a substantial amount of your speech time defending that it comes before any substance happening in the round. Potential violations are trash and I prefer that you warrant why the theoretical interpretation isn't valid and move on, because providing offense back to a counter-interpretation becomes infinitely regressive.

SPIKES — Just don't. While there's *a* reality where I vote on this if someone openly doesn't address it at all, I doubt they're winning on substance anyways so just avoid it in front of me especially if I'm rolling my eyes the whole time you're reading them.

SPEED — While I can follow speed, I probably can't flow your top speed — clarity is the issue, particularly if you aren't disclosing. Try to slow down on analytics, tags, and author names so I can follow where you are in the document. Please email/flash me your speeches.

DELIVERY & SPEAKER POINTS — I like giving high speaks. If you are making smart arguments and debate well, your speaker points should be good. A 30 will be hard to come by (but not a 29.8), but I'll tend to average 28.5. Well-placed jokes are the best and can (usually) only help your speaks. My judgment on how to assign speaker points is based on my perception of your debate sense and ability to cut through the BS and make complex arguments crystal clear. I won't hesitate to give you a loss 0 for oppressive discourse that creates an uncomfortable debate space or justifies things we all know are atrocities. I tend to be expressive during the round, so look up from your computer every once in a while and adjust accordingly.

Do what you do best and please be original and creative. Great weighing and writing my ballot for me wins rounds, it's really that simple. Don't get lost in the formality of it all, literally just level with me and bring me on a journey, that's what it's all about.

LD:

JUDGE INTERVENTION — I try to be as tabula rasa as can reasonably be expected — an argument is claim, warrant, impact. My paradigm is an abstract list of preferences and while I obviously live for its incorporation in front of me, it does not mean I will outright refuse to vote for you if you do certain things, but I will naturally accept weaker responses to problematic arguments. Bottom line: be as explicit as you possibly can about why I should or shouldn't vote for certain arguments so that I'm not forced to intervene, leaving everyone far more frustrated than they would've been if you simply said out loud how I ought to write the ballot.

DISCLOSURE — Please please please disclose early and often to the wiki and in-round and don't cheat. My thoughts on this have evolved, but I'm at the point where I think that radical transparency is a good hard policy to have (other than local Colorado tournaments lol) and I don't think there should be much dispute.

BEST STRATEGIES — I'm rather biased towards philosophical debate and absolutely love a well-constructed K, so if you're running them in front of me, please make sure you're actually making it count and not just using a generic K purely to confuse your opponent with no deeper substance. Empirical debates that whittle down to an evidence dispute are very interesting to me, but I'm not the most skilled at making informed calls based purely on the data, so be careful to over-explain and not assume that hard data will win rounds by default. Obviously, theory's the only way to check abuse and debaters definitely need that guardrail, but please don't run non-applicable theory for strategy's sake or I will be very sympathetic to I meets and counterclaims of abuse.

AFF BURDEN — I like topical AFFs but non-topical AFFs can be really great especially when approached in a similar manner to a K. I tend to prefer concrete advantages on policy-based topics and ethical theory on moral dilemma topics, but justify anything. I default NEG unless given topical offense by the AFF. This does not mean that AFF teams are bound to only reading topical offense in their constructives, it just means that at the end of the round the AFF has to have some shred of topical offense survive that I can hinge my ballot on.

NEG BURDEN — I default NEG, which means just cast as much doubt on the resolution as you can by any means necessary. Please make sure off-case positions are relevant: DAs and CPs only work on plan texts and word kritiks/PICs only work if your opponent used the actual language ascribed in the literature you're reading. Too many NEGs have one strategy that they use to answer every AFF regardless of its relevance so please be careful to avoid giving this impression.

CX — CX is the fun part of debate. CX is binding, but take a deep breath and relax, be funny and likable, and perceptually dominate and you're good to go. Please don't use CX as an opportunity to abuse your opponent, especially if they are obviously a weaker debater than you, it will make me uncomfy and that should not be the goal.

