//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Email Chain > File Share

Add me to the Email chain - alexbaez18@gmail.com

4 Years of Policy at the Law Magnet - and 5 years at UTD

I've judged a decent amount of tournaments last year, mostly Dallas Circuit and TFA Tournaments, also TOC Tournaments in Dallas.

This year I've judged over 15 tournaments, mostly TOC tournaments online and local Dallas tournaments.

Just about anything goes, I'll pay attention, but the onus is on you to make sure I know what you're talking about, don't assume I know about your argument as much as you do. I mostly judge clash of civ debates but I love judging traditional policy debates and K v K debates.

LD

Not as familiar with Kant, DNG, Tricks. Aff time skew is real tbh

GBN '21

UCLA '25

2017 Illinois Debate Coaches' Association Novice State Champion, NSDA Academic All-American

jbarberdebate@gmail.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

TLDR:

1. I'm down for whatever. At the end of the day, I strongly believe Tech>Truth and if you win the flow, I'll vote for you. If you can't prove that death is bad or that aliens aren't real then you will lose. Much of my paradigm serves as guidelines to earn strong speaker points in front of me.

2. If I look confused, I probably am

3. In front of me: policy vs policy>policy vs k>k vs k but I'll work hard to keep up with whatever the debate centers around

4. Condo is likely the only reason to reject the team unless something else was in the 2AC for more than 5 seconds (also, why do like 50% of the 2ACs I judge not have condo in them?? 100% of 2ACs should say condo bad)

CPs: I will likely default to judge kick absent a substantive debate about it.

I understand the need to go for generic counterplans with internal net benefits, though I think everyone would rather you opt for a more substantive strategy should it be possible. Even going for a (viable) T violation seems like it may be a better option.

In debates of theory, discussions that are specific to what actually occurred in this debate and what each team's model justifies are more important than whether Process CPs in general are good or bad. This means if you're aff, articulating in-round abuse and if you're neg, reading cards defending the education garnered by learning about your counterplan.

That being said, in high school I was a big fan of counterplans that bordered on object fiat, 2NC CPs, and general negative terrorism. I think theoretical violations are an underutilized rebuttal to answer these strategies.

DAs: Politics was my favorite 2NR. A well executed 1NR on politics makes the 1AR very difficult. The 1AR should read a lot of cards, because they are nearly always justified and make the 2NR much harder.

The neg should utilize strategic concessions, such as framing the debate through uniqueness controlling the direction of the link or vice-versa, conceded impact means try-or-die, etc. Judge instruction and storytelling will always help, as leaving less up to me means it's less likely I will make what you think is the wrong decision.

Cutting and executing case-specific strategies will lead to an increase in speaker points.

Impact turns: Cards matter, read a lot of them, and so will I. Advantage counterplans to solve the rest of an aff's impacts can be a good strategy. I often went for dedev, but also enjoy well-evidenced spark, china/russia war good, heg bad, space col bad, warming good, and others.

T: I enjoy T debates. I find that often the team who does more storytelling and explanation of how their interpretation will impact debate typically wins. This may entail giving a clear caselist, explaining clear ground loss, or why precise/better evidence matters in the context of this word in the resolution.

I don't like it when teams read their blocks and not engage with the opposing team's standards/caselist/etc. This means that the 1AR should answer arguments such as the neg's justification for competing interps rather than reasonability should that be an argument they would like to extend (which you probably should).

I will likely give the 2AR a lot of discretion if the 2NC extends T for <2-3 minutes (which is not a bad strategy) but then goes for it in the 2NR with lots of new storytelling.

Make ASPEC a RVI, it'll be pretty funny.

T vs K Affs: If you're affirmative, you will likely have a comparatively tougher time winning in front of me in these debates. I find counter-interpretations to typically not solve much of either teams' offense and impact turns of fairness or education to typically have little merit. But, go ahead and prove me wrong, because if you win, you win.

I often went for fairness as a 2N in high school, though I think other more education-y impacts can also be valuable and are better for winning in-roads to affirmative offense. Utilize TVA(s) (if they make sense) and tell a clear story and compare impacts and you will likely be in a good spot.

Ks: I think Ks can be useful and valuable as a generic strategy. That being said, I am not as familiar with many Ks as most of the pool may be.

For both sides, I think clear offense on framework is useful and explaining how it interacts, outweighs, and turns the opposing team's impact is beneficial.

For the neg, utilizing lots of tricks makes the 1AR difficult, especially if the K is not the only argument in the block. Arguments like the Floating PIK, serial policy failure, you can't weigh the plan, can all win you a debate.

For the aff, I think perf con is a very good argument against Reps Ks, as it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to win that education garnered from voting negative is important if they contradicted it within this debate. Winning no subjectivity shift from debate also takes out lots of neg framework offense. Perm double bind is also underutilized, alts with material implications typically can overwhelm the links and alts without material implications typically have a hard time solving the large impacts the neg outlines.

Don't:

spread analytics like the text of a card if you want me to be able to flow them.

take a long time sending out the email chain.

say things that make you seem like a novice. ex: counting down before your speech, calling me judge (I'm 18 years old bruh), asking what cards they read, asking for a marked copy when they mark one card, asking if they're ready for cx when they already say they are, asking if tag team/open cx is ok, telling me that cx is binding, saying end speech, calling a counterplan a "cee-pee"

Be nice and have fun!

v24

Casady 2021 (debated)

University of Kansas 2025 (debating)

I want the ev. (also questions) pls- alexpbarreto1@gmail.com

Conflict me if you know you're committed to debating at KU.

Follow speech times, don't clip/miscut ev, and don't be problematic.

Things

Understanding decisions is hard my goal is not to try to convince you I am right but to try and help you understand why I rendered my decisions as outlined below. Feel free to ask lots of questions/email---I'm not a very reactive person so feel free to to tell me why you think you are right---That said, time limits etc... I try to write into my decisions several ways in which each team could have improved and how the losing team could have gotten my ballot.

As a debater, I hate when I felt that judges decided based on perception/opinion rather than using the instruments presented to them in the debate. I will seek to couch my decision in your wording, your choices, your evidence, and your ethos. That said while I think too many judges rely too much on instinct, intuition, their own debate experience for decision PERCEPTION ie: how a judge perceives a debate is inevitable, and it often always is not the same as how the debaters perceive it. Two things you can do to help me with this, everything else is how my perceptions will inevitably function.

A: Ethos, or rather, the confidence "your argument" "can win". If you don't believe you can win it becomes very hard for a judge to vote for you, I believe this is largely inevitable, and though there are technical exemptions usually the team that seems like they are winning, does. Many debates exude a simple failure of the debaters to meet the above statement: if you see a pairings and give up, that might contribute to why you lose. That said on a less literal level it represents many things I inevitably perceive throughout the debate. Your knowledge of your argument, how you treat your opponents and their arguments, the quality of your evidence, your decision-making etc.. The more these things seem out of continuum I believe every judge would agree it becomes harder to vote for you---because they all represent that "your arguments" "can't win". Ensuring your arguments have internal consistency, you have met a baseline of foundation for your arguments, and set up the winning rebuttal earlier in the debate are all simple things you can do that ensure I can craft a ballot for you.

B: Framing. Tell me how I should decide, read evidence, evaluate moments in the debate etc... The more you do this the more you give me the language to the explain the debate in your terms rather than having to do so in the other teams(or mine). I find this especially important in debates about different "levels" ie: fiat, education, consequences etc... not because it's uniquely needed in these debates---Framing is important in both, how I read ev/decide portions of every debate BUT debaters seem to forget to respond to the other teams argument when they are each have a different starting point for the "what" in the debate. Don't get lost in the theoretical, by the final rebuttal you should be able to evaluate the likelihood the argument you are extending will be a winning argument and then use that estimation to implicate it out for how I should decide-often manifesting in approaching arguments with best/worse case lines of answers.

1---I will always start with my decision with “I vote (aff/neg) for x” where x is the world gone for by the 2NR/2AR debated. If it’s neg on aff bad, it’s for the squo. But almost always I will start deciding by finding where the rebuttal encapsulated why I should vote for you(ideally the start); and if I don’t understand what I’m voting for…. That will be tough. This framing is especially important in debates that operate at different scales ie: subject formation, consequentialism, fiat. Though also important in simple impact calculus, more and more debaters move to vague scenarios that fail to explain how their impacts are both external to and can implicate the other teams-which is usually the best combination for success.

2---Internal argument consistency matters for me way more than most-If the logical conclusion of your arguments seem to be that the other team is right it is gonna be hard to vote for you. You should capitalize on 1ACs that that contain evidence/mechanics that substantiate alt causes/reasons the aff is bad. Similarly capitalizing on ways 1NCs undercut themselves and the ability for the 2NR to then go on with the "business as usual" strategy. I am thus significantly more willing to grant large "risk" of arguments that has premises unchallenged earlier on in the debate and to significantly lower the risk of arguments that has even a single premise(usually it's weakest) heavily challenged throughout the debate. What this means is I much better for the 2NR/2ARs that go for 1 or 2 key issues on most arguments, and emphasizes covering weakness, than trying to put words next to everything they said. I am more willing to grant larger "risk" to well debated defensive arguments like presumption, thumpers, alt causes, no internal links even when they lack evidence if they are well debated substantiated with criticism of the other teams arg/ev. In critical debates I find this plays out the most with performative contradictions/double turns---I struggle to make internally consistent decisions when teams decide debates should be about subject formation/x issue and then simultaneously find themselves linked to an argument about said issue.

3---What you read matters way less for me than most, how you read it though... I think debate has evolved metas---that condition judges and debaters in a similar way to echo chambers. After a seasons worth of debates we feel like we've figured it all out---People dismiss evidence by author name of their read, assume teams are making arguments because they know the args better than the team making them, and essentially often interpolate debaters arguments into their mind as if they were their own arguments to make a decision rather than use what the debaters have given them. This paradigm is to represent that other things matter significantly more for me--That you have demonstrated you have thought through a win condition for the argument you are making and that you understand it enough to explain it to me in words I can repeat with confidence. I try not to read along in the doc unless I think your clipping/I miss something reasonable enough to fill in---That said I do skim the docs/evidence during the debate and read evidence noted in the 2NR/2AR. The quality of the ev, it's highlighting, and my ability to locate your arguments in it often matter a lot---particularly in debates that don't have a clear deciding issue/mechanism presented in the final rebuttals. What "evidence" is I find highly open to interpretation whether it's a standard card, art, lived experience, empiric, metaphor etc... but what I find matters is how you can use it as a base for the arguments in your latter speeches and that the best teams use that base to seemingly transition to the expansion of their argument. What that means is, it does not seem out of nowhere. If you are not saying what your card says, what you were saying earlier on in the debate, or you are substantiating claims with claims rather than ev/warrants it will become immensely harder to vote for you even if you could still win on the other teams mistakes.

4---I flow speeches and CX until told otherwise... I try to write down the words you are saying. What I don't think debaters often realize is the Sisyphean nature of this task. In lieu of perfect hearing and typing speed I use shorthand/abbreviation. When debates often come down to the specific words said---if you are speaking inordinately fast/unclearly I will not feel bad saying I didn't get it as a reason I did not vote for you. I have good memory but tangibles like Pen time and if you think your that fast, slowing down slightly, might behoove you. Effectively "flagging" your argument with titles/numbers/letters is also helpful in creating a memory of the debate in my head closer to yours. In CX this relates to your decisions of what you choose to say---or really nowadays choose to avoid saying it seems. I find I'm much more convinced cross ex is used effectively when you use it to effectively communicate both a question/answer and a perception/moment of the debate that I should be thinking about.

5---I think part of the problem with judging as a community of former debaters and current coaches is that debate thought is constantly increasingly. I often find this played out in games of diminishing marginal utility where debaters engage in practices they believe will be helpful but become ultimately so divorced from reality, they have little practical value. Focusing on your args, understanding what's wrong with your opponents args, and how to explain that in a way I get will matter exponentially more than things like not sending analytics, obfuscating your arguments to confuse your opponents, trying to gain some artificial pre round advantage. I probably spend very little time thinking about you outside of the context I'm judging you in so I would emphasize "best practices" that convince me your a good person rather than things that will not impress/likely end up hurting your speaks.

Some people I liked decisions from/try to emulate as a judge.
Tommy Snider

Especially for policy debates,

Brett Bricker, Yao Yao Chen, Ned Gidley, Ethan Harris, Hunter McCullough

Especially for k debates,

Nathan Rothenbaum, Scott Harris, David Kilpatrick, Scott Phillips, Jared Spiers

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

gene bressler (they/them) [call me "gene", not "judge"]

Calvert Hall '21

Wake Forest '25

13boxout[AT]gmail.com

Paradigms are overrated. Nobody judges the way they think they judge. That said, I think and care about debate a lot. I will pay attention to whatever you're doing, and try to think the way debaters are thinking, rather than send you on an intellectual masterclass in the RFD. Put differently, I don't care if you do things the way I would've done them. I re-wrote this, and am somewhat horrified by how long it is. Most is not all that relevant, I've put what is at the top

Here are the only things you "need to know,"

-2v2 debate, each person gives a constructive and a rebuttal (pre-scripted performance stuff is okay, giving all of every speech is not)

-Ideologically middle ground for AFF's that don't read a plan/K's on the NEG

-Be clear. Judges vote for arguments they understand. In addition, I've noticed a concerning amount of clipping in extremely high profile debates. If I can't understand you, I'll call clear. If I think you're clipping, I'll say that prior to ending the round, but, c'mon.

-Judge kick is my default, but if the AFF says no, I'll evaluate it technically.

-Most things that bother old people don't bother me (feel free to go to the bathroom, fill up your water, and be happy in the round)

-My role as an educator super-cedes my role as a judge. If a round is becoming unsafe, I'll end it. Haven't ever felt the need to invoke this, but wouldn't hesitate to.

-"defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe" - asya taylor

Thoughts about debate

I've judged and debated a lot of different rounds, across varying styles and quality. I read about postmodernism "too much," have a generally decent knowledge of "policy relevant" disciplines, and think about debate a lot.

I flow straight down, on a laptop. I am pretty "flow centric." To me, that means I begin from the presumption that I trust debaters more than their evidence. If somethings dropped, I'm not going to scrutinize your cards and be sad when they don't quite line up perfectly. Maybe in an ideal world I'd have time to do this, but I find judges that engage in this practice do it quite unpredictably, and the burden is best left on the debaters to indict bad ev.I only read cards as a "last resort," when it seems too difficult to resolve an argument based purely on words on the flow.

It's hard to dissuade me from using an offense/defense paradigm to think about debate. There are two main implications to this

1) If both teams advance an interpretation, I will use one of those interpretations. Debaters are free to advance a middle ground, but I won't come up with one for you.

2) Reasonability is somewhat of an uphill battle. I think a lot of the offensive justifications for it (eg. substance crowdout) can be weighed against the negatives offense, but I'd prefer if you did that rather than implore me to adopt a different standard for evaluating debates altogether. I don't vote AFF when the DA link is "reasonably" low.

Disads:

I start by evaluating relative risk. This means that winning a big DA/advantage is often more important to me than ticky tacky on impact calculus. Of course, a big difference in magnitude or probability can change things, but I often wish teams spent more time on the line by line and less time on "3 months is faster than 6 months so gg well played."

I'm fine for agenda politics. Explicit judge instruction on how I should interpret/how much I should care about evidence goes a long way

Counterplans

Pretty neutral on competition questions. I think perm do the counterplan is often more strategic than the intrinsic perm, but whatever. Impact/internal link comparison should happen early - I'd prefer if both teams focused on central offense with framing devices as opposed to spamming arguments about how hard it is to be aff/neg and praying one is dropped.

Counterplan theory arguments are better used as competition standards than theory interpretations, because of how arbitrary they are. I'd rather you move "process cp bad" offense to the relevant perm debate than go for a contrived interp.

Conditionality is fine. My intuition is that in-round abuse doesn't matter as much as theoretical justifications, but I can be convinced otherwise. If condo is a winning 2AR, I won't be upset that you gave it. It's a massive uphill battle to get me to vote on any other theory argument.

K's on the negative

I decide on an interpretation for framework, none of this "it's a wash" nonsense. Debaters can (and perhaps should) advocate for a middle ground interp, but I won't do it if left to my own devices.

I might know what you're talking about, but I'd be more comfortable if you pretended I didn't. Besides that, I don't have a ton of takes. I'd prefer if the 2NR/2AR had a central strategy rather than spamming links and hoping I figure it out.

K's on the AFF

Framework/T-USFG: Pretty even voting record. Ballot solvency matters a lot more to me than groveling over what constitutes an impact. Equally fine for fairness and clash, but be careful when explaining them relative to what the ballot solves (e.g. if you say something like fairness first - nothing leaves the room, you need to think about how that reconciles with clash/skills/whatever).

Most of the below is about debates where the AFF has some form of counter-interp/counter-model. You're welcome to just impact turn the reading of framework. I think I'm worse for this, but tech trumps all else.

I'd like a counterinterpretation, or some vision of what voting AFF means for future debates. I think it's hard to beat defining words in the topic + defense to limits, but I understand that's not the preferred strategy of many teams. At the very least, I'd like to know what you think debate should be about - what are the controversies? Functional limits style arguments shouldn't just be "what could you have read this round," but instead "what does the counter interp hold the aff to defending," and how can the negative predictably engage with that premise.

Internal link defense matters a lot. Most framework arguments don't make a lot of intuitive sense to me, I'd prefer if you won a small impact and had a lot of defense than if you went for "policy deliberation solves climate change," or "voting negative turns you into Karl Rove."

I'm somewhat pedantic about AFF teams linking to their own offense. If the 1AR drops that X DA links to the counter interp, it's a tough spot.

Method v method/ k v k thoughts: no perms in a method debate isn't great, but I evaluate it technically. I use an offense-defense paradigm, and care a lot about impact framing. Establish win conditions, points of competition, and what exactly you're impact turning early and often

Topicality

Don't care if you go for precision or limits. Do care about the size of the internal link. Would prefer if the 2NR/2AR was more like "large limits difference outweighs small precision difference," than "limits are the only thing that matters"

I think the best impacts concern research/topic evolution. Groveling about how hard it is to debate more than 2 AFF's or how the AFF can never win if the negative researches the 1AC in advance seem equally unpersuasive, but these premises are rarely contested so what do I know.

Above thoughts on reasonability apply.

LD:

If you read plans, go for the K, do "LARP" things, etc. the above applies.

If you read "phil" I will almost certainly not know what is happening prior to you explaining it to me, but I won’t hate you or anything.

If you read "tricks," I will flow as carefully as I can without using the doc to fill in holes. You can win on anything, but the more inane, the worse your speaks. Empirically, I miss large swaths of the underview when debaters blaze through it. No remorse.

If you say "evaluate the debate after speech" I will give you the lowest speaks the tournament permits.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

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

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

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

More info:

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

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

Argument issues:

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

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

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

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

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


Demeanor issues:

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

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

Any questions, ask.

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

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

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

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

TLDR:

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

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

General:

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

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

Framework

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

Performance + K Affirmatives

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

Kritiks

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

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

Goodluck and have fun!

Associate Director of Debate @ Greenhill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

Nik Chaudhry

Emory '23

Email Chain (always put me on) and Questions: nikhilc014@gmail.com

Important Version:

-- "Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge, clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates" (Batterman, 2018).

-- Not much topic knowledge.

-- Tech > Truth.

-- The affirmative should defend a topical plan. The idea of an unlimited topic and resulting lack of fairness simply destroys the foundation of any competitive activity and leads to a decline in participation (as we have seen in the past few years).

-- You should probably strike me if the K is a central part of your negative strategy.

-- The quality of your evidence is important. Evaluation and comparison of research is the only way to adjudicate clash. Author quals matter a lot and people should make these arguments more often. I will reward debaters who read good evidence and characterize it effectively in the debate. When reading evidence, I will strictly evaluate the warrants that have been highlighted.

Procedural stuff:

-- Respect your opponents by sending the same documents to the email chain that you use to deliver your speeches (especially for debates at camp).

-- Clip cards = loss and 0s.

-- Yes insert re-highlighting.

-- Follow speech times. If you steal prep you'll get bad speaker points.

Policy stuff:

-- I tend to lean NEG on most theory issues, including, but not limited to: Agent CP's, PIC's, Conditional Planks, 2NC CP's, States CP, etc. CP's that rely on certainty or immediacy are probably illegit, same with Rider DA's. 50-50 on conditionality.

-- Case debating --> good speaker points.

-- For topicality, I tend to be most persuaded by limits arguments, and a little less by ground arguments. I also think that precision impacts are underrated when forwarding a clear interpretation of debate.

-- Framing contentions don't change how I evaluate the DA.

-- I think the Politics DA is good for debate.

-- I'll probably judge kick the CP if I'm guided or if the NEG says the CP is conditional. AFF can give reasons why it's bad but it's hard to win if equally debated.

Important Note: Adults in this activity who hate hybrid teams in extenuating circumstances and beat down on small schools from participating should be held accountable for deliberately excluding students from an educational activity based on a wrong interpretation of fairness in debate. If you can't debate competitively for whatever reason - you should try your hardest to continue participating in this activity even if you are being excluded at tournaments based on your circumstance (please be aware of coaches like Josh Clark who threaten and intimidate students).

Useful Scale:

Policy-x------------------------------------------K

Read a plan-x-----------------------------------Do whatever

Tech----x------------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards-------------------------x----------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x--------------Conditionality bad

PIC's good----------x----------------------------PIC's bad

States CP good-----x-----------------------------States CP bad

Go for T------x-----------------------------------Don't go for T

Politics DA is a thing----x----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-x--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most--------------------x-------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-x------------------------------Delgado 92

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

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

Limits-------------x---------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------x-----Never votes on presumption

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

Longer ev------------------x----------------------More ev

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

Fiat solves circumvention-------x-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

2017 speaker points-----------x------------------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive------------x-------------DHeidt-style stoic

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

Glenbrook North '21

He/him/his

Please add derrikcdebate@gmail.com to the email chain, and please give the email chain a relevant name (e.g. "Round 1 Viking Rumble: GBN XX [AFF] v. GBN YY [NEG])

Top Level:

Qualifications: Debated at Glenbrook North for four years as a 2A and mostly read extinction impacts. Champion and 4th speaker at the Cross River Classic Invitational, qualified to the TOC, etc.

Novices -- don't adapt to me. I'll adapt to you. Please be respectful, especially during cross-ex. There is no need to be overly rude, defensive, demeaning, etc. Everyone's learning.

My ideal debate to judge is one where teams go substantially slower, engage with and collapse to truthful arguments, and make bold strategic decisions. I would much rather judge a debate where the NEG reads four developed offcase positions than one where the NEG reads eight or more scattered offcase with no clear strategic vision. However, I do understand the strategic necessity of reading large amounts of offcase, so feel free to do whatever you please.

I largely agree with this section of Anthony Miklovis's paradigm: You do you. I'll do my best to not be ideological. Below are my predispositions that I'll usually err towards when debated equally. None of these are absolute truths and can be easily reversed through technical debating. BUT, my familiarity with certain arguments might affect my ability to adjudicate claims in round, so do be mindful of that when I say "you do you."

I'd like it if debaters gave me easy outs rather than forcing me to dive deeply into contested issues

Sending analytics is good for clash

Please speak slower and clearer, and watch my facial reactions to your arguments, as I tend to be rather expressive

Please respect your opponents

Rounds judged on the water topic: 46

'21-'22 lowest speaks: 27.5

'21-'22 highest speaks: 29.6

'21-'22 average speaks: 28.7

Ks:

I encourage you to read kritiks that function as disadvantages (e.g. Neolib/Cap K)

I find that the aff should get to weigh in the plan in almost all circumstances

It will be very difficult to convince me to vote for high theory or post-modernism

I do not find most ontology claims persuasive

Perf con makes sense versus epistemology claims

Planless Affs:

Generally not the judge for you

The aff should be related to and in the direction of the topic

Fairness is an impact, but I find clash and education-based arguments to be more persuasive

Counterinterps are usually self serving, so I would rather you impact turn T

NEG teams should impact turn (cap good, heg good, etc.)

Please do not go for a K vs a planless aff unless you can explain it extremely well

Topicality:

I would rather you not go for topicality in front of me, but I understand if it's the only option you have versus an abusive affirmative

Precision > everything. I think most interpretation evidence is atrocious and aff teams should exploit that more

I have never seen an affirmative team reasonably explain reasonability, but that does not mean that it is a bad argument

Counterplans:

I'll judge kick if the 2NR makes the argument. Sufficiency framing seems to be a waste of breath because I will always evaluate if the counterplan solves enough of the case.

Process counterplans are probably illegit (oftentimes dependent on literature), but I would rather affirmatives go for a solvency deficit and net benefit takeout than a tricky permutation or theoretical objection

Intuitive analytical advantage counterplans are strategic. Advantage counterplans + impact turns seem to be underutilized strategies that are killer.

Counterplans that are probably bad: international fiat, object fiat, delay fiat, 'going through legal deficits' fiat

If you want to go for theory, make more specific theory arguments to filter NEG offense

Disads:

The preferred 2NR. When I debated, I read politics, rider, case-specific, etc. Neg ground is atrocious, so I understand and would absolutely enjoy if you decide to go for politics. I think that turns case is usually the deciding factor in disad debates. Please do multiple levels of turns case (e.g. link turns internal link, link turns impact, AND impact turns internal link, etc.)

I think no risk is possible but difficult if the NEG executes correctly

Most disad internal links make little sense, so smart analytics can always lower disad risk

The 1AR seems to get away with a lot of murder here

Theory:

I don't think neg teams explain why conditionality is good well.

I have yet to see a team go for ASPEC, but I think it's a competent strategy given all the agent abuse affs seem to do these days. Same with vagueness, I guess.

Misc.

"Troll" arguments are interesting thought experiments, but I'm unlikely to vote on them

Debaters should time themselves during the round. I'll try to keep track of time, but I'm not perfect.

I want to judge impact turn debates (dedev, please)

Scale:

Policy---x----------------------------------------K

Read a plan-x-----------------------------------Do whatever

Tech----------------x------------------------------Truth

Read no cards----------------x-------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good-------------------x----------Conditionality bad

PIC's good---x-----------------------------------PIC's bad

States CP good-----x-----------------------------States CP bad

Go for T-----------------------------------x------Don't go for T

Politics DA is a thing-x-------------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-x--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most--------------------x-------------Link matters most

Not our Baudrillard------------------------------x- Yes your Baudrillard

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

Presumption------x--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

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

Longer ev--------------------x--------------------More ev

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

Fiat solves circumvention-----x---------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

2017 speaker points-------x------------------------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency

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

they/she. astrid, not judge.

astridmeadowww@gmail.com – email subject lines should be: “[tournament] round [#] – [aff team] – [neg team]”

ferris 19-21 – CM: arms sales, CJR. west georgia 21-23 – CF: antitrust. CL: legal personhood. gap year(s) 23-?.

conflicts: Chattahoochee high school, North Broward BK, Fox Chapel TR, Brookfield East SM

NDT doubles 2023, TOC participant 2021.

non-negotiables / “rules”

Debates have one winner and one loser. I will evaluate the entire debate. I will award speaker points at my own discretion. High school policy debates have 4 participants, each of whom gives one 8 minute constructive speech and one 5 minute rebuttal speech. High school LD debates have 2 participants and strange speech times, but I will enforce them regardless. Prep time is allotted by the tournament and ends when the document is sent, no earlier. Clipping accusations end the debate and are an issue for tabroom, not me. Safety concerns end the debate and are an issue for tabroom, not me. Please keep your shoes on. If something is not listed here, it is up for contestation.

notes on evidence practices

Everyone must highlight their cards in a way which makes a complete argument while maintaining coherent grammar and the authors intent. Most highlighting has become so atrocious that I will happily evaluate arguments along the lines of “this highlighting is horrible” as either reasons to strike evidence entirely or even vote a certain way. If arguments about highlighting quality are not made, poor highlighting will be reflected in poor speaker points and a frustrated RFD.

You can insert re-highlightings which amount to "they've misrepresented their own argument" or "this isn't actually what the evidence says" as long as you say analytically why this is the case. You must read re-highlightings which make a new argument. For example: alt causes, solvency deficits, disad link concessions, you get the idea.

tl:dr

policy – aff-neg all time voting record: 38-45.

LD – aff-neg all time voting record: 6-11.

Debate is good because it is a lawless, vacuous and sophistic game. Debaters should read whatever they deem the most strategic path to the ballot. No argument is off limits*. Tech over “truth” is absolute. A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant** and implication; incomplete arguments needn’t be answered and will not be evaluated. It is a debaters burden to make an argument before it is their opponents burden to answer it. I will hold the line on this.

*though I won’t immediately end the debate over someone forwarding a controversial or “evil” argument, I am very sympathetic to responses like “this argument is evil, reading it is a reason to reject the team regardless of the rest of the debate” when supplemented by a substantive response to the argument. Be reasonable. Make good arguments.

**some warrants are self-evident/implied. We needn’t have a debate about easily observable & provable phenomena which exist in the status quo. Use your intuition to determine the level of analysis you need to win each argument.

the long version.

Honestly, the rest of this paradigm is largely unimportant ramblings because of my near total ambivalence regarding content, but exists for the sake of optimizing everyone’s pref sheets given the tragic inevitability of pre-existing bias influencing how convincing any given argument is to me. I am imperfect. If something is evenly debated, exceptionally messy, or not debated at all, the following paragraphs are insights to my defaults and tie-breakers.

about me / overarching biases

I am a grumpy trans woman who cares about debate very much, though not for any external reasons like “community” or “skills”. I like debate because it is a space which allows people to be creative and express themselves and their ideas; I love debate because of the way those things are facilitated by and interact with its competitive form. I am a very competitive girl and a “policy” 2N at heart, but I have primarily read critical arguments throughout my career given the size of programs I’ve attended, partner preferences, topics debated, and my more personal research interests.

I think of debate as very similar to music. In the same way there is a very technical, theoretically complex, even mathematical way to go about each, there is also a much more artistic, fluid, and creative way. The best debaters and musicians are able to merge technical understanding and proficiency with an ethos which conveys unique ideas and character, though each school of thought is more than capable of producing something beautiful and revolutionary alone. If this doesn’t make sense to you don’t worry too much, simply do what you’re best at and I will appreciate it.

I’m more sympathetic to accommodations and arguments regarding flowability than a lot of judges. I am a slow writer, I am losing hearing in my right ear, and I flow on paper. I will have the speech document open to minimize my errors, but I will only check it to clarify and elaborate on arguments I’ve already heard. I will not use it to fill gaps and compensate for anyone’s lack of clarity and organization. Please slow down on tags, authors, qualifications, dates, and analytics. If anyone else has a (non-safety) related accommodation request, send an email to me and your opponents before the debate so I have a record of it and can fairly evaluate arguments you may make if said accomodations are not met.

Influences & contemporaries include, but are not limited to: Geoff Lundeen, Sarah Lundeen, Jason Regnier, Adrienne Brovero, Dylan Kirkpatrick, Joe Skoog, Nathan Fleming, Julian Kuffour, Kate Marin, David Sposito, Jordan Keller, Patrick Fox, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz, Moss McCullough, and Blaine Montford.

on policy throwdowns

The affirmative has the burden of proof and the negative has the burden of rejoinder. For the negative this means, at least, I value case defense more highly than many and, at most, I am more willing to pull the trigger on presumption against poorly constructed affirmatives. For the affirmative this means the same emphasis on defense applies to disadvantages, and I'm very willing to listen to 2AC tricks like intrinsicness tests, weird permutations, and anything else you can think of that amounts to “this argument doesn’t necessarily prove the plan is a bad idea.”

I slightly prefer straight up policy strategies over tricky ones, but that is quickly overridden when the tricks are well executed and provide obvious strategic benefit. I value evidence quality and story both very highly in these debates. The best practice is obviously having both good cards and a good story. Though if lacking one, Debaters can get me to vote for an extremely contrived, improbable internal link chain if they have the evidentiary goods, and I am just as happy to vote for a smart analytic argument against contrived scenarios. Debaters should take time to clarify exactly how I should evaluate analytics vs evidence to minimize the chance of me evaluating these arguments in a way they may not like.

Magnitude times probability is not the only way to do impact calculus, and becomes exceptionally problematic when dealing with extinction because of the potential value of future generations. To resolve this, below a certain probability threshold, I think magnitude ceases to matter almost entirely. Given debate doesn’t deal with percentages, determining the threshold relies more or less on gut checks which are able to leverage the tech over truth paradigm. This means I’m probably better for soft left affirmatives or smaller disadvantages than a lot of policy people assuming both sides are reading comparably good evidence to defend their impact calculus.

I lean slightly affirmative on all theory questions except topicality because I prefer debates which contain less BS and more clash. My like/dislike for an argument is directly proportional to the amount of clash it is capable of producing or mitigating respectively. Impact turns have my heart. If the 2AR is 5 minutes of no neg fiat the floor of the 2A's speaks is a 29. If the 1NC is zero off the floor of both negative debaters speaks is a 29.

on critiques

I hate overviews. Do line-by-line. I’ve been around debate long enough I am familiar with most of this literature.

The most interesting and important things in these debates are competition and framework. If the aff gets to weigh the plan it will outweigh most critiques absent substantial case defense, and if the aff doesn’t get to weigh the plan it will usually lose if the critique is competitive. What exactly makes a critique competitive is up for debate, but consider that permutation debates get really messy absent a theory debate which tells me how I should evaluate the kind of competition created by the link. If the link is to discourse, but the permutation says the alternative doesn’t functionally compete with the plan, I’m not sure how to compare those because they operate on totally different levels. The critique needs to disprove the desirability of the aff. I am probably not voting negative on “the aff is bad because didn’t solve everything ever”, but I am willing to evaluate negative link arguments to basically anything which is present in affirmative speeches, not just the plan.

KvK debates are probably where I’m the worst because of the aforementioned competition point. These debates are messy because the permutation is OP and I’m not sympathetic to “no permutations because it’s too broken” given the obvious aff response is “no permutations is even more broken.” That said, the standard for competition is much lower in these debates and I’m far more down for PIK type arguments than I would be against a policy aff. If you have me in the back for one of these feel free to get super far into the weeds of your literature. I know lots of authors commonly read in debate disagree with each other over small issues, but this usually gets ignored because the scope is so small that it doesn’t work within the usual argumentative strategy of debate. KvK debates are where those disagreements can see the light of competition. Just tell me exactly what it is about the affirmative your criticism disagrees with – be it their theory of power, their entire advocacy, their tactics, the fact they’re reading the aff in debate, author choice, language, or whatever – and cover the rest of your usual bases and I’m down to decide the debate over something which may seem extremely miniscule when compared to the usual scope of disagreement in debate.

Though the above maybe reads like I'm a hater, I promise I'm not. I spent high school reading either Baudrillard or Deleuze on both sides and I spent my only full year of college going for Marxism in every single negative debate against an affirmative with a plan except the two I went for topicality. I still spend my free time reading postmodern philosophy. My current thing is Bataille if anyone cares. The policy debater in me likes when links are more specific to the affirmative and able to re-contextualize advantages in favor of the negative, while the high theory hack in me says the negative can create link arguments from anything they choose, especially if the block is hot and the 2AC is not. The "death" K is OP.

on topicality framework

If you are only ever on side of this debate, I am fine for you, but you should probably pref me below people who will be more biased in your favor. If you are a team who reads a critical affirmative, but wants to maintain the option of going for framework on the negative, you should pref me very highly.

My biases on this question very slightly favor the negative, but the affirmatives preparation advantage in these debates generally offsets those biases because, when evaluating these debates, I care more about specific analysis and world building than anything else. Impact work is framed by the interpretation / counter-interpretation debate. Aff teams should think more about the counter-interpretation (and reasonability). Neg teams should be more willing to punish aff teams that don’t bother trying to mitigate their offense. Everyone should read less blocks and do more line-by-line.

My overarching personal belief regarding this activity is that the only intrinsic, inherent, and terminal impact to debate is debate itself. Thus, I tend to vote for whatever model produces the best debates. When determining the best model, I think of fairness and education as the thesis and antithesis which produce the synthesis of debate. Both are necessary components of the activity, but neither is enough in and of itself to create a model worth defending. Conversely, a model which substantially or entirely lacks one or both is worth criticizing. No model is perfect and there is ample, specific, nuanced ground for both sides in these debates.

That said, debate means something different to each person and it is not my place or within my ability to dictate what each person gets out of this activity or why each person is here, so arguments about community, skills, and other things which I may not personally be here for, but someone else conceivably may be, are still worth making. These arguments are most convincing when articulated as internal links which influence the quality of rounds and least convincing when articulated as ends in and of themselves (though I have voted on & once went for “framework solves extinction”).

Not rehashing any obvious content takes here. Yes switch side and the TVA matter. Yes the aff matters. Yes structural and procedural fairness are different. etc. etc. Framework debates are more or less a "solved" part of the game which now exist more as a formula for teams to execute or a logic problem for judges to solve than anything new or unique. This is why my preference in these debates is for more specific arguments about how a given affirmative on a given topic interacts with the broader models defended over arguments everyone has heard for almost as long as I've been alive. If you would like to talk to me more about my thoughts regarding the meta-theory of strategy games, my email is at the top.

on speaker points

average points given: TBD

I am still working to determine my overall margin of error when compared to the average, but I know I tend to give points on the lower end. So I’m offering opportunities to get free points to offset my tendency to underrate debaters which also make the world a slightly better place.

+.1 for bringing me black coffee before the debate

+.1 for full open-source. tell me after the 2AR.

email me with any questions, job offers, scouting requests, or other inquiries. happy to talk, coach, or judge debate whenever.

Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14

I do want on the e-mail chain: mmcoleman10@gmail.com

Debate Experience: Wichita State graduate 2009. We read a middle of the road straight up affirmative and won more debates on arguments like imperialsim good than should have been possible. However, on the negative roughly half of my 2NRs were a K (with the other half being some combination of T, politics/case etc.) so I believe firmly in argumentative flexibility and am comfortable voting for or against almost all arguments.

Judging Experience: 5-8 tournaments each year since graduating.

Most importantly: I do not work with a team currently so I have not done any topic research, my only involvement is judging a handful of tournaments each year. It would be in your best interest to not assume I have the intricacies of your PIC or T argument down and take some time explaining the basis of your arguments. If the first time I figure out what your CP does or what your violation is on T is after you give me the text after the debate, my motivation to vote for you is going to be pretty low. I am currently a practicing attorney so I may have some insight on the topic from that perspective, but I'll try to minimize what impact that has on my decisions outside of possibly some suggestions after the debate on how to make it more accurately reflect how the legal process works.

Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me

1. Cheating - I mean this substantively not argumentatively. This can include stealing prep time, clipping cards, lying about disclosure etc. If people are jumping cards or waiting to get the flash drive and you are furiously typing away on your computer it's pretty obvious you are stealing prep and I will call you out on it.

2. Being unecessarily uptight/angry about everything. There's no need to treat every round like it's the finals of the NDT, try having some fun once in awhile I promise your points from me and others will go up as a result. I take debate seriously and enjoying being a part of debate, but you can be very competitive and still generally pleasant to be around at the same time. I have no problem if people want to make fun of an argument, but it's one thing to attack the quality of an argument and another entirely to attack the person reading those arguments.

3. Not letting the other person talk in cross-x. It irritates me greatly when one person answers and asks every single question on one team.

4. A lack of line-by-line debate. If your only reference to the previous speeches is some vague reference to "the link debate" you are going to be irritated with my decision. I'm only willing to put in the same amount of work that you are. This is not to say that I can't be persuaded to have a more holistic view of the debate, but if I can't tell what arguments you are answering I am certainly going to be sympathetic if the other team can't either. Also people over use the phrase "dropped/conceded" to the point that I'm not sure they mean anything anymore, I'm paying attention to the debate if something is conceded then certainly call the other team out, if they spent 2 minutes answering it skip the part of your block that says "they've conceded: . It just makes me feel that you aren't putting the same work that I am in paying attention to what is occurring in the debate.

5. If your speech/cx answers sound like a biblography. Having evidence and citations is important, but if all you can do is list a laundry list of citations without any explanation or application and then expect me to wade through it all in the end, well we're probably not going to get along. I do not tend to read many cards after a debate if any. I pretty quickly figure out where the important arguments (debaters that identify and highlight important arguments themselves and resolve those debates for me are going to be very far ahead) and then I will turn to arguments and evidentiary issues that are contested.

Ways to impress me

1. Having strategic vision among the different arguments in the debate. Nothing is better than having a debater realize that an answer on one sheet of paper is a double turn with a team's answer on another and be able to capitalize on it, bold moves like that are often rewarded with good points and wins if done correctly.

2. Using your cross-x well. Few people use this time well, but for me it's some of the most valuable speech time and it can make a big difference in the outcome of debates if used effectively.

3. Having a working knowledge of history. It's amazing to me how many arguments are just patently untrue that could be disproven with even a basic understanding of history, I think those are good arguments and often more powerful than the 10 word overhighlighted uniqueness card you were going to read instead.

Topicality

I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument. My biggest problem with these debates is the over emphasis on the limits/reasonability debate occuring in the abstract, usually at the expense of spending enough time talking about the particulars of the aff/neg interps their support in the literature, and how the particular interp interacts with the limits/reasonability debate. T cards rival politics uniqueness cards as the worst ones read in debate, and more time should be spent by both teams in pointing this out.

I think this topic provides an interesting opportunity for discussion with the absence of the federal government in the topic as far as what the Aff can and should be allowed to defend. I'm curious how both Affs and Negs will choose to adapt to this change.

Topicality - K Affs

I think you have to have a defense of the resolution, the manner in which that is done is up to the particular debate. Unfortunately I've been forced to vote on T = genocide more times than I'd like to admit, but Neg's refuse to answer it, no matter how terrible of an argument it is (and they don't get much worse). Critical Affs are likely to do the best in front of me the stronger their tie is to the resolution. The argument there is "no topical version of our aff" has always seemed to me to be a reason to vote Neg, not Aff. Stop making that argument, doing so is just an indication you haven't read or don't care what I put in here and it will be reflected in your points.

I don't ususally get more than one or two opportunities per year to judge debates centered around issues of race/sex/identity but try to be as open as I can to these types of debates when they do occur. I still would prefer these arguments have at least some tie to the resolution as I think this particular topic does allow for good discussion of a lot of these issues. I have generally found myself voting Aff in these types of debates, as the Negative either usually ignores the substance of the Aff argument or fails to explain adequately why both procedurally and substantively the way the Aff has chosen to approach the topic is bad. Debates about alternate ways in which these issues might be approached in terms of what Negatives should get to say against them compared to what the Aff should be forced to defend seem most relevant to me, and one that I find interesting to think about and will try hard to make an informed decision about.

Counterplans/Disads

I like this style of debate a lot. However, one thing I don't like is that I find myself increasingly voting on made up CPs that for some unknown reason link slightly less to politics, simply because Aff teams refuse to challenge this claim. To sum up, don't be afraid to make smart analytical arguments against all arguments in the debate it can only help you. I am among those that do believe in no risk either of an aff advantage or neg disad, but offense is always nice to have.

Affs also seem to give up too easily on theory arguments against certain process CPs (condition/consult etc.) and on the issue of the limits of conditionality (it does exist somewhere, but I can be persuaded that the number of neg CPs allowed can be high/low depending on the debate). In general though I do tend to lean neg on most theory issues and if you want to win those arguments in front of me 1) slow down and be comprehnsible 2) talk about how the particulars of the neg strategy affected you. For example conditionality might be good, but if it is a conditional international agent cp mixed with 2 or 3 other conditional arguments a more coherent discussion about how the strategy of the 1nc in general unduly harmed the Aff might be more effective than 3 or 4 separate theory arguments.

K's

I judge these debates a lot, particularly the clash of civilization debates (the result of judging exclusively in D3). Negative teams would do well to make their argument as particularized to the Aff as possible and explain their impact, and by impact I mean more than a vague use of the word "ethics" or "ontology" in terms of the Aff and how it would implicate the aff advantages. If you give a 2NC on a K and haven't discussed the Aff specifically you have put yourself in a bad position in the debate, apply your arguments to the Aff, or I'm going to be very hesitant to want to vote for you.

Additionally while I vote for it pretty often exploring the critical literature that isn't "the Cap K" would be pleasantly appreciated. I can only judge Gabe's old cap backfiles so many times before I get bored with it, and I'd say 3/4 of the debates I judge it seems to pop up. Be creative. Affs would be smart not to concede big picture issues like "no truth claims to the aff" or "ontology first." I vote for the K a lot and a large percentage of those debates are because people concede big picture issues. Also keep in mind that if you like impact turning the K I may be the judge for you.

Debated 4 years at Dowling HS in Des Moines, Iowa (09-12, Energy, Poverty, Military, Space)
Debated at KU (13-15, Energy, War Powers, Legalization)
Previously Coached: Ast. Coach Shawnee Mission Northwest, Lansing High School.
Currently Coaching: Ast. Coach Washburn Rural High School

UPDATE 10/1: CX is closed and lasts three minutes after constructive. I won't listen to questions or answers outside of those three minutes or made by people that aren't designated for that CX. I think it's a bummer that a lot of CXs get taken over by one person on each team. It doesn't give me the opportunity to evaluate debaters or for debaters to grow in areas where they might struggle. I'm going to start using my rounds to curb that.

Top Level
Do whatever you need to win rounds. I have arguments that I like / don't like, but I'd rather see you do whatever you do best, than do what I like badly. Have fun. I love this activity, and I hope that everyone in it does as well. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I get that some rudeness happens, but you don't want me to not like you. Last top level note. If you lose my ballot, it's your fault as a debater for not convincing me that you won. Both teams walk into the room with an equal chance to win, and if you disagree with my decision, it's because you didn't do enough to take the debate out of my hands.

Carrot and Stick
Carrot - every correctly identified dropped argument will be rewarded with .1 speaks (max .5 boost)
Stick - every incorrectly identified dropped argument will be punished with -.2 speaks (no max, do not do this)

General
DAs - please. Impact calc/ turns case stuff great, and I've seen plenty of debates (read *bad debates) where that analysis is dropped by the 1ar. Make sure to answer these args if you're aff.

Impact turns - love these debates. I'll even go so far as to reward these debates with an extra .2 speaker points. By impact turns I mean heg bag to answer heg good, not wipeout. Wipeout will not be rewarded. It will make me sad.