KRITIKS — Krit lit is awesome. Don't assume I know your K — even if you think it's generic, make everything crystal clear as K debates often get way too muddy to justify an objective decision. If it's obviously policy backfiles, I won't be impressed. I won't vote on what I don't understand, so if you can't extend it without reading verbatim from the author nor explain your argument to your opponent in CX, I will be very hesitant to vote on it. If you're running a K with no alt, I don't have a reason to vote on it unless your opponent massively fumbles it. Please do the explicit weighing for me since Ks are inherently ambiguous and don't hesitate to back up any argument you're making with a theory justification.

THEORY — Be careful to address substance first and foremost and avoid cheap tricks that don't actually contribute to anyone's understanding of the round. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and fairness over education and competing interps on T. I'm much easier to convince with "I meets" than most judges — i.e., theory should only be run on real violations and the threshold for those violations is high enough that you should be using a substantial amount of your speech time defending that it comes before any substance happening in the round. Potential violations are trash and I prefer that you warrant why the theoretical interpretation isn't valid and move on, because providing offense back to a counter-interpretation becomes infinitely regressive.

SPIKES — Just don't. While there's *a* reality where I vote on this if someone openly doesn't address it at all, I doubt they're winning on substance anyways so just avoid it in front of me especially if I'm rolling my eyes the whole time you're reading them.

SPEED — While I can follow speed, I probably can't flow your top speed — clarity is the issue, particularly if you aren't disclosing. Try to slow down on analytics, tags, and author names so I can follow where you are in the document. Please email/flash me your speeches.

DELIVERY & SPEAKER POINTS — I like giving high speaks. If you are making smart arguments and debate well, your speaker points should be good. A 30 will be hard to come by (but not a 29.8), but I'll tend to average 28.5. Well-placed jokes are the best and can (usually) only help your speaks. My judgment on how to assign speaker points is based on my perception of your debate sense and ability to cut through the BS and make complex arguments crystal clear. I won't hesitate to give you a loss 0 for oppressive discourse that creates an uncomfortable debate space or justifies things we all know are atrocities. I tend to be expressive during the round, so look up from your computer every once in a while and adjust accordingly.

Do what you do best and please be original and creative. Great weighing and writing my ballot for me wins rounds, it's really that simple. Don't get lost in the formality of it all, literally just level with me and bring me on a journey, that's what it's all about.

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I now coach LD at Millburn HS.

pre-PF TOC: i have very few paradigmatic preferences in PF, other than evidence must be carded, have proper citations (MLA is fine), and accessible to your opponent/judge should they ask for it.you should expect that i'll judge PF like I'm an LD judge.

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes

Hi, I'm Derek.

he/him

Put me on the email chain: djying2003@gmail.com

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

This is a bit disorganized, but I've ordered these sections based on importance (in my opinion).

Last major update was on Jan 14 2022 for evidence ethics rules clarifications and some more reasons to increase speaker points.

HOW I EVALUATE DEBATES:

I evaluate debates by isolating the most important issue(s) in the round, then doing more nitty-gritty flow comparisons to determine who is winning that issue. This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner.

Debate, at its core, is a game. However, the nature and meaning of that game is extremely malleable. This means two things:

1. Tech>Truth unless safety, evidence ethics, or other rule-breaking is an issue.

2. My ideological preferences otherwise will have no bearing on the round and you can and should do whatever it takes to win, whether that entails bracketing out consequences, impact turning the apocalypse, critiquing rhetoric, or reading a nine-point dump on why taking prep time destroys education.

WHAT I WON'T VOTE ON:

There are a few things I won't vote on or evaluate:

1. Arguments that are made outside of your speech time (e.g. during prep time or your opponent's speech time) or lack warrants. I think Rafael Pierry's definition of a warrant is correct and have pasted it here:

"My general guideline for a warrant is: could I explain this argument to the other team in a reasonable post-round and feel confident that it was said by their opponents? This explanation doesn’t mean I need to have a deep intellectual grasp of the position, simply that I could re-state it and the losing side would understand why they lost."