CPs - I ran a lot of the CPs that get a bad rep like consult. I see these as strategically beneficial. I also see them as unfair. The aff will not beat a consult/ condition CP without a perm and/or theory. That's not to say that by extending those the aff autowins, but it's likely the only way to win. I lean neg on most questions of CP competition and legitimacy, but that doesn't mean you can't win things like aff doesn't need to be immediate and unconditional, or that something like international actors are illegit.

Theory - Almost always a reason to reject the arg, not the team. Obviously conditionality is the exception to that rule.

T - Default competing interps. Will vote on potential abuse. Topical version of the aff is good and case lists are must haves. "X" o.w. T args are silly to me.

Ks - dropping k tricks will lose you the debate. I'm fine with Ks, do what you want to. Make sure that what you're running is relevant for that round. If you only run security every round, if you hit a structural violence aff, your security K will not compel me. Make sure to challenge the alternative on the aff. Make sure to have a defense of your epistemology/ontology/reps or that these things aren't important, losing this will usually result in you losing the round.

K affs - a fiat'd aff with critical advantages is obviously fine. A plan text you don't defend: less fine, but still viable. Forget the topic affs are a hard sell in front of me. It can happen, but odds are you're going to want someone else higher up on your sheet. I believe debate is good, not perfect, but getting better. I don't think the debate round is the best place to resolve the issues in the community.

Speaker points.
I don't really have a set system. Obviously the carrot and stick above apply. It's mostly based on how well you did technically, with modifications for style and presentation. If you do something that upsets me (you're unnecessarily rude, offensive, do something shady), your points will reflect that.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

I did policy debate for seven years in high school and college. I coached college for a few years afterwards (MSU, UMich, and Harvard). I don't have an exhaustive profile so please ask questions before the debate if there is anything you want to know. I am comfortable with policy, critical, or other styles of debate. I will vote on a wide range of arguments. I am a relatively flow-centric judge. I tend to use evidence to mostly just to resolve factual disputes when they occur, so probably weigh cards less than usual than just like a well reasoned analytic.

I do my best to let the participants debate and minimize my own judgement of particular arguments (to the extent possible). Having said that, I reserve the right to not vote for something I think is total nonsense or against behavior I think is unethical.

42fryguy@gmail.com

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

Woodward Academy '20

University of Virginia '24

Email chain: ghanate.nishita@gmail.com

People who taught me how to debate and their paradigms:

Bill Batterman: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=10298

Maggie Berthiaume: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=1265

Meta Comments

1. Respect your opponents. Don't do silly things or make fun of your opponents.

2. The document that you send out should be the exact same document that you are reading from your computer. Not only will you be depriving me the opportunity to read along with you, but you will also be giving me the impression that your arguments are bad enough that if your opponents knew what you were saying they would win.

3. I care the most about clash and nuanced arguments. The best debates are ones with aff-specific strategies that show off what both teams know about the topic. I am not impressed by winning debates on State CPs that fiat out of everything or affirmatives without a solvency advocate with contrived advantages. Engage the literature.

4. I read evidence at the end of a round. It doesn't make or break my decision, but I definitely would lean more to the side of being a "truth over tech" judge.

5. You can win absolute defense in front of me. It's hard but not impossible especially if your opponent reads cards that clearly conclude in the opposite direction or leave out an internal link.

Critiques

If the point of your kritik is to say words that your opponents won't understand, I will not understand what you are saying either. Avoid jargon. Try to explain your arguments more. I am familiar with the most common critiques (capitalism, anti-Blackness, settler colonialism, militarism, feminism, abolition).

I think aff-specific kritiks or generic kritiks with aff-specific links can be an amazing strategy especially if it's a core of the topic kritik (IE the abolition K on the CJR topic). However, I think too many "K teams" get away with reading silly links, links of omissions, serial policy failure, the fiat double bind, or any other K trick you can name. The best K debates are the ones that actually pinpoint something that the aff has done or something in their plan that is in fact bad. I'm not saying that all links should be to the plan, but I am saying that all links should be grounded in the 1AC. If the goal of your kritik is to clash with the aff from a new angle (IE reform vs transformative justice), you're on the right track.

Topicality

For not trying to be topical teams:

I think that teams should read a plan text especially in sub-varsity levels. Debate isn't a forum designed to provide a survival strategy or create a community of resistance. It is inherently a competitive space. Teams that do choose to read a non-topical aff should be prepared to defend every part of the 1AC through the end of the 2AR. CX is binding and I will hold you to what you say regardless of what you say in later speeches.

For teams with a plan text:

I enjoy T debates with concise impacts that actually attempt to exclude affs that shouldn't be a part of the topic. For this reason, T-Substantial is extremely persuasive to me given how well it limited the immigration and arms sales topic. As such, giving me a case list of not only what you include but also what you exclude is going to be extremely persuasive. But, I'm probably not going to vote on an interpretation that excludes a core of the topic aff.

'Planicality' is a non-starter for me. It's silly to think that adding the word substantial (or any other words in the resolution) all of a sudden makes your plan topical. It encourages poorly written plan texts that are incredibly vague so the aff can spike out of DAs while also doing all kinds of things that have no relation to the topic. It also poses an unfair burden on the neg as they now not only have to defend T to limit the scope of the plan, but also win substance as well.

Theory

I generally believe that the only voter is conditionality(No, {insert letter here}SPEC is not a voter), but I can be persuaded that some other theory violation is a voter especially if the theory violation is egregious.

Hiding ASPEC (not putting it on a separate flow) is a great way to lose speaker points for both negative debaters. Calling out your opponents and making hidden ASPEC an RVI is a great way to add to your speaker points.

Impact debating matters just as much in theory debates as it does in any other debate. If you don't have an impact and articulate why it matters more than your opponent's, I will likely not vote for you.

I will not judge kick unless the neg explicitly asks me to and the aff doesn't provide a theoretical reason not to. Keep in mind that if the neg has "dropped" the aff's advantages, a judge kick only benefits the aff.

Counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy are likely not competitive. Permutations, even perm: do the counterplan, do not have to be topical, as in they only have to meet definitions of the words in the plan. Similarly, I don't think Agent CPs are competitive unless the aff has specified their agent or read an advantage to their agent.

Disclaimer

While these are my general opinions of debate, I am by no means a norm setter or emotionally attached to them. I can always be persuaded by what happens in a debate round.

Yes, I'd like to be on the email chain: thomas.gliniecki at gmail.com . Yes, I'll still make you compile a doc at the end of the round anyway.

Update: December 2021

I admire everyone's tenacity in sticking around through online debate.

I currently coach at Glenbrook South. Getting back into high school debate after years in college has been quite an experience. Here are some reflections based on this topic and things I've noticed through the first semester:

1. When my camera is off, you should assume that I am not there or am having technical difficulties. If I need to turn it off while I am still there, I will make a note of it verbally or in the chat.
2. More teams seem to be reading and going for Ks in front of me. I've noticed a trend that some of these teams "fiat" their alts, e.g. they say their alt is to have a communist revolution overthrowing the US government, and somehow that's strategically equivalent to imagining a policy passing through the USFG. I don't think it is- so "utopian fiat" concerns apply- but I also think that this makes you lose to just perm: do both 99.9% of the time since your links would have to somehow demonstrate that the plan/aff subverted a theoretical revolutionary vanguard powerful enough to off the entire US governing structure.
3. A lot of teams refer to T arguments by the author name on the definition. Maybe this is a function of having not worked at a camp this summer, but this convention never made sense to me and was at odds with how I was taught, which is to label each T argument by the word/phrase being defined (e.g. "T- protection" or "T- water resources"). I don't instinctively remember what author makes what T argument, so using the author name convention is more likely to confuse me than help me conceptualize what your thing is.
4. This topic is very broad, and there don't seem to be cards that meet what I consider to be the "gold standard" of T definitions for operative phrases (such as "protection of water resources"). In the best T debates, both teams would have definitions that are close to such a precise standard, but are vulnerable to criticism to some degree. I anticipate in close T debates, I would lean neg more than a lot of other judges since my response to such situations would be to break ties through an assessment of the quality of each definition for debate, rather than just assuming "if all definitions are on the same plane, I can never exclude the aff."

Update: NDT 2021

I hate arguments that are entirely reliant on some combination of a vocabulary barrier and/or exploiting judge non-interventionism. There are some things that are so ridiculously obvious your opponents shouldn't have to waste their time saying them. If your strategy is premised on your opponents either not knowing at all what you even said or not having the time to make a simple factual observation, I think you will discover that non-interventionism has assumptions that underlie its value as a judging practice, and that working against those assumptions is not a good idea for you strategically.
If you're here to say weird troll-y stuff, cool. I'm glad you found an activity you enjoy. I will ask two things: 1. Ask yourself whether subjecting your competitors to that is ethical, 2. please don't involve me in it. Either change around what you do just this once or strike me before the tournament begins.


Older, "core" philosophy

I'm still not voting on "politics isn't intrinsic." I get it if you throw it out there out of force of habit, especially if I'm on a panel- but I will be happier if you don't. Negs, remember you don't need to waste your time answering it, though again, I'll get it if you do.

Specifics-

K/T in "non-traditional" debates- I think debate is at its best when there is a negotiated point of stasis that each side could predict, and when there is a legitimate opportunity for the negative to have a meaningful role in a contested debate. I generally think that if the aff did not defend a topical plan, that they've denied the negative a meaningful role, and have denied the necessary precondition for in-depth engagement.
Neg Ks against "policy" affs tend to propose that I consider one idea external to or somewhere within the 1AC to the exclusion of all else; I tend to think I shouldn't do that. A "K" with very well-articulated ties to the topic, the plan action, and the advantages might be persuasive to me, however, you will need to identify how your alt competes with the _plan_, how your links apply to the _plan_, and consider tying your alt to an alternative policy option. If that sounds too much like a “counterplan” and thus offends your sensibilities, we’re probably not on the same page.
The K has a very bad record in front of me, despite some valiant efforts. If you must do this, try to couch your argument as "mutually exclusive counterplan that solves inevitable extinction- try or die." The more it seems like a disad-counterplan strategy, the more likely I am to be receptive to your argument.

T in "policy" debates- While it's somewhat hard to forecast at the very beginning of a topic, I have historically been very good for the neg when they have high-quality evidence in support of a more restrictive interpretation of the topic. In these debates, I tend to have a lot of skepticism toward aff defense against limits explosion- for example, "functional limits" just seem like an invitation to a deluge of one-and-done affs with bad (but unpredictable and thus "good" for two hours) tricks vs. whatever generic is supposed to stop the aff from existing, and the lack of solvency advocate has never stopped anyone. This topic in particular strikes me as quite tough for the neg, so I may lack sympathy for some aff offensive args as well (e.g. overlimiting).

CP competition- CPs that are just rewritings of the plan or compete on something that doesn't appear in the plan will have problems. This also applies if your CP competes on a word that could be interpreted multiple ways; you will need to decisively win that it should be interpreted a certain way to win a competition arg.

Joshua Gonzalez

8th place in US Extemp my first time at NSDA Nationals.

iykyk...

David Griffith

Coach at New Trier

Debated at Oak Park River Forest and the University of Kentucky

Add griffithd2002@gmail.com and jordandi505@gmail.com to the chain.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I also (most likely) have Kentucky Debate stickers on me at any given tournament, so if you want one, let me know.

The following is the only information that you must know. The rest of this paradigm is just organized ramblings that may or may not be helpful.

Conditionality is good---I will vote neg if the 2AR is only condo. This is neither a prediction nor a challenge. It is a threat. Every other theory argument is fair game (including yes/no judge kick), but I will never punish the neg for advocacies that the 2NR does not extend.

Organization is more important than style or substance---if you are unclear, refuse to number, do not signpost, make arguments in long, intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through analytics at a million miles an hour, I will miss arguments. I will never use the speech doc to fill in holes because debate is communication activity. If I miss an argument, that is on you because debate is a speech activity, not a reading contest. I always try to make it obvious that I am not able to follow you through both verbal and non-verbal cues.

I have very few argumentative preferences---other than my hatred of theory, I hold very few predispositions when it comes to arguments informed by evidence of any kind, whether that be cards, personal experience, or something else. The only thing I must know by the end of the debate is why you should win. Put another way, I value execution more than substance. I do not read very many cards. I do not assign arbitrary importance to single lines not impacted out in final rebuttals.

How do you get the decision you want from me?

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is the only way to avoid catastrophic judge intervention. Rather than force the judge to find the win for them, the best debaters tell the judge both why they win and the other team loses. This is aided by a clear, cohesive, and consistent narrative through the debate. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments, particularly relative to the other team's arguments. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. I only read cards when it is absolutely required because of a dispute over evidence quality, qualifications, etc. I do not read cards to fill in gaps on my flow.

Explain the implication of technically concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often teams will assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means or what the argument even is. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, you are leaving me to my own devices to figure out the extent to which that argument matters. The most often reason that I sit on elim panels is because I, right or wrong, often have a different understanding of technically conceded arguments than the other judges. The way to avoid this is by arguing concessions as if the other team will win full risk of every other argument and explaining why I still vote for you (this means arguing conceded links as if the other team wins link defense to the other links, theory as if the CP is better than the plan, or rollback as if the aff wins solvency). Otherwise, relative risk could come back to bite you.

What can you do change about your debating to maximize your chances of winning?

Complain about new arguments more than usual---the bar is on the floor. I think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block informs me of its deliberate choice not to make certain arguments because of 2AC errors/concessions/to avoid new 1AR arguments, I am very likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever new 1AR nonsense occurs. For example, if the 2AC says "perm do both" but does not explain why it solves the net benefit, the negative does not have to answer it. Further, if the 1AR then explains why it shields, the 2NR can just say the explanation was new. For the aff side, I willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or even give the 1AR add-ons in response). Just call these things out when you see them, and the debate will become much simpler.

Don't pander---as much as being pandered to boosts my ego, I would much rather see people do what they're comfortable with. Debating with personality and confidence is infinitely more likely to boost your chances of winning than your argument selection. Debate is a persuasive activity, and I would be lying if I said it was possible to sever presentation from technical debating. If you debate your best, everything in this paradigm, including my stylistic preferences, go away.

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't even try to read a link, the 2AC does not have to say no link because fully conceding every other component of the DA doesn't matter unless if the link is zero. If the 1NC reads a link to a different aff, you should only say "no link" in the 2AC. If the 1NC doesn't say the CP solves the case, the 2AC does not have to say it doesn't unless you are afraid that once explained, the 1AR will have to overcompensate. I consistently see 2ACs that will accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time outcarding the 1NC. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should I approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been aff in these debates like 4 times roughly 6 years ago, and I do not have as much of an intuitive grasp on how the aff arguments apply to the neg ones as I do of the inverse.

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. I don't view framework debates as distinct from anything else and try my best to maintain the same conventions of judging that I do in every other debate.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Vagueness will favor the aff---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it.

Very good for the link turn and perm---I would much prefer to judge link turn/perm debates than whatever you'd call buzzword-laden 2ARs about utilitarianism. I often find myself questioning why alternatives solve link arguments. If you read a 1AC full of pre-empts, I strongly prefer you go for those rather than gesturing at the world being complex and saying the case is true as an abstraction.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans.

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop CP solvency if CP solvency is not argued by the 1NC. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---these tend to be the debates that go over my head the most. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction inviting intervention based on my general neg bias. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on that particular issue.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Theory ideally justifies a perm, not a ballot---I can see myself voting on most theory arguments. I don't love these debates most of the time, but I get it, cutting cards about CPs is hard work. I prefer that theoretical objections to CPs are phrased as justifications for competition, as those debates seem much less arbitrary than the latest flavor of "X CP is bad because it solves the case." That being said, this really only applies to process CPs, so I understand the utility of a theory 2AR in every other situation.

Will I vote on T against a policy aff!

Absolutely---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

How can I get better speaker points?

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I love debaters with personality and reward them with speaker points much more than I do anything else. Show me you want to be there, and you'll be fine.

Any thoughts on impact turns?

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I shoudl.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. It is virtually impossible to get me to toss an impact turn without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. I put a lot of care into judging and like to learn about how people think, so I try to make my paradigm reflect both of these values. Plus, I judge enough debates to be guaranteed an audience, so I might as well take advantage of it.

I also think paradigms are mostly unhelpful (this extends to my own). The best way to learn how a judge thinks is to have them judge you and to ask questions after the debate. Most judges, myself included, don't really know how they judge debates until they're in them. The length of this paradigm reflects a series of observations that, if adhered to, would make it easier to predict how I would vote.

I struggle to get rid of parts of my paradigm. I update it whenever I'm bored because that is what spending a long time on debate will do to your brain. As a debater, I hate paradigms that don't provide helpful information about why a judge thinks the way that they do. I figure that having a long paradigm is the best way to avoid being unhelpful, because the more information I include, the clearer my thinking should be to the people I am judging. It also forces me to adhere to the procedures I explain, theoretically resulting in more consistent decisions over time.

For LD.

Strike me if you go for tricks and/or theory. Do not take me high if you don't read and defend a plan. I have read some philosophy and have a decent understanding of much of what is read in LD, but I do not intuitively understand how some of it applies to debate, so I may need more explanation than the normal LD judge would for some of the more complex stuff (think: the more premises in your logic equation, the more explanation I need to understand why your argument is sound).

Paideia 2019

Michigan 2023

Currently Pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at Emory University

Email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

TLDR:

Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me in the 1-25 percentile. If you believe only one of these, you should consider how much you disagree with the other then put me somewhere in the 25-50 percentile. If you disagree with both of these, consider preffing someone else. Any and all thoughts in this paradigm are malleable and determined by the debating done in a given round. My ideal tournament is one in which any judge from any program can fairly adjudicate any argument without any prior ideological commitments.

I fully believe that the role of the judge is to consider the arguments presented and do their best to render a decision that best reflects the round presented to them. Throughout my debate career I have seen judges allow personal bias and apathy render meaningless the hours of time and energy that debaters give to this activity that we all have limited time in. Therefore, I will do my best to flow all arguments made, listen to CX’s, render a decision, and give comments that I think will aid you in future debates. With that being said, this paradigm reflects my current thoughts on policy debate and how I render my decisions.

If at any point you read this paradigm and think I am referencing a specific ideological position in an attempt to cement a singular vision of debate, I am not. I find equal flaws and absurd arguments across the ideological spectrum and equally dislike most of the arguments, practices, and trends rewarded in this activity. I have felt this sentiment for a few years now. Despite this reality, the one truth I consistently return to is that I love debate. I love this activity and will do my best as a judge to make this activity a welcoming place to all argumentative styles and positions. If you have any questions or concerns, I encourage you to reach out via email or even come up to me at a tournament and introduce yourself. Far too many of us are strangers and fail to reach out, so know I am more than open to dialogue.

Background:

I am currently pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy at Emory University and plan to continue coaching alongside. I debated for 8 total years and during that time, I was lucky enough to debate across a range of argumentative styles and strategies. I found value in all argumentative forms but have also developed my own argumentative preferences in doing so. I strongly prefer strategies that open oneself to deliberation and defend controversial positions. I believe the issue of clash and what kinds of education we produce are important ones to explore, as I continue to judge. I believe the difference between a good argument and a bad argument is often about packaging and impact calculus and often vote against teams that poorly articulate concepts and the implications of the arguments presented. Similarly, I often vote against arguments not because they are wrong, but because they have not been packaged in a manner that is responsive and/or implicated enough for me to vote on. Once again, any and all arguments are open for me, but if I cannot articulate the impact of an argument and its implications on the other arguments presented, I am very unlikely to vote on it.

Online Debate:

I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/impact:

I will likely read your 1AC and be annoyed if you claim to do things and solve impacts not supported by your current 1AC construction. Many people claim the 2AR lies, but I believe the lies start as early as 1AC CX. This is not to say that new articulations, warrants, and impacts cannot be accessed throughout the process of debating, but I am annoyed by AFF inconsistency. I do not care what 1AC is read or what 2AR is given, just do your best to maintain consistency.

In terms of engagement with case, your negative strategy should implicate the case page in some way. When I say “implicate”, I mean that in the loosest of definitions possible. This can stem from going for terminal defense all the way to fully mooting the 1AC via framework. Remember, no matter what, at the end of the round, a negative ballot will likely have to answer the question, “what should I do with the 1AC?”

DA’s:

Read any and all of them as you please so long as it is substantiated by evidence. These debates often come down to impact calc and card quality. In case vs DA debates, I find myself often voting aff on try or die. Your impact calculus should anticipate that you are defending the status quo and do your best to overcome that.

CP’s:

I am fine with any counterplan so long as it has a solvency advocate, or as long as I can intuitively understand how the counterplan would function. I am working to become a better judge at in-depth counterplan competition debates, but for now err towards over explaining rather than under explaining. Judge kick seems to be good, however if I am judge kicking a counterplan, I am likely to vote on case outweighs unless sufficient case mitigation.

Theory:

I very much do not want to judge condo debates. I default to three being good, four being up for debate, and five or more being bad. The common rebuttal to this format is “number of condo doesn’t matter/it is about the practice/no clear difference between four and five”. I recognize these arguments even though I believe they are said in bad faith. This is an instance where technical execution can overcome ideology for me. However, in most theory debates (including condo), the aff needs to prove in-round abuse in order to persuade me. With theory arguments besides condo, I am likely to just reject the argument and not the team.

I care very little about negative contradictions at a theoretical level. Performative contradictions are not reasons you get to sever your reps, but they can be reasons that I ought to be skeptical of certain arguments.

Kritiks:

Any and all kritiks are viable options when I am in the back. I believe links should either be in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or the failures of a particular understanding the 1AC relies on. I find most one card kritiks incredibly unconvincing. I like kritiks that are not just kritiks of fiat and will give you a speaker points boost for developing your kritik beyond “fiat is bad”. I read and enjoy kritiks that defend a theory of power and apply that theory to the link debate; those were the kritiks that I read as a debater.

Answering Kritiks:

For answering the kritik, I am very good for many of the classical policy argumentative pushes that people use against common kritiks. That includes but is not limited to arguments such as: humanism good, psychoanalysis wrong, state inevitable/good/will crackdown, scenario analysis good etc. When a floating PIK/utopian alt is read, I am likely to be convinced by the permutation and a fairness push on framework. Otherwise, I would highly recommend going for a clash impact over fairness against most kritiks.

Defending your 1AC and implicating the kritik is the most effective and likely path to the ballot. I believe the FW (fairness) + extinction outweighs is a more than viable 2AR to give. That said, 75% of the time debaters do not articulate these arguments in a manner that is responsive to the negative’s kritik. I believe it is bad to only have extinction outweighs and fairness-centric framework in your arsenal because there are instances where clash is more responsive and debating the warrants of the kritik will increase your chances of the ballot. In addition, you should be willing to push NEG team on what they are saying. Pressing on the truth of a theory, the relevance of a link, and the viability of the alternative are all more than viable strategies and far more enjoyable to judge than the “two ships passing in the night” trend of Policy vs K debates we currently have.

K AFF’s:

K AFF’s are likely to be most successful in front of me when they take a stance on the resolution and a defend a theory of power that can be applied to the NEG’s offense. What a theory of power constitutes can be very broad, but I am likely to make you defend the implications and solvency of your 1AC. What it means to solve something likely depends upon your 1AC choice, but I must know what you are trying to do to know whether it is good, worthwhile, or even possible.