2. Ad hominems or any attack on an individual debater's integrity/character.

3. Anything about clothes (unless you're wearing something super messed up like a well-known hate symbol)

4. Things that are patently unsafe (for clarification: I will vote on things like spark, animal wipeout, or even just Ligotti-style "death good", but not something like "white supremacism good" or any other sort of explicit bigotry - you'll get an L0 if you read the latter and I will inform the tournament organizers, possibly coaches as well).

5. Stuff about speaks (e.g. "give both debaters a 30 for reciprocity")

6. Arguments that are "inserted". That means you have to read re-highlights. I'll grant an exception if you have only re-highlighted punctuation.

7. New arguments in the final rebuttal (unless they're responding to something read in the speech immediately preceding, obviously) or arguments that proactively justify such (e.g. "I get new 2ar arguments for timeskew"). I'll put another two Rafael Pierry quotes here to clarify:

"Dropped arguments are absolutely true, but an argument only consists of the words you said. Additional words, warrants, or evidence are certainly new and merit new responses."

"In a similar vein, cross-applications are never new. You can persuade me that the opposing team made new arguments while cross-applying something and I’ll likely grant you new contextualization, but I am extremely unlikely to disallow cross-application in a final rebuttal."

LOGISTICAL RULES:

If you blatantly contradict your case in cx (e.g. claiming you skipped an off that you actually read) your speaks will begin at a 26, though I will "accept" the answer (e.g. I will remove the off from my flow). If you lie about having read something you didn't that is equal to clipping and will be evaluated as such (see clipping section).

Give content warnings for sensitive subjects and death good - if you think it could be sensitive just err on the side of caution - if someone does get triggered because you didn't give a warning you will be dropped and speaks will be tanked.

Please time yourselves, and feel free to call out your opponent if they are taking more time than they should or stealing prep. I've been trying (and will continue to try) to time the rounds I judge but I often find myself forgetting to.

Prep time stops when the speech doc is sent, or when the thumb drive is removed. You don't need to take prep time for tech issues or bathroom breaks, just try to get things resolved in a timely manner.

You won't be penalized for not answering a question asked outside of CX.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

In general, I will not be particularly knowledgeable on the topic. You should explain particular nuances to me or else I will not get them. However, I will note down some things that I am aware of for each topic. This does not mean that you can avoid explanation altogether: If your opponent reads and wins something that completely contravenes my understanding of the topic (e.g. if they read "to strike means to hit" and it's dropped), then I am more than happy to vote on it.

Jan-Feb 2021: I know generally what the Outer Space Treaty says about national appropriation of space and the general consensus among legal scholars about what that means for private entities (spoilers: they can't appropriate space either! unless it's mining for some reason - and apparently building bases perhaps? International law is very strange).

Nov-Dec 2021: I know enough about the NLRA to know that just expanding its scope is clearly not topical.

Sept-Oct 2021: I am familiar with what the term "evergreening" means and the length of time it takes for a patent to expire under TRIPS.

LESS IMPORTANT THINGS THAT STILL SHOULD BE NOTED:

I'm not good at minesweeping so I'd prefer if you put tricks (if you read tricks) in the doc. At the very least, slow down if you are coming up with a prioris off the top of your head.

If you tell me not to flow you, I won't flow, but I also won't evaluate.

What you do with evidence is more important than the evidence itself. I don't intend to read a lot of the evidence after the round unless I find it suspicious (see ev ethics). Unintuitive claims require more evidence and/or more explanation.

I don't disclose speaks.

You can use CX as prep time. I won't dock points for it.

You can call me "judge" "Derek" "Mr. Ying" or anything.

If you open-source all of your cards (including the ones on case!!!!! and the 1AR!!!!!) and tell me before the round I'll give you +0.3 speaker points.

"Eval after...": I will flow the whole debate, but I can be persuaded to not look at certain sections of the flow. In other words, if "Evaluate the debate after the 1AR" is won, I won't stop flowing and immediately start writing the RFD after that speech, just that after the round is over I will be disinclined to look at anything past the 1AR. I should also note that if the "eval after" argument is made inside the speech the argument is telling me to evaluate after then I will accept responses in the speech immediately after (e.g. the 2NR can respond to "eval after the 1AR" if it was made in the 1AR and I'll evaluate it).

ONLINE DEBATE:

Having your camera on is preferable but not needed.

Keep local recordings of speeches on hand. If I don't hear something due to connection issues and no recording is available, I will have no choice but to assume nothing was said.

If my camera is off, you should assume I am not ready or even present at my computer absent an explicit verbal cue.

I currently live in the UK. If I am judging online you should be aware that I am between 5 (for east coasters) and 8 (for west coasters) hours ahead of you. If I make statements that seem incongruous with the time (e.g. "wow it's dark" even though it's noon where you are) or seem far more tired than would be expected this is why.

In addition, my residence is next to a very busy street which gets especially loud at night (on my end, it will likely be sometime closer to the afternoon for you). Feel free to ask me to repeat things as many times as you wish if you did not hear them.

EVIDENCE ETHICS:

I think that, for the most part, evidence ethics and quality should be debated in round - if a card is cut out of context or is highlighted to misrepresent authorial intent this seems more of an in-round issue than something you should stake the round on. I am open to theory shells that defend a norm outside of the actual evidence ethics rules (e.g. "no brackets ever" or "cite must have DOA"), but I will evaluate it like any other argument.

Originally, I had a section explaining the evidence ethics rules I personally adhered to, but after some consideration, I have chosen to defer to the NSDA rules, as they are the highest authority, whether I agree with their judgments or not. I'll reproduce the rules here, though they will be shortened based on how I interpret the text of the manual.

Evidence is anything that is directly attributable to a specific source. For example, quotes and cards are evidence because it can be attributed to a single author or organization, but something like "the population of Earth is seven billion" is not evidence because it is not attributable to any specific source, it is just some fact floating out there.

There are four evidence ethics "hard rules" that constitute a loss if they are violated. If a debater is found to have violated these rules, they will get an L0:

1. Words that are added to the card's body must be bracketed in, and cannot distort the author's intent.

2. Evidence must have cites, and they must be correct. If someone (correctly) points out that the cite is not there the debater has twenty minutes to find it and show it.

3. The argument in a card cannot have been written with the intent to disprove it. (e.g. if someone says "Some say that white chocolate is superior to dark. Here is why they are wrong." and the only part you read is "white chocolate is superior to dark" then that is a violation.) I personally interpret this to mean that the argument is introduced in the original article specifically and only so that it can be torn down with practically no merits left standing, not a light critique of the argument or a partial agreement with nuances or corrections.

4. Text cannot be removed from the middle of a card. Substituting removed text with an ellipsis (three dots) is apparently especially heinous for the NSDA. I believe using "they continue" is an acceptable substitute for making a whole new card, because it clearly demarcates when each section begins and ends, like a card tag would, even if not actually a card tag.

Violations of points 1 and 2 are reasons to be disqualified from the tournament.

These four points are the only ones that can a debater stop the round on. Wrong evidence ethics allegations will be punished with a loss. The rules don't define any speaker point penalties, so I will just give an L26. The "winner" of an evidence ethics dispute will be given a W29.3 (rules don't specify anything for the winner, so I'll just give a somewhat above-average speaker score).

There are other evidence rules, but the rules say that I don't need to take action if they are violated, so I won't, with one exception: If it's not published or otherwise available online, it's not evidence and I will not evaluate it. If you want to card your email exchange with a scholar, put it on a blog first.

CLIPPING:

I read along with cards. if I catch a debater clipping I'll let the debate finish (unless someone stakes the round, then I'll stop), then drop the offender with the lowest speaks possible. If you skip 3 or more words, it's clipping.