My three preferred 2NRs vs K AFFs were the Cap K, Topicality, and Afropessimism. I write this to demonstrate, I believe every AFF is answerable, and sometimes the best answer is Topicality.

Similar to the case section, I am most likely to vote NEG when NEG teams make arguments that meaningfully implicate the case page. I think presumption is a necessary tool that is often poorly deployed. I believe it can supplement most strategies and can be won in 1AC CX by a creative 2N who asks the right questions.

I enjoy topicality debates, both going for it and answering it. Fairness and clash are both impacts that should be explained more than you currently plan on. Most of these debates come down to who best articulates the role of the ballot and its ability to solve both sides’ offense. If you are AFF, I am likely to want an answer to the question, “what is the role for the negative”. Through smart defensive arguments, a counter interp, and/or a large defense of an impact turn, I can be easily convinced to never vote on topicality. On the opposite side, you should use fairness/clash to implicate case impacts and beat logical inconsistencies in most 2AC’s to framework. Different K AFF’s have different strategic strengths and weaknesses; different K AFF’s also produce different discussions and forms of clash (maybe). Recognizing the most strategic deployment of the 1AC in addition to your most strategic articulation of fairness, clash, tva, ssd, etc. will increase your chances of getting my ballot.

For K v K debates, I am increasingly conflicted on my beliefs of whether the AFF gets a perm and whether that perm requires a net benefit. I believe it is possible for 2N’s to craft competitive alternatives that disagree with core parts of the affirmative. At the same time, I recognize the potential fluidity of many K AFF’s and am thus sympathetic to different visions of competition. This analysis must be done and resolved otherwise I will abide by traditional rules of competition and consider whether the alt is mutually exclusive with the AFF. I very much dislike floating PIKs, but depending on the PIK and relevant offense, I can be convinced that PIKs in the 1NC can be good.

Procedurals/Ethics violations/RVI’s:

The only procedural I am likely to vote on is topicality. The vast majority of non-topicality procedurals that I have been exposed to are incredibly arbitrary and lose to a 2AR on “we meet”. If you find an 1AC you feel as though you cannot debate with a substantive strategy, I encourage you to find a topicality violation based in the resolution or find a way to out cheat your opponent.

Similarly, when issues of evidence become potential grounds for the rejection of the team, I am highly likely to strike the card and/or the argument rather than the team. Similar to the condo section, I do not particularly want to judge these debates and very rarely am certain enough that the practice should end the debate and/or be grounds for voting a team down.

Lastly, I am a very poor judge for strategies dependent upon out of round interactions. I believe the competitive aspects of debate makes the conversations incredibly unproductive and conversations outside of round are necessary (when possible) to resolve such disputes.

Misc:

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabbini and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Rafael Pierry and Elan Wilson the work ethic of DML, Kris Wallen, Don Pierce, Hana Bisevac, and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Affiliations

North Broward Preparatory School (Assistant Director): 2021 – Present

University of Michigan (Assistant Coach): 2020 – Present

Northwestern University: 2016 – 2020

Email Chain (yes): gabrielj348 [at] gmail.com

Placement

The affirmative team should read a topical plan that agrees with the resolution. The negative team should defend the status quo, a competitive alternative, or a topicality violation. The ballot picks a winner and I’m not likely to be persuaded I should attempt to use it for anything more.

Debate is a voluntary academic contest. Debate rounds should be as fair as possible. I’d strike me if you disagree with that premise. I’d also strike me if your argument says debate is bad, debate rounds should be unfair, the other team/school/community is bad, or in general requires avoiding a well-prepared opponent.

Community events and historical disputes should be separate from debate rounds. If a genuine issue arises during the debate, please alert whomever you feel most comfortable with (judges including myself, your coaches, the tab or tournament staff, etc.) and we will stop the debate. I won’t decide these issues through offense/defense, tech over truth, or line by line. Adhering to debate norms like speech and decision time, spreading, and the flow seems antithetical to resolving genuine concerns and is a disservice to all involved. Please avoid ad hominem attacks, reference to out of round events, or disingenuous complaints and/or accusations. I generally will not vote for them even if dropped.

Tech over truth in most debate... see above. Any argument is on the table. I won’t reject false arguments for the sake of truth alone, even when confident about the issue. I have a low threshold for dismissing incomplete or illogical arguments, especially if you are technically proficient and on the side of truth. My goal as a judge is too avoid unpredictable intervention without giving you a change to adapt. I’ll communicate in my decision if and where I thought I had to intervene, especially if an argument makes writing a coherent ballot for either side difficult.

I default to extinction bad/util good, especially if not told otherwise.

Topicality v. Planless

If the 1AC is planless or does not defend topical enactment of a government policy I am much better for the negative. If debated close to evenly I have a hard time reconciling affirmative offense with the competitive nature of debate.

I have presumptions that debate is first a game, games should be fair, and enforcing norms is not de facto violent. The negative does not need many words to convince me those things are true. If your arguments disagree with those premises, you should strike me.

Both fairness and clash are impacts and considering reasons why they might not be requires fair adjudication and clash.

I have a high threshold for what a complete argument is in framework debates (claim, data, warrant) and labeling something as a DA does not substitute for the parts that constitute one.

I will not footnote in presumed community knowledge or events and strongly prefer debates about the current topic to debates litigating past community conflicts. Even if included I’m not automatically convinced that these are inherently impacts, that the only negative ballot disavows history or that it’s inherently violent to agree with an interpretation that past 1ACs also violate.

I’ll likely vote neg if the following arguments are included: debate is a competition/game that requires fairness, preserving fairness is a prerequisite to achieving other potential worthy outcomes, well-prepared opponents who clash over the same topic improve the quality of rounds, improving rounds is good, strategic choices and competitive desire for the ballot motive every argument, claims to the contrary are strategic choices even if genuine, I should presume them to be motivated by competition since the only certain motivation I know is that all participants currently want the ballot, competing interpretations must consider the likely and worst allowed examples under each interpretation, no interpretation is every interpretation, the resolution is the most and likely only predictable interpretation, and what matters for predictability (and what the ballot is a referendum on) is whether the negative should be able to go for topicality in future debates when faced with a similar 1AC.

Topicality v. Plan

I’m best if you have a specific violation that was clearly tailored to the affirmative ahead of time. If your violation can be read against most 1ACs on the topic I think it’s probably wrong. I’ve voted for bad interpretations but have a low threshold for calling nonsense if there’s an answer that justifies doing so. Acknowledge strategic costs and benefits of an interpretation truthfully rather than asserting it is “best” for both sides or solves everyone’s offense.

I lean affirmative especially if the interpretation is unpredictable, poorly evidence, or creates a slightly more limited topic for the sake of limits. I often find myself frustratingly reading through the unhighlighted sections of out of context definitions that I wish someone had pointed out with an implication beyond “your card is from X”.

I’m more persuaded by debatability and fairness concerns than education. Connecting your standards to impacts and differentiating them each interpretation is important.

Fine for PTIV arguments and have made peace with vague plans. I think solvency and circumvention arguments are a better remedy than topicality.

Usually, I think that arguments that the topic is broken or unworkable for one side are overstated and should be mentioned once if not skipped.

Theory

Conditionality is the only presumed voting issue. Conditional advocacies may be infinite in number and introduced in either constructive. Advantages with intrinsic internal links are my preferred recourse. Most persuaded by logic.

I’d prefer if the negative didn’t CP out of straight turns but more for cowardice than theory reasons.

States uniformly doing the plan and/or all amending constitutions is questionable.

International fiat is bad.

Counterplans

Good for most but the more it tests the plan the better I am. Not a fan of CPs without evidence but evidence may be read after the 1NC.

Fine for process and I appreciate the craft that goes into writing them. They aren’t a personal strength or research priority so try to clearly explain the mechanism, scope of fiat, and standards. Mandate, effect, function language is useful.

Competition debates should include normative justifications for both definitions and counterplan/permutation interpretations.

You cannot selectively “defend” something for a DA but not for CPs.

Disadvantages

Politics is on life support. You should let it go. I have not judged a coherent politics debate backed by quality evidence in years. Most of these scenarios are nuked by a few analytics. There’s no bill yet? Zero risk. No vote for months? Zero risk. Biden must “sign off” tagged as “PC key”? Zero risk. No cards but somehow prices in all thumpers but can’t overcome the link? Zero risk. Bill solves climate change? Probably zero risk.

The block should read additional impact mods and carded turns case arguments.

Zero risk is possible but rare.

Case

I prefer numbered 1NCs that include solvency and internal link presses, re-cuttings, and case turns over a slew of analytics and impact defense. Don’t number if you can’t correctly refer to them throughout the debate. I’ll number my flow regardless.

Impact defense and alt causes are good but you should make arguments specific to the 1AC rather than copy paste a generic block.

2As get away with murder on the case. “Yes X, that’s Y” is not a complete argument. The block should exploit light 2AC coverage. I have a low threshold for zapping case. Being present in the 1AC is not a free pass to resurrect an argument in the 2AR.

Impact turns are great, some of my favorite debates. I tend to start with sustainability/impact framing before transition. Remember to answer/exploit arguments based on the specific internal link conceded to access the impact turn.

Kritiks

I’m better for the aff than neg but went for, have researched, and am gettable on kritiks. The more they test the plan the better.

I generally think the plan should be weighed for fairness/clash reasons, the neg should engage/turn/solve the case, and that permutation double bind is a good argument. I can be persuaded not to weigh the plan at all. I can also be persuaded to say Ks should functionally be CP/DA with link uniqueness, alt solvency, etc. The negative usually spends too much time doing a little of everything without developing anything. I’m more likely to vote neg on a K that’s clearly the Fiat K, no tricks or disguises, than a K that attempts to do everything at once and fix it in the 2NR.

Framework is the most important part of the K for me. I've often sat for the affirmative when the neg was ahead on most of the page but losing framework. If case is dropped and the affirmative gets to weigh it, I generally vote affirmative.

Don’t spend unnecessary time one FW without explaining the implication of winning your interpretation for the other parts of the debate. When both interpretations are compatible with one another (this happens too often and means your interpretation is probably not serving as much utility as you think) the team that identifies that first and allocates time accordingly usually wins.

Neg teams lose me when they conflate being slightly ahead on an interpretation like "we get links to stuff other than the plan" with "we don't need to answer case/those links auto-disprove/dismiss entire affirmative".

If you want the implication of your framework to be that I shouldn't weigh the case, clearly state that in the block.

I'm most persuaded by in descending order: neg can get links to stuff other than the plan, neg can lower the threshold for alt solvency, neg needn’t necessarily solve case to win, case doesn’t matter.

My ideal compromise is the neg gets links to things other than plan implementation but must win that the implication of those links outweighs/denies the hypothetical benefits of implementing the plan.

I am not “deep” in any particular literature base so explain your theory and apply it to the case as much as possible for Ks that are more complex than Capitalism, Security, etc.

I have yet to see a compelling reason why most identity kritiks negate the desirability of the plan or why debate should be primarily about a particular group. Explaining how the kritik implicates the case is very important in these debates. If your strategy does not attempt case debate I am probably bad for it.

Demonstrating an ontology argument does not automatically accomplish that task, necessitate a d-rule framing, or substitute for specific impact instruction and/or comparison. The neg needs to include reasons that winning a descriptive claim implicates normative ones. The world might really really really suck... the plan might make it better. Absent a strong framing argument that implicates that type of thinking, I’m probably voting affirmative.

Cross Examination

CX is important and you should consider it an extension of speeches. CX is binding and starts with the first question (no “did you read” before starting the timer).

You don’t have to answer questions after the timer, after rebuttals, or during prep time and I may not pay attention to questions asked outside of CX. Be reciprocal if you want them to clarify something post timer.

The negative should almost always include questions about the plan in 1AC CX. Random questions about impacts are not going to make or break the debate.

Questions about solvency/mechanisms/links/internal links/alternatives/competition > alt causes, meh analytics, impacts, revisiting past questions.

Evidence/Ethics

Inserting evidence is fine but should preferably be read out loud before the debate ends if you think it’s important. I’m probably won’t care much about recuts if you don’t restate the important lines in final rebuttals.

Ethics "violations" are not a thing. Ethics challenges are. I will stop the round and attempt to reconcile them according to what seems most fair and/or true, best adhering to the governing rules of the tournament. If your argument is best made as a link to something else, make it as a link. Anything rising above that threshold will stop the round and include the possibility of either team losing. Practically speaking this means think hard before saying "new sheet". If you aren't willing to stop the round, I'm not flowing or evaluating it. Speaks will be capped at 28.7 if the round stops. The round will not resume after it stops. There are too many low to no cost voting issues or ethics violations that heavily favor the accusing team, especially when it is evident that pre-tournament preparation has occurred. I will not continue the debate or "draw a line" from past speeches when questions of integrity or character on made.

Speaker Points/Decorum

Treat each other with respect. If you cannot, do not expect respect from others. Put simply, ask yourself if the room would be pleasant were everyone to behave like you.

If a core component of your strategy is ad homs, out of round accusations, screenshots, or refusing questions, strike me.

29.6 – 30.0: Top 1-10 debater at the tournament.

29.0 – 29.5: Should clear/win a speaker award.

28.5 – 28.9: Above average to solid.

28.0 – 28.4: Still learning, stick with it.

27.6 – 27.9: This was tough…

27.0 – 27.5: You were rude. Being here sucked.

25.0: You cheated/clipped/etc. Coaches or Tabroom should be alerted.

LD

I coached LD at Harker for a year but was mainly tasked with policy assignments. If you get me and treat it like a policy debate, you'll be fine. I'm not familiar with phil shells or tricks and very likely won't vote on them.

I'm honestly truth over tech in this activity because so many of the things people say are nonsensical. T is not an RVI. Conditionality is okay. Aff framework choice is fake. Don't proliferate new pages.

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

Texas DK

arnavdebates+judging@gmail.com

LD Update

This activity confuses me. I am not quite sure yet how the affirmative ever wins given speech times. I find myself always seeing too much ink for the negative and no affirmative responses. I expect to vote affirmative about 20% of the time.

Updated pre-woodward 2024

Yes email chain-- willkatzemailchain@gmail.com

I am currently a coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I debated in high school at Washburn Rural and in college at the University of Kansas.

I have a large amount of topic knowledge for the hs fiscal redistribution topic. I am actively involved in research and have judged at a lot of tournaments.

As a judge, these are the things that I care about (in order of importance):

1. That you treat all participants in the debate with respect and that your speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, could enthusiastically show my administration

2. That you flow the debate and use that flow to make and respond to arguments. I find that debaters are almost universally better at flowing if they try to flow and line arguments up on paper, not their computer.

3. That you are advancing logical, well-evidenced, warranted claims that demonstrate topic knowledge and research. I am not a good judge for you if your arguments are generally 1 sentence assertions, uncarded, or wholly irrelevant to the topic.

4. That you make good, bold strategic choices. I will give absurdly high speaker points to students that take good risks to collapse the debate to a small number of arguments that create favorable win conditions for them.

5. That you make comparisons between your arguments/evidence and your opponents. If your final rebuttals consist of more comparisons than summary and description, I am a great judge for you.

Note that "subject" isn't really on this list outside of it being relevant to the topic. I don't care if you read a soft left aff, go for topic-relevant critiques, read 90 plank advantage counterplans, or go for politics.

Everything below offers clarification on how this set of arguments plays out in practice

_________________________________________________

I love debate. I really, really like seeing students demonstrate that they are having fun, working hard, thinking about debate, researching the topic, and engaging in debates that reflect the topic's literature base. In many ways, debate is better now than it has ever been.

I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. If I am told about or personally observe behavior that I would consider in need of an intervention, I am going to approach the tournament administration about it rather than use my ballot as a punishment/reward system. If your speech explains how you are discriminated against, oppressed, bullied, or otherwise unsafe in debate, I am going to talk to the tournament administration instead of letting that be a matter of debate. Ad hom attacks against the other team are a sua sponte reverse voting issue. If you launch one against the other team, I will vote against you (whether your opponents tell me to or not). If your debate strategy relies on ad hom attacks against your opponents, I am not the judge for you. If your opponent is so horrendous of a person that you must levy ad hom attacks, please direct your complaints to the tabroom

Debaters should flow and use that flow to make arguments in a line-by-line fashion that responds directly to what the other team said. Debaters should not just read into a speech document for the entire speech.

Have fun! I more often vote for and give higher points to teams that have fun and are nice. If you are mean or look like you are here against your will, voting for you will be a challenge.

I am trying to adjust to modern speaker points. I still find it hard to believe that if you got a 29 in every debate, you would not have been particularly close to a top 25 speaker at Greenhill or St. Marks. That is the reality we live in, but it is a difficult pill to swallow.

Here are my biases.

-I prefer debates about the topic. That means aff with a plan and negative strategies that use arguments germane to the topic to say the plan is bad. That also means that I do not prefer super generic impact turns like spark/wipeout or arguments like "x author is bad so they should lose for introducing that author"

- I prefer specificity over vagueness. That's true with plans, cp's, da links, alternatives, etc. With me as a judge, vagueness is not as strategic as specificity.

-I care about cards. I want you to read good cards and a lot of cards. Good is more important than a lot, but if you end the debate and your card doc is 4 cards long, something has gone wrong.

- Plans have texts and functions. Unless the debating is very lopsided, I will probably not view the plan's text "in a vacuum" because I will also care about the action that the plan does. If that changes in every speech or multiple times a speech, I will be grumpy (see my point about vagueness)

-Bring theory back! Not in an annoying way where you always go for conditionality when you're losing. But in a way that punishes negative teams for relying on strategies that aren't germane to the aff.

-I feel reasonably strongly that "Social Security" refers to Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance and I think that affirmative teams that read an ssi/medicare/tanf/etc aff probably need to treat topicality as a very threatening 2nr choice. I haven't really seen debates over any other t argument yet.

-I think if evenly debated, I would agree with an aff team that said "cp's must have published solvency advocates." While others interpret this standard as necessarily arbitrary (what is a solvency advocate? Why can't the debaters be solvency advocates?), it seems like it would create a massive increase in the quality of debates for a relatively low amount of arbitrariness.

I am the Director of Debate at Georgetown University ('21-present), before which I was the Assistant DOD (2017-21). I am also an Assistant Coach for Westminster. Before that, I debated for 4 years at Georgetown. In high school, I debated only regionally, for a tiny high school in West Texas.

Please include me on the email chain: bwk9@georgetown.edu

***Update: November 2022***

My prior paradigm was 5+ years out of date. The following are patterns in my judging that you should be aware of when debating in front of me.

All of the items below, EXCEPT for the "D-Rules (not subject to debate)" section, are simply DEFAULTS in the absence of debaters making an argument that I should evaluate these things differently. I would prefer that the DEBATERS tell me how to evaluate things and why, in which case these priors should rarely , if ever, come into play.

D-Rules (NOT subject to debate)

1. Please include me on the email chain.

2. In high school debates, all of the participants are minors, and I will not hesitate to intervene in a debate if anything legally or ethically dubious is occurring. This includes any bullying, displays of sexism or racism, etc. Relatedly, there are arguments which are appropriate for the college context but that I will not--and, legally, cannot!--countenance in a HS debate (one example: the reading of uncensored explicit evidence a la Preciado).

3. Consider me dead inside with respect to any preferences regarding argumentative substance. However, I have very little tolerance for either arguments or ways of engaging that make any participant feel unsafe, and will intervene if necessary.

4. Allegations of an ethics violation will immediately end the debate. No take-backs. I will then inform the tabroom and follow the tournament's prescribed procedures, or in the lack of such procedures will unilaterally determine whether it rises to the threshold of an ethics VI. If so, the accuser will win; if not, the accuser will lose. If allowed for by the tournament rules, I will make a subjective determination regarding whether the violation (or accusation, if the accuser loses) was engaged in knowingly and/or in competitive bad faith, and if so will assign the lowest allowable speaker points. To help guide this determination: egregious or persistent clipping is a D-Rule. So is evidence falsification. Poor evidence "hygiene," e.g. ending in the middle of a paragraph, is a D-rule, but is unlikely to warrant the additional "poor speaks" sanction if it does not change the meaning of the card, whereas if it cuts out a strawperson it is likely to warrant the "poor speaks" sanction. Minor good-faith mistakes in evidence citation are very unlikely to rise to the threshold of a D-rule if it is left up to my discretion by tab and/or the tournament rules.

Things to Know About Debating In Front of Me

1. Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be, identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this as providing me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends. Absent this, I will come up with my own roadmap, but it is substantially less likely to work out in your favor and also I will be grumpy about it.

2. I have found that the way that arguments are characterized early in the debate often bears heavily on how I interpret and resolve disputes over them in the final rebuttals. This has accounted for numerous panel splits in debates I've judged the past couple years. If, for example, an argument is articulated in one way in the CXes (all of which I flow), I will tend to treat that articulation as binding; or, if a plan or counterplan is characterized in a given way in the 2NC and the 1AR does not push back on that characterization, I will adopt that understanding of the plan or counterplan and hold the line against 2ARattempts to rearticulate it.

3. Evidence: I value quality of argument and evidence. A smart, well-warranted analytic is far more valuable than a bad card. Research is at the core of what makes policy debate unique and valuable relative to e.g. Public Forum, Parli, etc. However, evidence matters only insofar as it provides reasons to believe you about your arguments (e.g. qualifications, warrants, etc.); it never constitutes an argument itself.

4. I will not read your speech doc, a practice which I've observed account for other panel splits in recent years. I will spot check specific pieces of evidence if they are contested in CX or in speeches. I will read cards I am directed to after the debate, but it is up to you to have leveraged them effectively in your speech--and, how good a card needs to be to get the job done on a given issue is inversely proportional to how well you debate it. If debaters want their evidentiary advantage to matter--as it should--they should do more evidence comparison, including as it relates to source quality, etc. The sole exception to this: if evidence is selectively underlined to an argument not even contemplated by the original, I reserve the right to unilaterally discount it (think here of the difference between underlining a movie script or selectively underlining words in unrelated sentences to concoct an argument never made in the source, vs. cutting a cards as a strawperson - the latter I will very unhappily accept if the other team does not contest it, albeit at the cost of speaker points, whereas the former I will probably not accept, if I notice it, even if the other team does NOT call it out).

5. Conceded arguments are true arguments. However, 1.) A complete "argument" consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact--assertions are not arguments, and thus are not "true" even if dropped. 2.) Receiving the full weight of an argument does not matter in-and-of itself--you must still unpack why that dropped argument impacts the rest of the debate, and if that explanation was not there initially then the implication component of that can still constitute a new argument to which responses are allowed.

6. CX filibustering: Some amount of it is part of the game, but if this is taken to a silly extreme, then I will not hesitate to pull a Dallas Perkins and tell you to "ANSWER the QUESTION" so as to enable a meaningful debate to occur

Argument Defaults

1. Absent arguments to the contrary, CX and 2AC clarifications of plan mandates constitute binding amendments to the plan text, making them presumptively legitimate sources of counterplan competition. (Merely saying that something is "normal means," however, does not make it a mandate, and thus is presumptively not a legitimate source of CP competition.)

2. My defaults are that conditionality is a.) an all-or-nothing thing and b.) is good. However, I have become increasingly open to contestation of either premise.