If you stake the round on clipping you should have a recording in case I didn't catch it, but if I did catch it then whether or not you have a recording won't influence my decision.

DEFAULTS:

I don't like having to use defaults for anything other than presumption or judge kick. Judge instruction will be rewarded with a less confusing and more "correct" ballot.

1. Presumption flows negative unless someone gives a warrant for why it shouldn't.

2. I don't start off with judge kick, but I will allow it if someone says that they should have it, even absent a warrant (unless it's contested, obviously).

3. When it comes to anything else, I will try to operate under the shared assumptions of both debaters. For example, if the 2nr collapses to theory and the 2ar collapses to an RVI but neither DTD no RVIs were ever justified or refuted (don't do this btw), I'll assume that theory is DTD with RVIs. This also applies to substance: If the aff's sole contentions are "plan prevents a nuclear war" and every neg argument consists of "plan causes nuke war" I would assume nuclear war is really bad and the only thing I should care about even if neither side gives reasons why.

SPEAKS:

I'm not going to put one of those speaks chart things because I know I won't be consistent with it. Just know that I will reward good, well thought out strategies and creativity with higher speaks and punish irritating/bad strategies with lower ones. Unfortunately, "good" and "bad" strategies are ultimately ideological, so I have clarified what I think here. However, just because I think something is bad doesn't mean I won't vote on it nor will it bias me against it (ideally).

Creativity: I like it when people demonstrate that they have kept up with the lit on a subject instead of simply relying on what are now basically ancient blocks. Kritiks and phil FWs with recent evidence, are proof of this, as are up-to-date impact turns or defense. Novel Ks and FWs, those that are outside of the established Kant/Hobbes/Baudrillard/pessimism "canon" are also very good, and such venturing into unexplored territory combined with recent evidence will make me a very happy camper.

I think also that arguments tailored to the arguments being read are also quite nice, like an aff-specific counterplan or K link. Some topicality or theory shells may also be somewhat aff specific, but obviously no shell will be completely germane to the aff, otherwise it wouldn't establish any real rules or limits. Combo shells are an exception, but in my personal opinion their interp texts are overcomplicated and could be simplified considerably into a generalized shell - they're only specific in name.

Specificity is also a good thing for on-case stuff. For policy stuff, answers that are specific to the advantage being read or some deficit to the specific plan text is always better than just reading generic impact defense constantly. For responding to a K or K aff, I should note that the lit used in Ks is by its nature controversial and thus, barring the field or idea being completely new (which is very unlikely), there will be a healthy amount of works arguing against it. I will enjoy responses that indicate you have actually gone across the library and read about why the specific author or thesis is wrong rather than a generic "politics is good" defense.

Speaking of Ks, I also like it when multiple different fields of critical scholarship are merged into a coherent argument. Exploring intersections between, for example, cybernetics and race, demonstrate a good grasp of the fields, though obviously it must be argued well or I will not be convinced you truly understood it.

Phil debate is weird to me not because of the tomfoolery it is associated with (which I will mention in the "bad strategies" section) but because it, in my experience, has had a lot of the specific argumentation I praised earlier - for example, answers to Kant tend to be only applicable to Kant - yet most of it is analytical. I think that there is potential for phil debates to center more around evidence and I will reward people who have more (good) cards: I think that much of the understanding of phil debate as a "blip-storm" would not exist had the style cited more scholars.

I enjoy weird counterinterps to T shells as long as they are backed up by definitions or some way of understanding words in the resolution. While this is mostly meant for K affs, there are many policy affs that push the boundaries of what the topic includes, and when those affs have viable counterinterps with definitions, they often are more impressive than the K affs. On that note, Nebel T is boring and I will look more favorably upon any T definition that can achieve a similar effect (that is, exclude nearly all advocacy texts save for one or perhaps two) without using the phrase "bare plural".

Theory (not topicality) is in a strange position for me. I think that right now theory debate is a bit too bound to fairness. While certainly theory debaters love to harp on about the value of the game and equity and such and such, perhaps some more creative (or perhaps more absurd, for theory's critics) interps can be revealed by building shells around standards like education (and its subtypes e.g. phil ed, critical ed, real world, etc.) or norm-setting, or some part of the game we call debate outside of raw procedural fairness.

Bad strategies: I believe personally that debate's competitive nature encourages the above things: creativity, novel scholarship, and good research in general. However, the need to extract concessions from the opponent, often also encourages some nonsense, like obscene amounts of non-topic-specific NIBs and a prioris (three's pushing it) and buzzword vomit extensions that explain nothing. I will dock points for such strategies. There are also some obvious blunders that I will decrease points for, like reading multiple disclosure shells or dropping something that clearly blows open your whole contention like a case turn.

Being an [redacted for tabroom] gets your speaks tanked and coach+tab informed. Debate's community is rather toxic as it is right now and I do not wish the problem to continue. Ethos is one thing, but harassment is another.

NOVICES AND TRADITIONAL:

If you are debating a novice or a traditional debater and you are not either of those you should try to make the round more accessible. That does not mean you should change your strategy significantly, but I will expect you to do the following or else suffer low speaks:

1. Send analytics and extensions. This is thousands of times more important than anything else. If you are reading something dense, you should send analytics even if you don't spread.

2. Be very clear in cross-x. Do not try to pull any "what's an apriori" stuff or other tomfoolery. Get to the point.

3. Explain things more and slower than you usually would. Make sure the round is educational. Ideally, the opponent should be able to understand what you have said, and, in theory, could beat it back. Is it Kant? Make sure they exit the round knowing what the categorical imperative is. Baudrillard? Both sides should get the gist of the hyperreal by the time everything's done. Obviously, this is wishful thinking but please try.

BACKGROUND:

I have put this second to last because I don't believe it is important - the only thing you should take away from this was that I dabbled in many styles but did not master any.

I debated in LD for Lexington from 2017 to 2021. I was a trad debater as a freshman, a phil debater as a sophomore, a policy/phil debater as a junior, and fairly flexible my senior year - I read Ks and K affs whenever I could with occasional policy, theory and phil strategies. As a debater, I leaned more towards high theory (e.g. Paul Virilio, Giorgio Agamben, Yuk Hui, Ingrid Hoofd) than identity, though I did read an identity aff my senior year.

It should be noted that "fairly flexible" does not mean "circuit success" - I was in fact a very subpar debater and rarely cleared.

I am not debating in college.

FOOD:

I never understood why people gave judges food, but I had at least one teammate who was given food by a debater they judged so I will note some things down if you decide to do this.

1. Usually, I am not hungry. I will reject offers of food under nearly all circumstances. Do not be offended if your offer is for naught.

2. I despise eggplant dishes, most soy products (e.g. soymilk, tofu, edamame, etc,), and apples. The latter two cause my throat to itch and swell up a bit (not anaphylaxis, just a minor, if very unpleasant reaction). I have never eaten the former without literally gagging.

3. My spice tolerance is absurdly low. Shin black instant ramen has made me cry before. I wish this was a joke.

Email: joshyou12@gmail.com

I did LD at Lakeville North from 2009-2013 and coached LD at Apple Valley from 2013-2017. I also did NPDA-style college parli from 2013-2017.

Overview:

• In general, I would like to hear a smart, substantive debate about the resolution that uses the topic lit. I tend to enjoy "policy" arguments and moral philosophy debates the most.
• I have only judged 1-2 tournaments a season since the 2017 school year so I might not be familiar with latest LD lingo. Minneapple 2021 is the first tournament I've judged in approximately one year.