3. Plan vagueness is out of control, especially in high school, and I will gladly vote Neg on that, either as a voting issue in-itself or smart circumvention arguments or DA links about the way in which the vague plan would be most likely interpreted and applied.

4. Counterplan vagueness is also out of control. If your CP text boils down to, e.g., "do innovation" rather than outlining a mechanism for how to bolster innovation, and the Affirmative points out that that is meaningless, I will agree with the Aff.

5. Kritiks: By default I assume that the K is not a DA plus a CP and that therefore the debate is a referendum on whatever the Link/Alt is critiquing, e.g. the Aff's reps, epistemology, political paradigm, etc. I can be convinced of plan focus/FW-no Ks, particularly if it is grounded in arguments about the resolutional burden of proof and the Negative's reciprocal burden of rejoinder, though meeting in the middle is often the path of less resistance. I am also willing to adopt very Neg-friendly frameworks, e.g. 'you link you lose,' but with the proper Aff responses I will find them ultimately unpersuasive. Absent Aff FW arguments that render them applicable ('pragmatism good,' for instance, or arguments about reciprocity of burdens), I do not intuitively understand why arguments like 'movements fail,' 'transition wars,' 'alt not feasible / no one is persuaded,' etc. would be relevant considerations--but with them, I do.

Argument Defaults - K Affs

5. K Affs: I prefer that the Affirmative be "topical" slash affirm the resolution. I am pretty good for topical K Affs, insofar as I think that there is substantial room for play regarding what topical AFFIRMATION means/entails, and that the wording of the resolution does not necessarily prescribe that topical "affirmation" take the form of defending the narrow causal desirability of implementing a specific topical policy proposal.

However, if your approach when reading a K Aff is to impact turn topicality, the part I struggle with is how debate can be workable once we have left the resolution behind. To deal with this, please speak DIRECTLY to that question in some manner in the 2AR -- whether by explicitly saying that it's better for debate not to be workable, explaining why it will not become unworkable, clearly defending some alternative limiting principle for what the Affirmative win condition is in place of the resolution, or something else -- AND have that be clearly traceable to arguments you set up in the 2AC and 1AR.

6. Framework v. K Affs: I do find there to be a meaningful difference between "topicality," i.e. the Affirmative must affirm the resolution and did not, and "framework," i.e. the Affirmative did not debate or affirm in the specific manner the Neg would have liked for them to. It would behoove the Neg to leverage those differences in response to Aff offense that presumes the latter or blurs the line.

I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

Alternatively: feel free to say whatever "substantive" FW offense you'd like--I do find link turns to K Affs to often be truer than the K Affs themselves--BUT please do not just assert words like "clash" or "second and third level testing" without explication of what exactly you mean, why it is unique to your model of debate/foreclosed by the Aff's, and what the impact is; AND be aware that in so doing, you run the risk of making Aff impact turns LINK which otherwise would not.

I generally do not care about "T version," except insofar as it is explained in terms of what SPECIFIC lines of Affirmative offense are solved by the being able to read the Aff topically. (For example: "we need to go to X section of the library" is probably solved by T version, and arguably solved BETTER insofar as that model preserves a stronger ability and competitive incentive to dig into that issue than does the Aff's model). I DO think that that if a given Aff is COMPATIBLE with topical affirmation, that makes it easy to moot all of their offense while retaining a clear net benefit by saying that they should've have simply read the same Aff TOPICALLY (in essence, the same function that "T version" plays in a T debate vs. a policy Aff). In contrast, K Affs which are INcompatible with topical affirmation is generally better dealt with in front of me by "do it on the Neg" rather than a TVA.

Correspondingly: I tend to think that the best K Affs are centered not on K's of the resolution or topical Affs, but of BEING TOPICAL slash a model of topical debate--in which case the Neg will need to win that their model of debate is better, and a T version will only be useful in very specific, isolated instances for specific reasons.

New - NDT 24. Welcome to Atlanta!

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

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

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

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counter-plans-

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

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

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

LD -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF -

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

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

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

Update: This is still accurate. I am actively coaching / cutting cards on the HS topic.

Put me on the email chain: david.kingston@gmail.com --- Makes life easier.

Hi, I'm Dave.

I debated 4 years in High School in Albuquerque, NM. I graduated in 1989.
I also debated for 4 years in College at Arizona State and transferred to UMKC. I won CEDA Nationals and graduated in 1994.
After that, I was a grad assistant at the University of North Texas and coached debate for 2 years.
and then got married and took my wife's last name changing mine from Genco to Kingston.
and then was a grad assistant at KU for a couple of years.
and then was the Assistant Director at UMKC until 2000.
From 1994 until 2000 I taught at a bunch of camps.
I've helped out several college teams here and there in the last 5-6 years.
I am currently cutting cards and coaching Blue Valley Northwest on the high school topic.

If you have any questions ask.

TL/DR: I really don't have a preference for what you do in a debate round. I've judged a ton of them over the years. I suggest you do something that you do well.

K: Everyone wants to know if I'm ok with "the K" or "the criticism" or a "performance". Sure. That sounds good to me. I understand those types of arguments. I've become more up to date with some high theory and race/structural Ks. You do you. I don't hold them against you.

CP: You don't have to answer the aff if the Counterplan solves all of the aff and you should point out what disads/turns are net benefits to the counterplans. I do not default to judge kick. I default to you're stuck with what you go for unless you make some argument about it. If you make an argument about the counterplan being condo, then you have to kick it unless you make judge kick args.

DA: They're good. Uniqueness, link or impact defense, and foundational warrant comparison are all good ways to help resolve things. Please don't read generic impact stuff that doesn't take the context of the round into account. It helps my decision and comments if you differentiate your warrants or find ways to compare your link to the turn or vise versa. Do I believe in zero risk? Kinda. Dropped args are probably zero risk. But I default to the arguments made about risk. Generally though, I default to some risk on a contested debate unless the resolution of the arguments is made very clear (Uniqueness goes the wrong direction, dropped args with some analysis, deeper warrants etc.)

T: If you have a good interp you can defend and can do standard debating well, I'm willing to hear the debate.

K Affs: I have been more in touch with this style of debate in recent years. I'm pretty neutral in FW debates. If you're aff vs FW, isolate a couple pieces of offense and you should be all right.

Theory: I don't care about how many or what kind of condo if you can defend it.

Round Comments:

I try to stay neutral in my judging and vote on things said in the round, not things that I make up about things you say. I'll make things up if that's the only way to resolve stuff, but I never feel good about it. Don't make me feel bad, plz.

I don't care how fast you go as long as you don't have mush mouth and I can understand it.

I try not to be a jerk about prep time, please don't be a jerk about it either. That being said, we do have to have a debate and it does have to finish on time, so don't steal prep.

Also, don't clip cards. I read along in the speech doc.

Don't flash docs that contain a ton of cards you're never going to read, and don't mess with the speech docs (remove navigation, purposefully try to avoid sharing, or do other random crap that is borderline cheating). The other team gets to see everything you read, and vice versa.

None of that doesn't mean that you can expect me to ignore arguments that aren't in a speech doc. If it was said, it's an argument. You should FLOW.

I don't like posturing between speeches and during CX in debates. If you have comments to make about the way the other team is debating or the arguments they choose, then you should make them as an argument in a speech.

Speaker Points: I'm trying to achieve more clarity about how I assign speaker points. This should give you a good idea about what I'm thinking when I assign them. This is a bit of an upward departure from points I have given in the past. Basically, I'm looking at points as a consideration of whether or not I think the debating you did was of elim rounds quality or that your performance was worthy of putting you on track to win a speaker award. I have my standards, but my points will probably end up being .2 or so higher than I have given in the past.

Bonus speaker points if you find a way to win that doesn't assume you win all of your arguments.

Have fun and Good Luck!

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

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

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

Updated for 2023-2024 topic
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should judge the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.


Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.

Put me on the chain please: debate.emails@gmail.com, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. Given that I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (ie two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time. While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).

It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if for some reason you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."

Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

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

Experience:

Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)

Assistant Coaching--

Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)

Currently: Texas (2017-present)

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Max McCarty

I debated for a year in college at UTD for a Year, Coached at LFS for 3 years and now at Blue valley North. In HS I debated at BVSW and consitantly cleared at TOC tournaments my senior year.

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

Tech > Truth

• I have a lot less topic experience/knowledge than I have had on previous topics. I will definitely need more explaining of things than people who worked at or taught at camps over the summer. This will still be true throughout the season as I spend less time thinking about the topic than in previous years. Simply because I am less involved.
• Over the last couple years of judging I have noticed a trend of people flying through analytics at top speed off the speech doc, if you want me to flow them it is in your best interest to slow down here. If you are doing this and not realizing it my body language will definitely tell you I am not flowing.
• I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. Serious, good faith concerns should be brought to the tournament administration, not to the judge of a debate, if you have issue before the round, tournament, etc.
• not great/terrible for K v K debates, would rather be upfront for you. Doesn’t mean that I won't try my hardest for you all but it has never been in my realm of expertise, link/perm work is a must, with more explanation than you usually might do

T: As mentioned I have little to no experience with this topic, for T debates that means I need more explanation of what what they competing versions of the topic look like. I think the internal link and impact level of these debates often gets lost, and because of that I found reasonability to be more compelling than I used to in some debates.

Theory: I would certainly prefer to judge debates about the substance of the aff vs the neg, however theory debates are inevitable and here are some quick thoughts:

• I think more teams should go for it, but it should be unique to the debate. I find general arguments of copy and pasted blocks through each speech rather boring and repetitive, and will often conclude there is little offense to reject another team or argument on this. Ways you can fix this, make it unique to the debate ie: "it is not just that they read 4 condo, but the nature of all 4 "doing the whole aff", in tandem with how "CP competition works on this topic makes it uniquely bad..."
• I do generally find condo to be good, doesn’t mean I wont vote for it but it should have nuance to it vs passed down blocks.

FW:

I generally think affs should be about hypothetical government action on the topic. However that is my opinion and I will do my best to leave it at the door. I tend to vote 50/50 in these debates here are something that may be helpful for you.

• I generally find arguments about fairness compelling vs arguments about truth testing etc.

• I think clash in these debates are good. Teams need to apply their arguments to what has happened in round. This means you probably shouldn't be reading the same blocks every debate. If your aff this means a 1ar that is contextual to the block. If your neg this means actually answering the DAs the 2ac read etc.
• round vision and the ballot: I should know what voting aff or neg does. A lot of the time this is likely done via impact calc but can often be lost and makes it much harder. By the end of the 2ar I shouldn’t have to re read the 1ac to determine that or by the end of the 2nr I should have to re read the 1nc to determine that etc.

DAS:

They are great, Impact calc is great it should be done! Link arguments are only as specific or generic as you make them. If you read a generic one that is fine, but spin can make it more specific etc. Same is true with link and internal link defense.

CP:

I love them, they should probably compete with the aff. That can certainly be a debate to be had, but generally I find that in debates where teams are technically equal the truth of the argument typically shapes that tech.

Ks:

I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. I’m not well read in lit at all so explanation goes a long way. I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Case debate:

This is is a lost art. I think more teams need to be willing to engage with the aff. This can be done on a substance level, impact turns, smart analytical arguments, theory, etc. I have no issue with the neg reading as many offcase args as you want, but if you are doing so at the expense of a well developed case debate than don’t be surprised if I conclude a high risk of the aff, when there is little engagement with it.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards. if you do not and another team asks for a marked copy I will make you take prep within my arbitrary judgement of what that is.

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.

Debated @ UNT 2009-2014

Coach @ St Marks since 2017

Coach @ UTDallas since 2018

If you have questions, feel free to email me at mccullough.hunter@gmail.com

For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.

T-Theory

-I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

- Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins.

- I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation. I also don't think that's a very high standard for the negative to be held to, as many interpretations (especially on this space topic) will be hot fiery garbage.

- My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff to win these debates if the neg can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff is better read as a kritik on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.

- "The aff was unpredictable so we couldn't prepare for it so you should assume it's false" isn't a good argument for framework and I don't think I've ever voted for it.

CPs

- I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive.

- I think the neg gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's solvency evidence is really bad. - Absent a debate about what I should do, I will kick a counterplan for the neg and evaluate the aff v. the squo if the CP is bad/not competitive

- I don't think the 2NC needs to explain why severence/intrinsicness are bad, just win a link. They're bad.

- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff.

- I don't think illegitimate CPs are a reason to vote aff.

Disads

- Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say.

- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well.

- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. "Disad/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg advantage".

Ks

- My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying.

- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation.

- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff is lying/wrong.

- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well.

- If you're aff, and read a policy aff, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.

Case

-Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg is no different than conceding a disad on the aff. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier.

- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense.

- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg argumentation.

Paperless debate

I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence.

Clipping

I've decided enough debates on clipping in the last couple of years that I think it's worth putting a notice in my philosophy. If a tournament has reliable internet, I will insist on an email chain and will want to be on that email chain. I will, at times, follow along with the speech document and, as a result, am likely to catch clipping if it occurs. I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'm unlikely to say anything about a missed short word at some point, but if I am confident that clipping has occurred, I will absolutely stop the debate and decide on it. I'll always give debaters the benefit of the doubt, and provide an opportunity to say where a card was marked, but I'm pretty confident of my ability to distinguish forgetting to say "mark the card" and clipping. I know that there is some difference of opinion on who's responsibility it is to bring about a clipping challenge, but I strongly feel that, if I know for certain that debaters are not reading all of their evidence, I have not only the ability but an obligation to call it out.

Other notes

- Really generic backfile arguments (Ashtar, wipeout, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are really terrible, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout debates) and bad for debate.

- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.

Finally, here is a short list of general biases.

• The status quo should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality. It does mean that I will, absent arguments against it, judge kick a counterplan and evaluate the case v the squo if the aff wins the cp is bad/not competitive)
• Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really)
• The aff gets to defend the implementation of the plan as offense against the K, and the neg gets to read the K
• Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude 
• Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education
• Consult counterplans aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable.
• Rider DA links are not intrinsic
• Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts
• The aff should defend a topical plan
• Death and extinction are bad
• Uncooperative federalism is one of the worst counterplans I've ever seen

Ryan McFarland
Debated at KCKCC and Wichita State

Two years of coaching at Wichita State, 3 years at Hutchinson High School in Kansas, two years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, now at Blue Valley Southwest.

email chain: remcfarland043@gmail.com, bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com

Stop reading; debate. Reading blocks is not debating. You will not get higher than a 28.3 from me if you cant look away from your computer and make an argument.

I've seen deeper debates in slow rounds than I've seen in "fast" rounds the last couple years. "Deep" does not mean quantity of arguments, but quality and explanation of arguments.

Talk about the affirmative. I've judged so many debates the last couple years where the affirmative is not considered after the 1AC. Impact defense doesn’t count. I don't remember the last time my decision included anything about impact defense that wasn't dropped.

I am not a fan of process counterplans. I’m not auto-vote against them, but I think they’ve produced a lazy style of debating. I don’t understand why we keep coming up with more convoluted ways to make non-competitive counterplans competitive instead of just admitting they aren’t competitive and moving on with our lives.

I'm not good for the K. I spent most of my time debating going for these arguments, have coached multiple teams to go for them, so I think I understand them well. I've been trying to decide if it's about the quality of the debating, or just the argument, but I think I just find these arguments less and less persuasive. Maybe its just the links made on this topic, but it's hard for me to believe that giving people money, or a job, doesn't materially make peoples lives better which outweighs whatever the impact to the link you're going for. I don't think I'm an auto-vote aff, but I haven't voted for a K on this topic yet.

If you decide to go for the K, I care about link contextualization much more than most judges. The more you talk about the aff, the better your chances of winning. I dislike the move to never extend an alternative, but I understand the strategic choice to go for framework + link you lose type strategies.

An affirmative winning capitalism, hegemony, revisionism true/good, etc. is a defense of the affirmatives research and negative teams will have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

I think K affirmatives, most times, don't make complete arguments. They often sacrifice solvency for framework preempts. I understand the decision, but I would probably feel better about voting for an affirmative that doesn't defend the topic if it did something.

Zero risk is real. Read things other than impact defense. Cross-ex is important for creating your strategy and should be utilized in speeches. Don’t be scared to go for theory.I will not vote on something that happened outside of a debate, or an argument that requires me to make a judgement about a high school kid's character.

Don't clip. Clarity issues that make it impossible to follow in the doc is considered clipping.

Debate Coach - University of Michigan

Debate Coach - New Trier High School

Michigan State University '13

Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
• I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
• Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
• Email-sending related failures
• Dead time
• Stealing prep
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
• Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: I would say that I generally lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps, but obviously am more than willing to vote for them if they are debated better by the negative.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have the president personally decide not to go to war with China would not be. Similarly CPs that fiat a concept or endgoal rather than a policy would also fall under this.

It is the burden of the neg to prove the CP solves rather than the burden of the aff to prove it doesn't. Unless the neg makes an attempt to explain how/why the CP solves (by reading ev, by referencing 1AC ev, by explaining how the CP solves analytically), my assumption is that it doesn’t and it isn’t the aff’s burden to prove it doesn’t. The burden for the neg isn’t that high but I think neg teams are getting away with egregious lack of CP explanation and judges too often put the burden on the aff to prove the CP doesn’t solve rather than the neg to prove it does.

Disads: Uniqueness is a thing that matters for every level of the DA. I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Theory: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. Take from that what you will.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad. If not, you're better off with it primarily being a framework argument.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about debatability, clash, iterative testing and fairness to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Atlanta Urban Debate League (UDL). Decatur, Ga. Currently I teach AP Lang and direct a small AUDL program without a ton of institutional support but in a previous life I coached mostly policy on the national circuit. In fact, I've been around long enough to see the activity go from notecards in ox boxes to xeroxed briefs to some computerized debates to having everything online. I prefer to flow on paper because that's how I learned back in the dark ages.

You can put me on the E mail chain: mcmahon.beth@gmail.com.

For UDL tournaments:

I am an old school policy coach and do not love the K (even though my teams do run it) because teams just read their blocks and don't evaluate the round. That said, if you run the K, awesome -- be ready to debate the line by line and go for something other than framework. See my note below about having an advocacy of some sort.

For the Barkley Forum: If you are in speech events, know that my background is in policy. If you are a policy debater, know that I haven't judged a lot of varsity debates this year so watch the topic specific acronyms. From what I've seen it will be fine but just wanted you to be aware.

Old stuff:

Current Urban Debate League coach (Atlanta/AUDL) but a long time ago (when we carried tubs, no one had a cell phone, and the K was still kinda new) I used to coach and judge on the national circuit. I took a sabbatical from coaching (had kids, came back, things have changed, no more tubs). I still flow on paper and probably always will. FYI -- I have not judged national circuit varsity debates consistently since 2008 when I worked at a now-defunct national circuit program that had some money for travel. I've been told I'm more tech over truth and although I enjoy listening to K debates I don't have a K background (my national circuit experience has all been old school policy so like DA plus case plus CP). If you are a K team I expect some sort of ADVOCACY not just a bunch of block reading and a framework dump. If you don't have a plan you still need to advocate FOR something. Theory dumps are very frustrating to me because I don't know how to evaluate the round.

Crystalizing the round in rebuttals is an important skill - especially in front of a judge like me that did not spend 8 weeks at camp nor has read all of the lit. Or maybe any of the lit. You absolutely will be more familiar with your evidence than I will so please don't expect that kind of deep dive into the post round discussion. There was a point in my life when I could have those discussions, but I'm not there anymore. I am however more likely to buy your case attacks or a topicality argument so there's that.

Notes for IE/LD -- I judge more policy debate than LD/IE/PF/Congress but at some point this year have judged all of the above. I tend to be more tech over truth with LD and am looking for some sort of impact analysis of the values presented. My policy team does not run the K and debates more traditionally -- one of the most underutilized strategies in LD is to debate the other team's case.

Email: mjmcmahon3739@gmail.com

Assistant coach for Blue Valley North

Debated 4 years at Blue Valley North, currently in 4th year at Kansas

One thing that may be instructive for having me as a judge is my speaker points are equally likely to reflect how much I enjoyed judging a debate as the skill of each debater. Debate is a fun activity. The most fun debates are ones where debaters are engaged, impassioned, and noticeably enjoying what they’re doing. I love seeing debaters smile and give speeches like they have a personal investment in what they’re saying. I know debate is hard and tiring and takes a lot of work and detracts from school. But you’re here for a reason, and if I can infer that reason during the debate, I’ll reward you for it and everyone will have a better time!

Here are some opinions I have about arguments and the state of debate. None of these opinions are fixed obviously, I just think it’s important you all know.

Conditionality is getting a bit out of hand these days… the 1NC with a 20 plank advantage counterplan and uniqueness counterplans atop every DA will frustrate even the most poised 2A. I am probably a better judge for condo bad than others. I think debate might actually be better if the 2AC could punish the NEG for a sloppy 1NC. It’d be interesting to see how dispositionality would actually play out

I don’t think 2NC counterplans out of 2AC straight turns are legitimate if they disagree with a core premise of the 1NC. For example, if the 1NC says “X bill rides the plan, that’s bad”, and the 2AC impact turns the bill, I can be easily persuaded the 2NC doesn’t get to counterplan “pass X bill”, because they already said that bill was bad and the 2AC made a strategic choice to develop offense there instead of elsewhere

Small(er) 1NC’s that disagree with the core premises of the AFF will always be better than giant 1NC’s whose only goal is make the 2A suffer and extend what’s undercovered. I get it, I know why it’s strategic, but well-developed offense intrinsic to the AFF is so much more fun to judge and educational for the debaters. If you have the goods to spend an entire 1NR link turning an advantage, that would be infinitely better than a process counterplan that needs 4 minutes of AT: Perm do the counterplan just to appear competitive

Evidence quality and highlighting matters so much. I cannot stand evidence with highlighting being scattered and not forming coherent sentences. I swear some cards these days don’t make a comprehensible argument, and I will not fill in the holes in your highlighting for you

Probably better for reasonability than most. I find the argument “precise evidence shapes the predictability of a limited topic” persuasive.

K’s can be incredibly potent, and I love them when deployed correctly, but too often I judge debates where the K is just one big solvency push. “Reform bad because it makes the state look good” and “AFF fails because nebulous theory of power true, vote NEG” are too defensive. Get specific, tell me why the AFF is bad, not imperfect

Not good at all for any genre of K that says death is good or we should accept unnecessary suffering

The less jargon you need to explain your K’s theory the better for me personally. I need to understand your argument before I can decide if you won it

Really really love impact turns

I think there are only a handful of debaters and coaches in the country who actually understand counterplan competition. I’m in my 8th year and Bricker is still coddling me through this aspect of debate. It’s very fun and interesting, but confusing, so if you can debate that theory well, I will have the utmost respect for you

Regarding framework, fairness can be an impact. It can also be an internal link to a host of other impacts. I think non-topical AFFs should choose whether they want to impact turn framework or read counterinterps to play some defense. I've found attempting both rarely helps the AFF.

Some of the things I wrote above might lead some to conclude I only ever vote AFF lol (you can tell I’m a 2A), that’s false. You can make the block only an impossibly limiting T arg, psychoanalysis, and con con with an internal net benefit and I’ll vote on any and all of them if you debate them well. The opinions above are only there to say it might not be my favorite debate.

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021

I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take topic-specific terms and warrants in camp arguments for granted.

Be nice.

I prefer that you read a plan.