Speed/clarity:

• I value clarity very highly, both in terms of enunciation and adequately explaining arguments. I deeply dislike judging rounds that I can't understand for one reason or another. I have more to say about this in the theory and K sections but please understand that I promise to reward clarity and punish lack of clarity, so it is in your interest to make sure I understand you.
• All that said, speed is fine per se.
• I won't look at speech docs before the end of the round.

Theory:

• I'll vote on theory if you win it. But I'd rather not hear theory most of the time, so if I think your shell is frivolous you'll get lower speaks and I'll have a low threshold for responses to it. This also applies to ACs that are loaded with spikes/paragraph theory.
• It is in your best interest to explain arguments well and not dump a lot of one-liners that I will struggle to get on my flow. I rarely catch more than half of the arguments in a theory underview, and the ones I do get down are usually unwarranted or underwarranted. "Concession" by your opponent will mean very little if anything in these scenarios.
• I'm not really a fan of the RVI despite not liking theory. If you can beat back a frivolous theory shell quickly I would prefer you go back to substance.

Kritiks/critical stuff:

• I’m fine with Ks in principle but in practice many suffer from inadequate explanations of content and function. I have very little patience for sophistry or obfuscation and I will not hesitate to discount or disregard arguments that are not sufficiently clear. If you absolutely need to read a dense or jargon-heavy card, then the tag should be in plain language, define the key words or phrases in the card, and explain the argument in enough detail to be understood.
• I won't necessarily intervene against performance and non-topical affs but I'm pretty inclined to think the aff has to be topical.
• It's totally fine to argue that a given round should be dedicated to thinking about how to combat a certain type of oppression but for hopefully obvious reasons I will not take that to mean that only impacts to a specific demographic group matter when evaluating the policy/method/whatever being debated.

Policy arguments:

• I love good util/policy-style debate. However, I find bad util debates annoying to judge since I often have to intervene to resolve them. If you want to avoid that, then develop and weigh your impacts. All util debates are math problems, treat them as such.
• Your evidence almost certainly doesn't say that you control 100% of your terminal impact and I will pay attention to that, even if your argument is conceded.
• On the same note, I tend to discount poorly-justified big-impact scenarios (note: poorly-justified and low-probability are not synonymous). I am not biased against extinction arguments (the opposite, really) but I also prefer smart arguments.
• I like plans that are reasonably balanced and representative of the topic lit. Unfortunately many recent LD topics have featured hyper-specific/unbalanced plans and I am pretty receptive to T in those cases.

Counterplans:

• I really like good plan/counterplan debates and I think the neg should nearly always run a counterplan. As for theory, I am annoyed by lot of PICs (specific interps/counterinterps are good here) and strongly dislike agent CPs (no need for specificity as they're all bad). I lean towards condo good.

Framework/philosophy:

• I'm fine with philosophy-heavy cases as long as they're well explained. I like good framework debates but I prefer frameworks that allow for interesting contention-level debates (I'm not saying you have to engage on the contention level, but it's a good heuristic for whether your framework is "tricky" or "squirrelly").
• I default to thinking that intuitively good/bad things really are good/bad. I appreciate good counterexamples/intuition pumps. Making your opponent's framework sound silly in cross-ex will help your speaks a lot.
• If the framework debate or the contention debate under the winning framework is ambiguous, I default to accounting for moral uncertainty.
• I dislike theoretical (that is, debate theory) framework justifications.

Speaker points:

• You'll get higher speaks for making good arguments, being strategic, reading original, well-researched positions, explaining argument content and function clearly, and sounding persuasive.
• You'll get lower speaks for being unclear or confusing, not engaging with the relevant topical/philosophical literature, reading frivolous theory, avoiding clash, and being a jerk.
• I'll do my best to calibrate my speaks with the overall judge pool but it's possible my speaker points won't quite keep up with point inflation now that I'm not judging very often.

Misc:

• To the extent that extensions are a mere formality (e.g. when there is no clash on an entire layer of the debate) I'm not picky about them at all and you can be extremely brief but they definitely matter if you want to do warrant comparison and weighing.

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.