Infinite condo is better than no condo.

If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.

I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.

I'm not great for high theory.

Impact turn the K.

email: dylanmichalak2003@gmail.com

Jack Moore

Affiliation: 4 years at Jesuit Dallas, currently at Trinity University

2N Life

Email: mojack221.goo@gmail.com

Updated: 3/5/24

Round Procedure

- Send out the 1ac before start time, not after. The debate starts at start time.

- Send cards in a doc - not the body of the email

- Prep stops when docs are saved. Deleting Analytics is Prep. Don't send cards in the body of the email. If you do, I will make you take prep to put it in a document and send it.

- Respect your opponents and be nice to each other.

- Inserting Evidence: I'm conditionally fine with it. If it from a different part of the article that the other team hasn't cut, you must read it. If it's highlighting parts of the card that they just didn't underline or highlight, you don't have to read it IF you paraphrase or do the work to explain why the re-highlighting matters. BUT, if it's so important, you may as well read it because that's powerful

- Disclosure: new affs are good. Disclosure ought to happen, but it does not need to happen. Mis-disclosure is the only type of disclosure theory I will vote on and for that to happen I either need to have seen the mis-disclosure, which I probably won't OR both teams need to agree on what happened during CX or something.

- While I won't punish the lack of disclosure, I think generally keeping an updated wiki is good, so tell me if you have one and if you update it before my decision, I'll add a few points. If the wiki is down or some uncontrollable happens where that's not possible, I'll assume good faith.

Online Debates:

- if my camera is not on, I'm not ready

- please slow down.

- I'd encourage cameras to be on the whole debate, but obviously understand that's not always possible

- please get confirmation everyone is ready.

How I Go About Judging Debates

- I take judging very seriously and recognize the hard work you all put into it. Debate is not easy and sometimes it is very difficult to even show up to a tournament, much less debate your best every round. I do my best to keep a positive attitude and facilitate learning. You get my full attention during the debate and in the post round. I appreciated the judges and coaches who helped me grow as a debater by not just deciding the round, but also gave extensive feedback on how to improve. I strive to do the same.

- I'm not very expressive unless you say something absurd. I'm not really grumpy, that's just my face.

- Flowing:

- a) medium: I flow on paper 99% of the time. For me, that means I flow the debate and track it by the line by line. Even if you just speak "straight down" in overview fashion, I will still try to line things up to where I think that goes on the flow. It would benefit you to tell me either directly where you are going on the line by line OR tell me a different way to flow and give me plenty of pen/organization time.

- b) instrument: I prefer pen. G2 .38 or .5. I write a lot so slowing down is good

- Reading Evidence: I don't read evidence during the debate. I do not have the speech docs open during your speeches. I look at cards during prep if they are being disputed.

- Speed: Go for it. Clarity, Organization, and Pen Time are all essential to effective speed.

- Evidence quality > quantity. Part of this includes highlighting sentences/making your cards comprehensible. If I look at cards, I only look at the highlighting you read.

- Decisions: I start with important frames and judge instructions given by the 2nr/ar. I think through different ballots that could be given, exploring all possible victories for each team. I pick the one I think is most supported by the round.

- Trolls: If you've done the work to cut a lot of cards that at least have the illusion of quality and demonstrate how your argument interacts with the other teams in significant ways, I'm fine for you. If it's a terrible back file check or something that anyone could prep in 30 minutes, I'm not your judge and your points will suffer. It also helps if your argument has an impact instead of only trying to trigger presumption.

Fiscal Redistribution Thoughts

-This topic is great and you're lucky you get to debate it.

- single payer not topical

- When all things lead to the economy, differentiation, comparison, and interaction of the internal links is super helpful. Inflation pressures o/w government spending because XYZ warrants for example

- In terms of argument and evidence quality, the capitalism good-bad debate is one sided. If evenly debated, I’m probably going with cap bad.

The rest of the philosophy is mostly me rambling and heavily influenced by the explanation in any given round.

Case:

- It's underutilized - specific internal link and solvency arguments go a long way in front of me. Strategically, a good case press in the block and 2nr makes all substantive arguments better

- Impact turns are fantastic

Topicality:

- I evaluate Topicality like a CP and DA. You ought to do impact calc and have offense and defense to the other team’s stuff.

DA:

- I will vote on defense against a DA. There's probably always a risk, but that doesn't mean I care about such risk

- ev comparison or judge instruction about micro moments in the debate goes a long way for winning individual parts of a DA.

- I like good evidence that contains arguments. You should keep that in mind before going for politics.

- Most politics DAs end up sounding more like the political capital K to me, meaning they lack any specific internal link from an unpopular plan to an agenda item. I really hope the economic inequality topic fixes this issue, but I doubt it.

CP:

- For questionably competitive CPs, clarity on the difference between the aff and the cp, what words if any are being defined, and an organized presentation of why your standard is better are crucial. It would also be helpful to slow down on texts, perms, theory, the usual stuff. Blippy cards and analytics mixed with speed are the enemy of the flow.

- Solvency advocates that compare the CP to topic or plan mechanisms greatly help in winning competition and theory

- I don't judge kick unless instructed to in the 2nr. Debate to me is about choices and persuasion. So unless your choice in the 2nr explicitly includes the fail safe of judge kick, I'm not going to do it for you.

Theory:

- I don't think I lean heavily aff or neg.

- Conditionality is debatable. Quantitative interps don’t make sense to me. Condo is good or bad. Fun fact, dispositionality was originally used because it was in a thesaurus under the word conditionality. This is to say, if your interp is anything under than condo bad, I'm going to need you to unpack the terms for me.

- My default is to reject the argument for all things except conditionality. This shouldn't deter you from going for theory given rejecting a CP usually means the neg has little defense left in a debate.

K:

- Good K debating is good case debating. A good critique would explain why a core component of the 1ac is wrong or bad.

- The link is the most important part of the debate. Be specific, pull 1AC lines, say what you are disagreeing with, give examples, etc. Explain why winning the thesis takes out specific parts of the solvency or internal link chain. More link debating is my number one comment to teams going for the K.

- Framework needs a purpose and that purpose should be communicated to me. Affirmatives often go for arguments about links to the plan or weighing the impact, when the neg agrees. Make sure you explain how your fw arguments explain how I evaluate the link, impact, alt, solvency, whatever. It should be explicit how winning framework changes the debate. I’m more persuaded when framework is explained as impact prioritization.

- Defend things. The neg should have a clear disagreement with the aff. The aff should defend the core assumptions of the aff. If you're reading an aff that defends US hegemony, going for super specific internal literature indicts against a settler colonialism K won't help you. A defense of IR scholarship, realism, impact prioritization, and alt indicts might.

- I don't care for alts.

- Perms against pessimism Ks, absent some specific perm card, have generally been unpersuasive to me.

K affs:

- Go for it. They should have some connection to the topic and some statement of advocacy. If you can read your aff on every topic without changing cards or tags, I’ll enjoy the debate less, but it's your debate, not mine.

- Role of the ballot means nothing to me and often a substitute for judge instruction

- Presumption questions are usually just questions of framework and the value the aff's model provides. Neg teams spend way too much time asking questions about ballot spill up or the debate round changing the world. We all agree fiat illusory is a bad argument in a policy prescription model of debate. Why is it all of the sudden good now? Your time is much better served explaining how the aff's model of debate is counterproductive to its benefits. In other words, answer the should not would question.

- Aff teams should critique presumption in favor of the status quo.

Framework/T USFG

- Framework debates are important because they force us to question fundamental assumptions and norms of the activity. It's about models of debate. Convince me yours is good and theirs is bad.

- I'm open to most impacts to framework. I judge them like most debates where I compare the aff's offense to the neg's offense, defense, and framing arguments from 2nr and 2ar. I have voted for and against all the common impacts for T-USFG/traditional FW (procedural fairness, clash, topic mechanism education, agonistic democracy, advocacy skills, etc).

- I'm not the biggest fan of aff strategy's vs T that exclusively rely on the impact turn. It's a really hard sell that the idea of a topic for debate shouldn't be a thing. I think the impact turns are more persuasive if the neg is exclusively going for fairness or it's a game with no other value. However, if the neg has a coherent defense of clash, negation, or research over a limited topic plus defense against the impact turn, I'm likely to be persuaded by the T strategy.

- The inverse of this is that when the aff has a counter interpretation that defines resolution words in creative ways, I find it very hard for the negative to win much offense. I'm much more persuaded by an argument that says singular interpretation of the topic as mandating simulated federal government policy are unpredictable and bad than I am by the argument we should throw away the topic because it can be read in a singular way.

Speaker Points:

- a bit arbitrary, but I'll start at 28.5 and go up and down based on the round

- factors I consider: smart arguments, strategic choice, and organization are the biggest factors in determining speaker points

________________________________________________________________________

Paradigm from 2017 through February 2024.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD June 13, 2022

A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

Email: tapachecolbdb8er@gmail.com; also on debatedocs if that matters.

***2019 NDT/TOC Update***

1) Background

A) College- I have judged fewer than 15 college debates on the executive powers topic. I have done some research on it.

B) High school- I have judged fewer than 20 high school debates on the immigration topic. I have done significant research on it.

C) I have legal knowledge as a background. Rarely has it made any difference in a debate. It has helped in cutting cards in providing a context I would not otherwise have regarding legal processes.

2) Debaters should be better at resolving debates and providing relative comparisons at a meta-level. Tell me why you have won a particular portion of a debate AND why that matters relative to the remainder of the debate.

3) Specificity matters to me. I have found over the course of judging that debates in the abstract are the most difficult to judge. Whether it is the specificity of a disad link or an explanation of limits on T, specificity to the context of a particular debate is critical in terms of how you contextualize your arguments.

***Old Update***

So I thought about my previous philosophy, and I didn’t think I would like it if I were a debater and read it. So I will try to provide (hopefully) more useful insight into what I think about debate. I have no idea what situations will occur and what defaults I may have given my limited amount of judging, but I think explaining what I thought about debate as a debater will help.

I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington.

The way to get me to vote for you is to tell me what to vote on and how to evaluate it. Force my hand, think about the debate from a holistic perspective. Compare arguments. Make even if statements.

What did I really value that I got out of debate?

Fun- I thought debate was a ton of fun. Thinking quickly on my feet, trying to predict what people would say, cutting a ton of cards. I loved debate.

Critical thinking- I do not think anything ever made me think as hard and as complexly as debate. Limited prep time, strategic decisions needing to be made. Thinking about the best arguments to be made against a certain team or with a certain judge. Thinking the way debate teaches has helped me in undergrad, law school, and in life. It teaches a certain way of thinking that is invaluable.

Advocacy- debate taught me how to make an argument, and how to win it in front of anyone. Strip debate of the jargon, and you know how to make an argument in any context. It enhanced my paper writing and has helped me in a lot of situations I think.

How did I get this out of debate?

Rigorous testing. Equitably difficult debate where both teams rigorously test each other’s arguments produces an activity that I found fun, helped me to think critically in quick and strategic ways, and taught me how to make arguments efficiently. I fundamentally think that debate is about rigorously testing positions. You can have debates about anything, but I think this is how I would describe it to people outside of debate and is what debate should be in my normative world.

Why does this matter?

It shapes what I think about debate positions, or is my default for evaluation. This is one of many possible frames I could use. But this is where I start, and it shapes my perception of topicality, to CP competition, to Ks, to theory, to speaker points.

FW

I do think I am open to listening to alternative constructions of debate, but what that is and looks like needs to be tangible to me for me. The team that answers the question- what world of debate is most equitably rigorous wins. My presumption about rigorous testing can be challenged, and I do not know what I will think once I start judging. It is my default though. I think the topic has value insofar as it sets a stasis for argumentation from which rigorous testing commences. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.

Topicality

Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates because they determine whether the neg has the opportunity to rigorously test the aff. Caselists are useful for either side.

I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.

CPs

For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. I do think there are arguments that can be made that bad CPs are a reason to reject the team, but it is not my default presumption. There are two questions that I think are important to answer- does the CP rigorously test the aff AND how critical is the CP in the literature? I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes evaluating them difficult.

Conditionality does not differ for me from other CP theory in that the question is about rigorous testing. I do think conditionality is rampant. I think contradicting positions are bad, but can also have different implications in debates- does using the same reps you k’ed mean that perm- do the alt is legit, or that the alt fails? Probably. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.

My presumption is against intervening to kick the CP for the 2nr. If I am told to do it, I might if the aff drops the argument. If they don’t, I probably won’t.

College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even if the resolution tries to write this out of debates.

Ks

I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting because they rigorously test the aff. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins, and neg teams should invest more if the role of the ballot is distinct from my presumption of testing. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args. Generalizations do not test the aff. Dropping the 1ac does not test the aff.

I think try or die is how I think about ks. Ks that are the strongest in persuading me control the impact uniqueness of the debate. I find aff arguments about trends in the status quo more important than other people because of that (for example, if the environment is sustainable, winning a consumption k becomes much harder). Affs should focus on alt solvency and how to evaluate impacts.

Disads

I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.

I think zero risk is possible.

I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.

General

You will receive a bump in speaker points if you read quals.

I flow cross-x.

Demonstrate topic knowledge.

I like specific arguments better than general ones.

I think long overviews are overrated and are a way to avoid clash.

Start impact calculus early.

Indict specific evidence- the quals and the warrants.

Explain to me why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents.

Tell me when an argument is new or dropped.

Be comprehensible.

2as should not blow off arguments on the case.

Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete. An argument is a claim and warrant.

Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness.

Be organized- with yourself in the debate as well as your arguments.

Do not steal prep.

Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.

***Previous philosophy***

Short version

I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I have not judged so much that there is a predisposition that is so strong not to be able to be overcome. You do you, most things are up for debate. I prefer specific strategies over general strategies regardless of what those strategies deploy. I prefer CP/Politics or Politics/Case debates. I think the real way to being happy with a decision from me is to tell me what to do and how to assess arguments in the debate. The team that tells me what to do at the end of the debate and has the best reasoning for it will win.

I like hard work. Debaters that work will hard will be rewarded for doing so. I will also work my hardest to give every debater the credit they deserve while I am making a decision.

Coaches who have had a formative impact on me – Adrienne Brovero, Daryl Burch, Tom Durkin.

Judges I liked that I would like to be like – Lawrence Granpre, Scott Harris, Fernando Kirkman, Sarah Sanchez, Patrick Waldinger. I promise I will not be as good as these people, but I use them as a model for how I want to judge.

Background

I was a 2a and a politics debater in college, and a 2n that relied on the cap k and topicality in high school. I have done significant research on the oceans topic, and a little on the college topic.

FW

I default policymaker. I think the topic is set up to be instrumentally affirmed. Again, not so much so that I will not listen to other arguments or perspectives. For the neg, I am strong believer in fairness as well as the skills that debate teaches. I think predictability is necessary for debates to happen. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.

Topicality

Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates. Caselists are useful for either side.

I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.

CPs

For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. That does not mean that I think that all CPs are good OR that I would be unwilling to vote on a cheating CP. I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes voting on them difficult. Most teams get away with bad/illegitimate CPs because the aff is terrible at executing, or the neg has some trick. I also think the more contextual a CP is within a set of literature, the harder it is to beat on theory questions. I have no predispositions on CP theory – I am willing to listen to it.

Conditionality is different than other CP theory args for me. It is certainly excessive most of the time. It gets egregious when positions contradict. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.

College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even the resolution tries to write this out of debates. I think what is “nearly all” is what the literature says it is. I am also compelled that maybe the topic is so bad that these pics are important for the neg.

Ks

I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting. The more specific to the topic, and the more specific to the aff, the better. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args.

Disads

I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.

I think zero risk is possible.

I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.

General

I think long overviews are overrated.

Start impact calculus early.

Be comprehensible.

Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete.

Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness.

Be organized.

Do not steal prep.

Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.

Have fun – that’s why I do this.

Updated for Economic Inequality Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

This Year's Topic: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating and are better equipped to win my ballot.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Preface
Yes I want to be on the email chain. nickspereda@gmail.com.
Don't steal prep
I have not done research or judged a lot this year so at least for the first few tournaments keep that in mind.

Summary
I like flex debating and enjoy diverse strategies, so you do you and I will try to judge you with as little argumentative biases as possible. That being said, I am a human and I do have preferences.

I think the aff should read a plan text and defend it. At worst, I think the aff should have a strong resolutional basis. Probably related to that, I'm likely not the greatest judge for super K-oriented strategies. This is not to say I do not enjoy these debates or won't vote for Ks, but that you will have to do more work explaining the theory and its relationship to the aff than average.

I feel much more qualified in "policy" debates. I like wonky and technically intensive stuff so do something interesting.

Isolate what impacts you think you have a chance of winning and compare it to the impacts you think the other team has a chance of winning.

Speed:
I'm good with it but don't sacrifice clarity. Slow down on theory arguments, give me pen time.

*For online tournaments: Maybe slow down a bit to compensate for mic quality so I can still understand what you're saying.

Tech vs. Truth:
Tech> Truth. Being on the side of truth is obviously a good thing and I'm hesitant to consider arguments that are objectively false, but if you can't answer an argument that's really really bad, then you should lose anyways.

Evidence vs. Spin:
I think research is the most important aspect of debate and should be rewarded. I will read every card that I think I need to at the end of the round, so isolate evidence you think is really good or important. That being said, cards are support for larger arguments, meaning that I will default to your explanation of an argument or card whenever it makes sense.

In technical debates, have a card doc for the end of the round so I don't have to look around for relevant cards.

Quality>quantity

Specific argument preferences:
Topicality:

I went for T a lot in both high school and college and think a lot of debaters just aren't as good at debating it or as willing to go for it as a lot of other argument categories. Well executed T debates are really fun for me, but poorly executed T debates are the least enjoyable type of debate to judge. Limits and ground aren't impacts, they're internal links to things like education, fairness, research models, etc. I default to competing interpretations but reasonability is a winnable argument.

RVI's are bad arguments.

T comes before theory.

Case lists are good and necessary.

Actually engage with the other teams arguments, most T debates I've judged at this point have felt like ships passing in the night and forced me to resolve a lot of stuff on my own which should never be what you want. Statistically I lean neg in these debates, but I think that's because a lot of 2Ns only go for T if it's very clear cut which is unfortunate.

DA:
Cool. Aff specific DAs are much cooler (and usually easier to win).

There is such thing as zero risk and I think the link usually controls the direction of uniqueness.

Do a lot of turns case analysis that's actually contextualized to the internal links of the 1AC. Not much else to say.

CP:
Good, not much else to say. I will say that I like advantage CP + Impact turn debates a lot.

Word PICs should be based on a word in the plantext, anything other than that is meh.

Read a solvency advocate, each plank should be based on evidence or something the other team said.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless you tell me to.

Ks:

Material> High theory

I have a high threshold for the link portion of the debate. Root cause claims are not links but they can be solvency deficits. Fiat not being real is not an argument. Links of omission are the worst arguments in debate.

If I don't feel like I can explain your K to someone else by the end of the round then I will not feel comfortable voting for you.

Ks that advocate for death or suicide are not only bad arguments in the context of debate, but also morally objectionable and I will not vote for them.

K affs:
I am not the best judge for this. I prefer debates focused around a plan, and in nearly all of the clash debates I have judged at this point I have voted for FW.

I don't know that my ballot has the potential to do anything beside designate a winner or loser, and debate isn't meant to come to a final decision on the truth of any given statement but come to a determination on subjective truth so I don't think subject formation arguments are very persuasive.

The aff should at a minimum be related to the topic. You should also have some clear advocacy statement that you defend consistently. The CI should be predictable and res grounded with definitions. USFG = "the people" is intellectually dishonest and just not a good argument.

FW vs. K Affs:
Go for it, it's the most strategic 2NR available.

I'm more likely to vote on procedural fairness than I think the community at large is. Structural fairness disparities are inevitable but procedural fairness disparities aren't.

FW is not violent or policing and saying so is insulting to people that have dealt with those issues.

Theory:
Usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. 3 conditional advocacies are probably ok but more is iffy. Consult, delay, and condition counter-plans are sketchy. Each conditional plank is its own world if you can kick them individually. I have been both a 2A and 2N, so I don't have any strong protectionist feelings for either team, and sometimes cheating is pretty fun to watch. Also I think the impact of some theory arguments should sometimes just be that you should get to cheat too.

Speaker points
They're entirely subjective. That being said, I do understand that context (tournament size, quality, etc.) should influence my scale. Speaker points are a holistic reflection of how I think you did. I used to have a scale here but with speaker point inflation I don't think it really matters anymore. My average hovers around 28.5-28.6.

I have shortened my paradigm over time to make it easier to read, if you have questions for prefs just email me.

wrhs 20

kansas 24

Email - rainapeter01@gmail.com

TLDR: I care deeply about my role as a judge and will do my best to make a decision that makes sense and give feedback that is helpful. This paradigm isn't long, so don't hesitate to send me an email if you have any questions.

I have done some research on the criminal justice topic, but haven't judged much so lean on the side of more explanation for intricate topicality/counterplan arguments.

Tech over truth but arguments must be warranted. I will almost always read evidence on the important issues, but judge instruction is extremely important to frame my ballot.

I am a better judge for traditional policy strategies, but that does not mean I will not evaluate critical ones. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to all arguments, so I am trying to be one of those judges. Death good, blatantly racist arguments, etc. are an exception.

Arguments:

DAs - Politics is my favorite argument, turns case is good.

CPs - Not good for process counterplans, generally think conditionality is good.

T - usually a question of competing interpretations. I think topicality is an under-utilized strategy on this topic.

Ks - negs should have links to the aff, I am good for abolition, capitalism and international relations critiques. Other literature bases need more explanation

Framework - Impact weighing and comparisons are extremely important. Affs should have a clear relationship to the topic and some sort of mechanism to resolve impacts

I think that debate should be safe and welcoming for everybody. If you prevent this, I do not want to judge you, and you will not want to be judged by me. This is very important, so I’ve put it first.

LASA 21, Emory 25. I coach for Pine Crest.

He/Him. poedebatedocs@gmail.com

I primarily judge policy debates, but I also understand LD to some extent and have been an instructor at an LD camp. I am familiar with PF as well, but to a lesser extent.

(bad disclosure = bad speaker points)

NOTE FOR ONLINE DEBATE

Fix the microphone echo issues. They're incredibly annoying.

TLDR

Do what you'd like and don't over-adapt. I'm fine with both policy and K strats, but I'd rather hear a specific strategy than generics. I think research is the most important part of debate. I try to be tech>truth but I'm skeptical of garbage arguments. Speed is fine if you're clear. Have good disclosure. Don't say stuff that's racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist etc. (but also don't accuse the other team of doing this if they didn't.)

Theory

If the abuse is egregious I'll totally vote on it. 2-3 condo worlds usually seems ok, but it's easier for the aff to win this debate with more worlds. Well researched strategies and specific solvency advocates help the neg win theory.

Lean neg: most agent CPs, advantage CPs, PICs out of something in the plan, CPs recut from aff ev, basically anything with an aff-specific solvency advocate.

Lean aff: generic process CPs, kicking planks, 2NC CPs, CPs with no solvency advocate, CPs that only compete textually.

Topicality

Not a huge fan! I think about T in a more truth>tech way than I do other arguments. Have specific case lists, examples of ground loss, and a qualified interp that's somewhat contextual to the topic. "More affs bad" isn't good enough.

Policy Affs

Have an actual solvency advocate. I prefer specific impact scenarios like "these countries go to war" over something like "democracy solves everything!" Neg teams should do case debate. Generic framing frustrates me.

Counterplans

Case-specific CPs > generics. Big fan of advantage CPs. If your CP steals the aff to get a contrived internal net benefit, it's an uphill battle to beat the perm. 1NC needs a solvency advocate.

Disads

Good spin and story > dumping 50 cards and hoping I'll sort them out. I prefer DAs based on the outcome of the plan rather than the process, but I'm more down for politics DAs based on stuff like political capital than I am for bad Rider DAs. 0% risk is possible.

Kritiks

Have specific links and explain how the K implicates the aff. Generic state bad or cruel optimism links aren't persuasive. I've got a high bar for structural arguments, but if you do a good job I'll vote on it. Answer examples.

I lean toward thinking the neg should have links to the plan or the 1AC's core ideas (which could include reps, but might not include "your author defended stuff we don't like in an unhighlighted part of the card.") I start the debate assuming the aff gets the plan but you can change my mind.

Tell me what the alt does and give examples if you can. Alts that do something material > alts that think really hard.

Kritikal Affs

Explain what your aff does and why it matters. It should be about the topic, not just a previous year's aff with one topic-adjacent card. You should defend something and be stuck defending it. It's hard to win that your performance actually did something unless your evidence is fantastic.

Neg teams should try to engage with the content of the aff, but I get it if you can't. I'm often persuaded by presumption. K v K debates are awesome, but only if both sides know what's going on.

Framework

Clash/Research > "fairness because fairness." I enjoy creative styles of framework like "T - talk about the topic at all." Tell me the ground you lost, why it's good, etc. Explain the types of debates that would happen in the world of the TVA if you want to go for it.

carrollton sacred heart '17

university of michigan '21

yes, i want speech docs – allison.m.pujol@gmail.com

2024 update for college debate

I'm currently a grad student at UT-Austin studying English and Information Studies. I did almost exclusively policy things when I debated, but I read a fair amount of critical theory/study poetry/think about art + literature a lot these days, if that means anything.

I'm a fairly technical judge, and I reward debaters that are clear, efficient, and deliberate in their speed (tags/theory should be slower than text of card, for example).

It benefits nobody when debaters are hostile or overly aggressive to each other. Please be courteous to your opponents. It goes without saying that if you are verbally harassing, physically threatening or in any way being a real jerk to the other team, I will stop the debate.

affs without plans/framework debates

Definitely better for the neg than the aff, but I have been persuaded otherwise in the past more than a few times. Ultimately my technical proclivities determine where I end up far more than my ideological biases / policy background does (i.e., I will vote for the team that does the better debating).

I often think about framework debates the same way I think about topicality/competing interpretations: what does debate look like in a world of the aff vs the neg? This means, regardless of whether you are aff or neg, you need to robustly defend whatever your interpretation of debate is. I do think procedural fairness is a thing. I also think debate as it exists now certainly isn't perfect.

topicality:

Please for the love of everything good slow down

Evidence quality matters a lot to me in T debates, and the better your interp ev is the better your chances are.

it's a voting issue, no RVIs, this isn't LD

counterplans:

My own bias is to be aff leaning with process CPs – If your CP tries to “compete” based on immediacy or certainty, it probably doesn’t compete. Additionally, if your CP leads to whatever the plan mandates, does it in some arbitrary way, or adds a part to the plan, I am likely to be sympathetic when the aff goes for the perm.

If you are extending a permutation in the 1ar, it should be explained way beyond three words for me to evaluate it – what it does and how it shields the link, etc. Otherwise, I'll likely protect the 2nr from 2ar extrapolation.

If you have aff-specific or topic-specific ev to support the CP, I'll likely err neg on competition/theory.

Aff – winning a credible solvency deficit is important. Ideally, there should be evidentiary support or an internal link chain from which you can base the solvency deficit.

kritiks:

You read death good = you get 20-21 points (whoever said it first gets 20) and a fat L

Other than the death good stuff, I'm probably better for most K debates than people think.

Identity args - Given the breadth and diversity of argumentation in critical theory, I am a little bit hesitant to assign a universal political and/or social identity to an entire population. I can be persuaded alternatively, although it seems important to note that I am rather uncomfortable in debates where non-black debaters make Wilderson's argument about all black people experiencing social death or anything analogous to that.

disads:

Theory arguments vs the link are usually not winners for me

Block/2nr impact calc is one of the most important things that determine my decision. My decision will be the easiest if you win that the disadvantage outweighs and controls a larger internal link to solving the aff impacts/advantages than the aff actually does.

There can be 0% risk of an impact – don’t underestimate defense.

theory:

Again, aff-specific ev is a gamechanger for competition and theory questions - but these are my defaults:

Condo – probably good ... within limits -- 2 condo is not 5 condo

PICs – good

Word PICs – depends on ev, but when the ev is decent these are awesome to judge

International / 50 state fiat – usually good

Agent CPs – good

Floating PIKs – bad

SPEC – set it up in cross-ex, or I won’t vote on these

If it’s not conditionality, I’ll probably default to rejecting the argument, not the team. But, that's just a default - I can be persuaded otherwise.

Best of luck and have fun!

samir.i.rahaman@gmail.com

Northside '21 (debated)

KU '25 (debated freshman year)

1. I probably care more about clarity than others. I won't flow off the speech doc and I will try to avoid reading cards after the debate. If I can't understand the words you are saying when you are reading a card I will give that card minimal weight even if the tag is comprehensible.
2. I am bad for Ks and K affs.

Coppell 20

Emory 24

Email Chain: shreyasr711@gmail.com

I really do not think extensively about debate outside of actively debating and researching the college nukes topic to have strong opinions about certain argument styles. In high school, I was a 2A that exclusively read a critical affirmative. In college, I was a 2N whose 2NRs are almost always policy positions or framework. The only "arguments" I will not adjudicate are those that put other debaters on trial or forward ad hominem attacks.

I have much respect for debaters who have a strong grasp of their arguments, make bold yet strategic decisions in-round, and work hard to research and innovate. Though I value and reward topic-specific positions, I nevertheless understand the utility of debate's "greatest" hits like Con Con and the Fiat K.

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

Updated - Pre-NU - 09.12.23.

On balance, J Philosophies should prob cut to the chase - but I'm gonna violate my own rule this time:

We exist in an era where being unfiltered gets glorified.. where the smartest person in the room is also encouraged to be the loudest.

Every now and again, someone arrives in our small pond - and they have all the characteristics of a great judge. They are quietly brilliant. They are thoughtful. They hold the community's respect for the simplest reason of all: they are undeniably good at what they do. It doesn't need to be broadcasted - it finds itself on display in each oral critique.

I won't be the guy that pretended to know Brian McBride on a deeply personal level. Our interactions were often limited to those panels that finish their task at 2am.

... but I know enough to say this with confidence. I learned a great deal by letting that guy go first in the post-round. He rarely called attention to himself. I am hopeful that our community finds ways to honor his contribution - even if he would've bashfully declined such praise.

I had a great deal of respect for who he was in this community.

Customary biz:

Yes - speech Doc.

Repko.Debate@gmail.com

Side note - I often miss non-speech doc correspondence sent to that address bc I only use it for judging.

** New - Topic Specific - Nuclear weapons, 2023-4

With all the asterisks that often accompany this, I'll say I'm not going to deeply break-down my thoughts on hyper-generics and the kind of K's that tend to get run on every Res. I do have thoughts on these matters - but I am much more apt to be placed in a Policy-Policy round... this is bc clash/K teams have (correctly) concluded that there are many judges in the pool where their win% would be higher.

I have sneaking suspicions that Topicality will arise more in Policy-Policy rds - what follows is designed to be helpful:

- As a general proposition, I am more Aff than most on T - but I do think the Framer's worded things in a manner that gives the Neg something to argue here. Enough will come down to execution that some of what follows could be overread.

- I do not enter into the T Debate presumptively assuming Negs are structurally hosed on *this* Res. This ain't the water or CJR Res - there's at least room to argue that this Res= atypically good for Negs. I often judge on panels where the lone conception of "ground" is Neg. Absolute kudos to the Neg if they can pull of that framing - you should (as ever) run with the premises your opponents concede. But - in an evenly matched debate - I do think there's space for the Aff to push back on the some of the classic Neg ground claims.

- While I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where one side's interp is noticeably imprecise (i.e. old school "substantial" defs about a Court case involving a kitchen measurement), I tend to think most prepared teams read a reasonably precise interp. Once the opponent's interp has exited the theater of the absurd, I am open to threads that argue that we should consider defaulting to other RTP various interps. Better put - if you're trying to win that an inch of precision >>> a mile of balanced ground/limits, I would recommend you have technical execution on your side.. bc I am going to need to read the opponent's interp and chuckle at how non-applicable it is. If your lead on precision is NOT an inch - I am very good for your side.

Deterrence and Assurance are a thing. If/when the Neg blends them together, they create Aff openings where "thumping one" can "thump both".

Revisionism has become the Policy equiv of ontology. The 2N uses the fact that "Russia has revisionist tendencies" to lower the threshold for the link, the impact, the "turns case" thread, etc.... OK - I suppose it's somewhat helpful to the cause - but let's not overdo this. No one would pretend that reading a card that "X nation is revisionist" is - by its lonesome - a link to the NFU Aff... The best K research takes the ontology claim and contextualizes it to the Aff in question. The best disad research takes the revisionism premise and applies it to the NFU Aff. I find no dissonance here - it feels logical (to me) to demand scholarly contextualization from both revisionism claims and ontology claims. And - to be candid - I suspect I have a higher bar for Neg contextualization than most.

*Older stuff starts here - I'd only read through it if you needed more than the basics

I'm somewhat correctly stereotyped as a "good judge to break a new aff in front of". And, certain broad strokes will not change between now and Monday:

- I am bad for some Neg generics that get run in these spots (process CP, many K's)

- I will do enough "reading" in the post-round to at least try and comprehend a novel Aff or Neg arg - and, as these things go, that can open room for a prepared new Aff to win on various appeals to specificity

- I get that Neg's adore the Cap K... but the way this is getting deployed in the modern era is just so far from what I feel is a complete reason to Negate. I could break down my creative Cap K 2.0 blueprint ..or go on some rant - but, unless your Cap K has some very unique twists, I'd say that I am the second worst judge in the pool for your Cap K (behind Katsulas). This is meant to be helpfully honest as you make pref decisions;

- I am one of the better judges in the pool for "the impact turn doesn't link". Let me unpack - as this might read as illogical. Just bc the Aff said "heg" doesn't mean that *the way* the Aff enhances Heg auto-links to your backfile... similarly, just bc the Neg read an impact module that loosely referenced "ag" or "econ" doesn't mean the camp backfile is simply greenlit. Often times the OG impact is about "preventing a future decline in Heg"... or helping a sector of the econ that may solely be a piece in the dedev puzzle. I'll obviously "play ball" if both teams opt to ignore this int link minutiae. But I do sometimes find myself on the bottom of a 4-1 bc I strongly consider analytic threads appealing to whether the impact turns applied in the first place. This is not intended to full-on dissuade. Teams seeking to impact turn should invest some time connecting the "top-level" dots between the opponent's impact claim and their impact turn. Impact turn strat can also wind-up defending a squo that's very messy (transitions, other Aff impacts). Think about more than the narrow impact turn itself - and the broader system being defended.

- I differ from many judges on "disad turns case". I was recently asked to recount an NDT elim I judged a few years back. In it, Aff slams on Adv... Neg slams on Disad... Aff is bad on "disad turns case"... neg is silent on "Aff solves case"... 8 out of 10 judge vote neg here: after all, Neg turns Aff. I regularly vote Aff on "aff solvency claim is every bit as dropped as the neg's claim to turn solvency". There are some exceptions where I would vote Neg - suppose the neg's "turns case" arg is couched as comparative to the 1AC solvency... OR maybe the neg claim simply makes more sense than the OG Aff solvency.. etc... but I tend to not punish the Aff for lacking large re-explanations of (dropped) swaths of their case. Negs would do well to make comparisons that bake-in the particulars of the Aff.

- there is a risk of overcorrection to all of this. I have voted on "PIKs bad" at the NDT - and it was the correct 2AR choice.. I voted on a "meh" human innovation disad earlier this season bc the Neg tailored it so well to the opponent's solvency claims. There have been other decisions that might surprise a third party coach - unless they watched the debate itself. I do understand that debate is a game. All of this advice assumes situations where both sides have the time to evenly execute on a position - but sometimes that hasn't taken place. Capitalize accordingly.

--- Everything below this is older stuff... all of it still applies - but may be more than you need ------

TLDR - general

More apt to be placed in Policy v. Policy rounds. A great deal of the research that I do is on critical/culture theory. And, a lot of outcomes are possible in a world of imbalanced coverage/attention to detail.

That said, I have a poor track record for planless Affs. I have enough "argumentation teacher" in me to give a range of oral critiques. But, I do think K of this Res/Topicality struggles vs. standard (policy) boilerplate responses.

If your pref decisions hinge on post-round academic convos, I will be an engaged critic. But if a big component of your pref decisions are about the grizzled bottom line of winning (which is 1000% understandable, IMO), I think much of the pool has a better track record on behalf of the K.

Seems like there's two sets of Policy judges on this particular Res:

Camp 1.0 - summer pleasure reading was about Bostrom, gray goo bloggers, and meta-physical q's posed by British scholars.

Camp 2.0 - not that.

I'm more in camp 2.0. I have cut policy cards on the topic. I am not dismissive existential risk. I think the Sci Fi impacts are fine - strategic even....

And, I am (quite fairly) accused of letting your ev do some work for you. But there's a wave of oral critique out there that's akin to: "the sub-text of the Aff entropy claim rests on Toby Ord's The Precipice - which is hardly viable without a deeper defense of hypercomputation".

... huh ?..

I can get there - but you'll need to at least start me down that journey.

TLDR - process CP, compete on "should"

Anything is poss in the land of wildly disparate in-rd execution/coverage - but I am quite Aff here

Where are you good for the neg ?

Disad, CP of non-process flavor... the 1AC itself = often pretty silly.

'Rona

For me, I am judging INP for the first time in a minute - mostly bc it would not be great if I brought COVID back to my household.

I am appreciative of the efforts the tournament and the participants are making to reduce the risk of COVID. I mean that quite genuinely

... this simple statement could be over-read or cause students to overreact when I am judging. I understand that sure-fire solutions are rare... and I do not need to 2A to debate outdoors or something. Just a friendly - not judgmental - reminder that I will be on the cautious side of this one.

--wrote this pre '21 NDT - I'll leave it up a bit longer, but it has little to do w. arg preferences ----

This strikes me as an audience where one can make a bold claim... and be granted an opportunity to back it up.

Here goes:

One of the strongest people I know is only 3 yrs old.

... I've watched her figure it out.

When the six yr old points and stares.

When the family switches lanes in swim class.

When they ask why her mask is the kind that ties in the back.

...and I've watched in amazement. Somehow, she channels her exasperation into thoughtfulness. Somehow, these aftermaths are productive.

A few years ago, I heard rumor that a student was thinking of foregoing her final NDT - ending her career after her Junior season. This student had challenged MSU Debate ...in the best ways possible. Judging policy rds as I do, I knew this debater. I decided to drop her a note. I thanked her for the hard work she'd put in.... for the indirect ways in which she'd made our program grow. One never knows what to expect once the send key is hit. I do think she was a little surprised to receive it. But I came to learn it made a small difference... that it landed with the right timing.

Later that season, I wrote a similar note - this time to a non-traditional debater. The same premises held. This student pushed our program and drove us to be more prepared. I extended an overdue "thanks". I imagine they were more than a little surprised to receive it. Judging policy rds as I do, I had even less of an idea how it may land. I was glad to learn it landed well.

The days leading up to the NDT are an especially good time to keep one's head down.

...But when the dust settles... when the inevitable frustrations grow distant... consider crafting a simple note. Consider sending it to a judge... a rival... a teammate.

Above all, consider sending to someone that may not expect it.

In doing so some will accuse you of being weak. Why extend energy to your rivals ?.. Why breathe life into the foe ?

But - in doing so - you will be anything but weak.

You will exit a challenging season... perched atop a most-challenging 12 months... and you will have done something genuine.. something unexpectedly thoughtful.

And - in doing so - you will show strength.

Strength similar to the strongest girl I know.

A girl who is Earless... and Fearless.

A girl named Robin Jane Repko.

#E&F

Thanks - and best of luck to each of you this weekend.

NDT 2021

---------old stuff here-------------------------

True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising.

Topicality:

I'm overwhelmingly Aff on "contrived" interps bad. In general, I think I am more Aff than most on T in policy rounds. If it helps, I did not happen to judge the elim between UGA AR + KU HM on the Exec Authority. Here - by all accounts - the neg did a dazzling job on a T thread that amounted to "you gotta be a big Aff".

I cannot know - but I suspect I would have been an above-average judge for UGA in that spot. It has nothing to do with the debaters - all four were/are magnificent. It's more that I find T interps of that ilk tend to break-down under strict scrutiny.

I don't mention this example out of nowhere. I am writing in 2021 bc I suspect it could be instructive for this yrs college topic. I would not be shocked if I voted Neg on T - hard work has dividends. By this is a game of inches - and this is me being transparent about an inch.

Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season.

-------------- old philosophies start here -------------

I wrote this a few years ago - it still holds:

Often, the K struggles on the alt... and can be a little over-reliant on the checklist for someone (like me) that's a bit of a truth-seeker and post-round ev reader.

To give a concrete example:

Suppose a (policy) Aff said "a Small Modular Rector will *solve* for a nuclear accident". Further suppose that the Neg did not engage this claim in any way.

Then suppose the Neg said "interrogate our relationship to neolib -- as it may *solve* neolib". Suppose the Aff was comparably inattentive to that alt.

I would start the post-round evaluating competing solvency claims. Both teams 100% won their original statement -- but the word *"solves"* in both sentences does not get at questions of magnitude/likelihood. "Solve" was not posited as a 100% affair in either the ev, the tag, or under any standard of logic.

So, yes, both teams "solve", but the degree to which an SMR could prevent an accident is miles ahead of the degree that individual interrogation might solve neolib. I acknowledge that not everyone judges these args in this manner -- in part because they fear being labelled "interventionist". I happen to feel it "intervenes" to impose magnitude onto either team's claim (as stated).

I can imagine a future time where the K more assertively attempts to have Alts that inform policy praxis or generates non-institutional collectives... And if you think your arg is novel in that regard, then I might be a better judge for you... But, the odds are that you've learned to run the K based on the prevalent community norms that have developed over the previous 15 years... Over that time, your predecessors did an exceptionally mediocre job of helping the K inform praxis and be PART (not all) of negating an Affirmative.

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

Rando:

- I rarely think "literature" alone makes a cplan competitive. I consider the two as wholly unrelated and I struggle to grasp this line of thinking. Some are aghast if the two options that are compared by a think tank article are somehow not auto-competitive. This borders on laughable - as there's lit that defends plan-plus cplans....Sometimes I have judged literature that demonstrated that the perm severs - that might be germane.

- I think "judge kick" needs to be flagged early and often - not merely implicitly as part of a conditionality answer in cx - for it to be a presumptively strong arg for the Neg. I consider "conditionality" to be a question of whether multiple strategies can/should be carried through the middle of the debate - and *not* whether the Neg should ultimately be afforded multiple choices at the end of the debate. I will assume that you went for the one damn strategy that you did extend in the 2NR unless you play your "multiple options" card earlier in the debate.

If you have specific questions about how I'd evaluate an item, feel free to ask. I'll strive to respond with candor.

Best,

Will

LASA '21, Texas A&M '25

Put me on the email chain: dhruv.ruttala@gmail.com

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS YEAR’S TOPIC aside from previous knowledge. Please debate accordingly.

I haven’t debated since spring of 21, but I still consider myself to be pretty technically knowledgeable and I’ve periodically judged every season since then.

Good luck & have fun.

OLD PARADIGM

I owe everything I know about debate to Yao Yao Chen & Mason Marriott-Voss.

Ian Poe and I have very similar paradigms and judging styles, so you can refer to his paradigm for more depth/another perspective on my judging style.

TLDR

I read policy and K arguments in high school so read whatever you want. If you don't understand your arguments it will lower your speaker points and I will find those arguments harder to vote for. Go into CX with a plan. Often times teams just use CX for clarification questions, which is not productive.

Theory

I went for conditionality a good amount in high school, and I lean slightly aff on it, but it's easier for the neg if there are 2 or fewer worlds. I prefer a model that promotes well researched, aff-specific strategies over generic shotgun strategies any day.

Topicality

I don't really have any revolutionary T thoughts. Examples of ground loss, specific case lists, and specific, qualified, contextualized interpretations are important to me.

Policy Affs

Case debate is underrated. Neg teams almost never spend enough time in the 1NC on case.

Have a real solvency advocate. Your cards should say what you say they do.

Counterplans

Case specific CPs are much more likely to get my ballot than a generic. If your CP steals the aff to get a contrived internal net benefit, it's an uphill battle to beat the perm. Have a sufficiently highlighted 1NC solvency advocate if you want me to vote on it.

Disads

0% risk is possible.

The story of the DA is more important to me than you reading 50 cards and just hoping I'll sort through them in your favor. I prefer DA's that are based on the outcome of the plan over DA's that are based on the process of the plan.

Kritiks

Have specific links and explain how the K solves/turns the aff. I don't like generic state bad or cruel optimism links (you need a reason why the aff makes the world worse or you won't win.) It's nice if you have a card for your link, but I'm cool with smart analytics too. I've got a high bar for winning structural arguments and you should answer counter-examples. If you explain your structural argument convincingly and apply it to the aff I'm much happier to vote on it. If one of your links is "they tried to answer the K in the 2AC!!!" nice try but I'm not the judge for you.

I'll vote either way on framework, but I lean toward thinking the neg should have links to the plan or the 1AC's core ideas (which could still include reps, but is less likely to include "your author defended a concept we don't like in an unhighlighted part of the card so you lose.") I start the debate assuming the aff gets the plan, but you can change my mind.

Don't overcomplicate alt explanations. Tell me what it really does and give examples if possible. Alts that do something material > alts that think really hard.

Kritikal Affs

Explain what your aff does and why it matters. It should be clearly related to the topic, not just a previous year's aff with one topic-adjacent card. Topic relevance makes it easier to beat framework in front of me. You should clearly defend something and be stuck with defending it throughout the debate instead of constantly shifting what the aff is/does. It's hard to win that your reading/performance of the aff actually did something unless your evidence is fantastic.

Neg teams should try to engage with the content and theory of the aff, but I get it if you can't. I'm often persuaded by presumption. K v K debates are awesome, but only if both sides know what's going on.

Framework

Clash/Research > "fairness because fairness." I enjoy creative styles of framework like "T - literally just please talk about the topic at all." Topic education arguments are a neat idea, but you need a really good card and a reason why reading a plan is the only way to get that education. Do the internal link work - tell me the ground you lost, why it's good, etc. Explain the types of debates that would happen in the world of the TVA if you want to go for it. The most important thing is contextualizing framework to the 1AC and 2AC answers - don't just read Ericson and rant about the good old days.

TLDR: Flow over your args. LBL is good. Apply cards to the round instead of just reading them. I know Ks, but not all of them, act like I'm dumb when giving your exposition.

Howdy Friends!

:) Just some stuff to show I'm not completely lay:

I debated CX and PF for 4 years in HS and am currently an applied mathematics major at TAMU. I've been to 2 nats for PF and to state twice for cx. I quarter-finaled for UIL 5a CX state. I also qualified for nationals Extemporaneous twice.

Moral stuff:

Have fun, unless your fun is morally wacky. Fun is considered "morally wacky" when it is one or multiple of the following; racist, sexist, homophobic, promotes self-harm, attacks people within the round, is directed at a specific religion, or ya know invokes things that make you seem not so vibey in the public eye. If you run any of the prior it's an L0. Also, don't misgender your opponent, that'll also be an L0 (if on purpose obviously).

Pre-round questions?:

I am open to any questions prior to the round, so just shoot me an email at a.david.salazar.ii@gmail.com and I'll answer asap . If you have any questions at all, no matter how small or significant they may be, please ask them! I remember reading some judging paradigms that actively dissuaded questions and it made the atmosphere of the round cold and tense. I promise you I won't get mad at any question posed or if anything out of your control occurs.

Oh yeah, please add me to an email chain with the above email, thank ya!

Important Note: I do have impaired hearing. I can hear sounds but intermittently fail to make out words. When debaters spread, whether LD or CX, I ask that they share a copy of their speech with me if at all possible. If Debaters are not comfortable sharing their speech, I completely understand and will judge to the best of my abilities.

CX:

My views on specific types of arguments are as follows:

Framework: When arguing against an opposing framework, I ask that you explain to me why your framework is inherently better than that of your opponent. Make sure to relate all of your impacts towards your framework.....please.

Case: Case is what CX revolves around. Failing to answer or weigh the case in round is something that will drastically affect the way I view the round. As aff, if you win all of the off-case but fail to flow over your on-case then you will be at a significant disadvantage.

Da: Links should adhere specifically to the mechanisms of the opposing case. Vague links are a plague in today's format (at least from what I experienced). I will value a DA based on the argumentation you put behind it.

CP: Tell me why the CP shows a better world than the case. The net benefit is the sole reason for voting.

K: If you run a Kritik you need to bluntly state how the alternative works within the world and how it is better than that of the affirmative. When running Kritiks regarding the opposing team's propagation of harmful pedagogy out of round, I ask that you clearly link the argument to a blatant example of this through the opposing team's speeches rather than a one-off comment (unless egregious). I am familiar with a lot of kritik lit's, but to make the round accessible you should still be able to contextualize and blatantly explain the k throughout the round in case your opponent has never come across the k you are using. Not only does it provide a more fair round, but also demonstrates that you actually understand what you're talking about. If you don't know the full extent of your K, don't run it. Also, if you're running a kritk that relies on the experience and pain of a certain group of people that neither individuals in your team represent, that's kinda messed up. Agency does matter. Don't profit off the pain of others for a win in a high school competition.

T: If ground is lost, tell me why that matters and how that affects the round. If a team does not tell me why the proposed ground loss is a voting issue, then I will not vote on it.

Theory: I mean it's a thing...if left uncontested it's obviously going to be a voting issue, but please apply it throughout the round and show how the given violation actually affects your standards rather than just stating "They dropped, we win"...please. Oh and RVI :).

Speed: Regarding the note at the top, I can still flow spreading as long as it is clear. I will miss some bits and pieces, but I have and most of the time will be able to flow general args if they are analytically given. Note: if the opposing team is not comfortable with spreading, or if they are hearing impaired, please make the speech accessible to them. Accessibility & education within debate is a voting issue.

LD:

I am mostly a policy/Flow judge, so please treat me as such if possible.

Pref Cheat Sheet;

1-Policy

2-K

3-Theory

4/strike-Phil

5/strike-Trix

RVI- I believe that winning a theory shell is a voting issue. I loathe theory for time sucks, it ruins the purpose of running a theory. If you introduce theory, be prepared to carry it all the way through.

Competing interps- I believe that clash on theory is important. Even if the theory is a wash, you should still have a counter. Answering and winning washed theories would help you will the round since I value each theory won as a voter.

Drop the arg- If a theory stands by the end of the round and the violation is relegated to one specific argument, then that arg will be dropped on my flow.

Disclosure- I like disclosure. If the opponent doesn't disclose pre-round, that doesn't instantly make it a voting issue for me. Run a full theory arg so that the violation is on the flow.

kicking args in last speech: If you feel like you have one topic won, and its impact calc, when compared to the standing framework, is the largest on the flow, and you want to run the entirety of your last speech flowing it over and solidifying it, go for it. Condensing is good, desperately holding onto arguments that are lost is not good. Of course, if you kick out of the thing you're winning then it could also hurt you, but y'all have a good idea of what y'all are doing so it should be fine. I'm not doing judge kicks, so explicitly state what you're kicking

PF:

PF is chaotic. That being said, I vibe with all types of arguments within PF (unless you advocate for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, self-harm advocacy, or moral arguments that would land you a special spot in Dante's Inferno, which is something I apparently need to add to a paradigm because people don't know how to act :\). While I understand paraphrasing is accepted, I feel that reading a carded case appears more professional and provides informational validity better. That doesn't mean it affects your speaks or anything, just a little aside.

OVERALL:

Please be nice to one another. Respect your opponents for the competitors they are. Rounds can get heated, and when they do sometimes tempers rise and people become more aggressive than needed. While this is a competition, please remember that it is an educational competition. Have fun, make friends, learn new arguments, and overcome your mistakes. At the end of the day, your rounds are simply pedagogical interactions, but when competitors' egos come before their logic in rounds, debate loses all meaning.

Overview: These are my defaults. Everything is up for debate. Please add me to the email chain phildebate@gmail.com

First, I consider myself an argument critic. By this I mean I might vote on an argument that I do not agree with or one I think is untrue because in the context of the round one team persuades me. This means that I tend to fall on the side of tech over truth.

Second, I understand debate by argument. There is a trend in debate to replace argument with author names. The community has begun referencing authors instead of the argument that the evidence is meant to strengthen. This is a bad trend, in my mind, and should be limited to necessity.

Third, I will not now, nor will I ever, stop a debate if I think that someone is clipping or cross reading. While I think this is cheating I think it is up to the debaters in the round to make an argument and then for me to judge that argument based on the available evidence and render a decision. However, if you are caught clipping when I judge I will give you a loss and zero speaker points. .

Fourth, Speaker-Points are dumb. Preffing judges based on the speaker points they give is even dumber. It has long been the case that weak judges give high speaks in order to be preffed. It is unfortunate that judges of color have had to resort to giving debaters higher points than they deserve to get into debates. I will do my best to maintain the community norm.

Topicality: Yes, I vote on it. It is always a voter. Topicality debates are about competing interpretations and the benefits of those interpretations. It is incumbent upon the debaters to do impact calculus of their advantages (these are the reasons to prefer aka standards) vs. the advantages of the counter-interpretation and the disadvantages to your interpretation. In other words, to win topicality you need win that your interpretation is better for debate than your opponents. This formula is true for ALL theory arguments if you plan to win them in front of me.

Framework: Yes, I vote on it. Framework is, to me, a criticism of the affirmatives method. What does this mean for you? It means that I am less persuaded by arguments like debate is a game and fairness claims. I tend to think of fairness, strategically, and my default is to say that fairness almost never outweighs education. I have voted on fairness as a terminal impact before and will likely do so again but the threshold to beat a team going for fairness is often very low and this gets even lower when the affirmative rightly points out that fairness claims are rooted in protecting privilege. If you are negative and you are going for framework my suggestion is that you make sure to have as many ways to negate the affirmatives offense as possible in the 2nr; this includes switch side debate solves your offense and topical version of your aff. If you do that and then win an internal link into education you will likely win my ballot.

I default to utilitarian ethics when making judgments about what action/vote is most beneficial. If you would like me to use some other method of evaluation that needs to be explained and it needs to be upfront.

Counterplans-You should read one. Counterplans compete through net benefits.

*Presumption never flips aff. I know there is a redefinition of Presumption as “less change” but this is a misunderstanding of presumption. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. Now like everything in this philosophy this is a default. To say that presumption flips affirmative is just to say that the affirmative has achieved their prima facia burden to prove that the SQ needs change.

*Counterplan theory: My default is that conditionality is the state that counterplans naturally exist. Because I believe counterplans are merely a test of the intrinsicness of the affirmatives advantages it means that I also default to judge kick. This means that there is little chance that I will vote outright on conditionality bad. Instead, I will assess that the Negative is now “stuck” with a counter-advocacy that alters the debate in corresponding ways.

Criticisms: Criticisms function much like counterplans and disads, insofar, as they should have an alternative and link and impact. I can be persuaded that K’s do not need an alternative. With that being said, if you are going for a K without an alternative then you need to have a lot of defense against the affirmative. Some of that defense can come in the form of the k itself (serial policy failure or impacts are inevitable arguments) but some of it SHOULD also be specific to the plan.

Any questions just ask. Good Luck!

My name is pronounced loo-CHI-uh. They/ them

Email chains > speech drop. lucia.scott at barstowschool.org

Previous debating: K-State (2013-2016), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2009-2013)

Coaching: Barstow (2018-Present), Baylor (2017-2018), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2013-2017)

Meta things

Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. If I think you should clear, I'll give you at least a 29. 27.9 cap on speaks if any of your docs are PDFs. Like, stop. Just stop.

I have almost certainly voted on everything I say I don't like in my paradigm at some point. At the end of the day, my goal is to intervene as little as possible. Might I be grumpy if I have to judge a 10 off debate with Deleuze, a Gregorian calendar procedural, an anarchy counterplan, and whatever that omnipotent AI that's going to kill us all is called? Yes. So grumpy. Will I vote on these arguments if you win the debate? Also yes. Will it affect your speaks? No. Grumpy adults shouldn't get to determine what debaters do.

I appreciate scrappy debate. If you like to use tricks to win, fine by me. If you think an argument is silly, it shouldn't be too hard to beat.

What I don't appreciate is cowardly debate. I don't love watching rounds where the core strat seems to be defending nothing. Debate is about arguments and controversy. Embrace it. It's awesome.

Tech over truth, but the less true an argument is, the less tech you need to beat it. This is particularly true of 1NC strats the just shove a bunch of garbage non-arguments in to try to freak out the 2A.

My threshold for explanation on un-answered arguments is incredibly low. I don't think the 2A should have to spend time explaining the internal links of an advantage that has one impact d card on it, or the 2N should have to spend time explaining a dropped alt. You do, however, need to tell me what the IMPLICATION of those dropped or mostly dropped arguments is in order for me to know how to evaluate them and how they interact with other flows.

Quality over quantity; what constitutes quality is, of course, up for debate.

Questions are not arguments. I see way too many 2NRs/2ARs that say, "What does the alt/aff even do?" instead of just explaining why it wouldn't do anything.

I read cards to make sure you aren't clipping, but what they actually say doesn't factor into my decision unless there's some contestation by the debaters about the content of the evidence. Don't let a team get away with reading garbage cards that don't say anything; I'm not going to make that argument for you.

Procedurals/ Theory

I get grumpy about arbitrary interps of theoretical arguments (conditionality, ROB's, really anything). This means I do think "conditionality bad" is a better interp than "they get three conditional advocacies." Relax, I don't actually think conditionality is bad, but I also don't think there's really a difference between three vs four or four vs five or five vs six conditional advocacies.

With the exception of conditionality, I default to theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument or reasons that justify you also doing some theoretically illegit thing, like "perm do the counterplan." This includes perf con; I don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team, I just think it's a reason they don't get links off 2AC/1AR answers to the contradictory position in question. Pef con is distinct from an actual double turn; double turns are not theory arguments y'all.

For topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate. That's a pretty steep punishment. You need to win more than just a violation here. What affs would be allowed under their interp that you shouldn't have to prepare for? What off case positions do you lose access to? Why does that matter?

I think "lit checks abuse" solves 90% of policy-based limits arguments. Aff teams should also make more arguments about why whatever ground the neg loses isn't ground they should have had in the first place. I think big topics are better than small topics provided those big topics have good neg generics. Politics and the states counterplan are not good neg generics.

Reasonability, to me, means that the neg had a reasonable amount of predictable ground, not that the aff is "reasonably topical," whatever that means. I don't think that means the aff's counter interp has to be "reasonable."

Case Debate

My favorite part of debate. I frankly like to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.

I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.

Big pet peeve of mine is treating the aff like it's just one big page if it isn't. E.g. the 1AC had an advantage and a solvency contention, but the 1N just says "case" in their roadmap. Where on case? If it doesn't matter, you're not doing very good case debate. Same thing with the 2AC order. Why did you make the 1AC more than one page if you're not going to treat the pages as separate???

Your 2AC and 1AR advantage overviews are probably a waste of time in front of me. Overviews should frame, not merely explain.

DA's

This is where "quality over quantity" and "the less true and argument is, the less tech you need to beat it" become really important. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important. Zero risk is a thing. I default to uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

CP's

On balance, I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. A 2A who's good at theory can win process counterplans just go away with enough work.

I think counterplans should have solvency advocates, especially if you've added seven planks just designed to fiat out of solvency deficits.

I will not kick the counterplan unless the neg makes an actual judge kick argument.

I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of a net benefit even if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff. In that scenario, the counterplan is no longer disproves the aff.

K's

I don't have any preferences about lit bases; I'm not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard.

My threshold for a link is comparatively low. I think reps links are probably good if the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

My threshold for the alt is relatively high. Examples are good. Structural analysis with examples is better. Under no circumstances should the aff let the neg get away with fiating the alt. That's absurd.

Framework strats are also viable in front of me, e.g. I will vote on "any risk the 1AC is a settler project means you vote neg" assuming you are, in fact, winning the framework debate. I can be persuaded not to weigh the aff, but you really have to commit to this strategy.

I think most affs are best off going for extinction outweighs and the state is good; I think you're more likely to win that than a perm or link turn strategy.

The floating pik you didn't catch in the block will lose you the debate.

Aff framework arguments that compare world-views (i.e. "extinction outweighs epistemology") are far more compelling than framework arguments about procedural fairness (i.e. "the K is cheating").

K Affs

I think it's reasonable for K affs to say that all they have to do is prove their method is good; if the method is good, I should vote for the aff. I don't think they need to "spill out" or whatever. I am generally not persuaded by "winning is key to our method" arguments. Probably means you've got a bad method. Similarly, not of fan of consciousness-raising arguments. I don't know why that means I should vote for you.

I think T violations that deal with substantive parts of the resolution are better than violations about the fg. I think affs should be making the argument that any education claims about the fg are non-unique; it's part of the topic every year. I think the neg should make arguments about why policy education on this specific topic is good and explain how the aff bypasses that.

Anything can be an impact if you tell me it's an impact and explain why it outweighs your opponent's impacts. I generally think, for the neg, fairness-based impacts provide the best external offense, and education-based impacts provide the best in-roads to the aff. Both the aff and the neg should be doing some comparative work about how education, fairness, and ethics implicate one another.

On balance, I think impact turn strats are better than counter interp strats for the aff in these debates. I think ethics arguments are the best offense for the aff. Affs can also internal link turn the majority of the neg's standards if they spend the time doing it instead of extending a wreck of random disads that are all basically the same.

I think the TVA and switch side are the best defense to the aff's impacts. I conceptualize TVAs as counterplans (an alternate mechanism to solve the same impacts while avoiding the net benefit, e.g. under limiting). That means I hold a TVA to similar standards; I think it should have to solve all or most of the aff and that the TVA should have a solvency advocate. Half the TVAs I hear aren't topical; not enough aff teams make this argument.

Other things:

New word Ks in the 2AR - okay, so this is tricky. I think if you do this, I think it needs to be the whole 2AR, and I think you should be held to an exceptionally high explanation standard. I think you should have to pre-empt the 3NR the neg doesn't get.

Arguments about micro-aggressions - Fine as long as you explain the implication for this debate/ perhaps the community as a whole. Tell me what you want me to do about it and what that does about the problem. You still have to answer the trivializing arguments, but they are not an auto-loss.

Arguments that compare conditionality to structural privilege - Fine as long as you warrant them. Just saying, "This is the logic of..." isn't enough; tell me why and how the reproduces that logic in debate and what the impact to that is for debaters.

So clipping. If you have somehow misrepresented what you have read/ if there is not a way to tell from the speech doc what was read, you have clipped. If I catch clipping, I will make sure I'm sure (usually during prep time), and then stop the debate. If a debater accuses someone of clipping, the debate stops right then. If the challenger is correct, they win. If they are not correct, they lose. I will give the person who clipped a 0, but everyone else is probably going to get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much of the debate happened.

I've had some recent judging experiences that are moving me toward clarity being a clipping issue. If I can't understand any of the words in your cards, and it seems like this is to get in more cards, that's probably clipping. I've decided this means I'll never stop clearing you no matter how tired I get of it.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms:you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all. I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

Many judges will lie to you in an RFD and promise that the round was “close.” I will not, as I don't find most rounds close. I decide most debates quickly, based only on my flow. I find evidence quality irrelevant unless contested, and I disregard “truth” when making a decision.

I also intervene as little as possible. That means I will make a face as you gaslight me, but accept what you say at face value. This holds for arguments that I know as obviously false: if a team drops that an old argument is new and I should reject it, then I do so. This might lead to some absurd outcomes. But the judges that I respect do their best not to intervene.

As a quick aside, I do not share everyone's disdain for topicality, theory, and counterplan competition debates. To be sure, I've judged plenty of tragically bad theory debates. But I struggle to understand the people who contend it's not “real” or “substantive” debate. I find many topicality debates just as exciting as a politics/case debate.

Likewise, though, I find the personhood topic quite exciting. I have cut hundreds of cards because I find the research refreshing.

What I don't find refreshing, however, is arguments of the critical variety. Ideologically, I am just not good for them. I am unfamiliar with most critical literature and have no interest in reading it. So if you do have the (mis)fortune of my name on the pairing, argue as technically as possible. When I vote for a critical team, it is because they debated more technically than their opponents.

Email: kevinsun127@gmail.com

Debate is a research game. Demonstrate topic knowledge, and you'll earn high speaker points. Isolate one or two questions to hinge the debate on, and you'll have an easier path to victory.

You don't have to read a plan. Just impact turn framework. Don't need an elaborate explanation of your vision of debate.

Fairness is an impact.

Evidence quality matters a little more than in-round strategy. That being said, dropped arguments are true (though it'll be hard to convince me that a 1NC DA shell with 50 words highlighted is a "complete" argument).

Conditionality is good. Unlikely to vote on cheap-shot theory arguments unless dropped.

Topicality usually comes down to evidence quality. If you're decidedly right about the meaning of a word, then you'll probably win. If there's some ambiguity in this, then case-lists help your case better than a generic under/over-limiting block.

Critiques should dispute the reasons to vote affirmative. In other words, not a fan of negative strategies that consist entirely of frivolous pre-requisite questions and framework interpretations. The K should make sense in a world where the plan happens.

Counterplans that compete off of certainty/immediacy are not ideal.

Feel free to post-round.

Send out the 1AC before the speech.

On Evidence Ethics

I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge.

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: 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.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

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.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

About

• Director @ Coppell
• Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
• Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
• Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com

Basics

• This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
• Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
• I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
• I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments.
• I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Theory/Topicality

• I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, but I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
• On questions of framework, USFG, etc. I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, for example, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Defaults/Disads

• If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, and these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
• If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

• I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.

Kritiking

• The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
• A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

• You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
• I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

• While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
• I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

• PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
• Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
• Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
• Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
• Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

Congress, specifically

• I have a surprising amount of congress experience, including placing at nats in HS and coaching a TOC champion. That said, I'm not sure I can say a lot here that doesn't likely seem intuitive to most.
• Remain active in the chamber. Move things along. Stay engaged.
• All speech & debate should be rigorous. I'm interested in quality of research and depth of content. If you're one of those kids who makes fun of prep that happened before the round, I'm curious why you're here.
• PO - be efficient, kind, firm, and cover any unfortunate mistakes well. Be aware, though, that mistakes with respect to precedence or procedure can be devastating. Also, speak. I loved to PO, but it's hard for me to imagine winning a big tournament without ever giving a speech.

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

Hello! I am Luis and I debated 4 years in high school for Lowell (2010-2014) and graduated from Berkeley in 2018. Given I've been out of the game for a bit please slow down (especially on the tags) and be extra clear. Also keep in mind I'm not an expert on the topic as you all debating are so don't assume I know all the acronyms/common affs for the year.

Nontraditional: I strongly believe that the affirmative must defend they hypothetical implementation of a topical plan by the United States federal government. It will be difficult to convince me otherwise and a mildly competent extension of framework will be sufficient for me to vote against a non-traditional affirmative.
Translation: Strike me

Topicality: I don’t have any strong feelings here. Specificity of a case-list and exactly what their interpretation allows are appreciated.

Theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team except in the case of condo, unless I am told otherwise. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed.

Critiques are either really good or really bad. The better they link, the better and the higher your odds of success. This also means you're going to have to explain more. I read big Ks in high school and pretty familiar with them but if you're reading something less common you might have to do a bit more work.

Disadvantages are good. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Impact calc impact calc impact calc.

Counter plan debates are fun. Even though cheater counter plans (earmarks, recommendation, xo, etc.) were my bread and butter in high school I really do not enjoy these debates although I understand their strategic benefit. That said, if you find an aff-specific solvency advocate for any of these I will be very impressed and think you’re pretty shielded from theory if you say it’s grounded in the literature base.

Case is essential. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the 1ac bioterror impact card is Ochs and the neg reads 3 cards that there is no motive and the 2ac says “extend Ochs, bioterror causes extinction”, they do not have an advantage. If the 1nc reads some cards on misallocation/cronyism/etc dooming federal projects and the 2ac extends that their tech is feasible there is zero risk of solvency when this is impacted properly. While impact defense is good, internal link/solvency presses are even better.

Cross-X is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or something. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.

I don’t call for many cards so if their link ev is terrible you need to say that

I’ll yell clear three times, then I stop flowing you and do my own work.

How to get better speaker points in front of me:
-I like to reward hard working debaters and case specific neg strats/hyper-specific link turns showcase this to me a lot more than XO/Ptx
-Be clear
-Be smart
-Compare evidence
-A little snarkiness never hurt (and is encouraged) but don’t be mean
-Exploit their contradictions! If they read neolib and a trade da concede the trade impact and you only need half as many neolib answers!

If you can tell whose wiki I stole +speaks.

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

ME

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

Random

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

Updated 1/7/23 for clipping/ethics challenge policy (at bottom)

4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a grad student and coach at KU and Barstow.

Add me to the email chain please: aewalberg@gmail.com and rockchalkdebate@gmail.com (college only)

Top Level

Do what you do best, I will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments. I tend to take a long time making decisions regardless of the round, so don't read into it.

Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, actually make decisions about what to go for, etc.

As I continue to judge, I find myself prioritizing tech over truth more and more, exception being when arguments/debates are violent, unsafe, etc. This means that you might think an argument is totally nonsensical, nonresponsive, etc. and I might agree, but you have to make those arguments in a speech in order for me to consider them when making my decision. If you want me to evaluate the debate through a lens other than tech, you should say that and explain what that means/why that mode of evaluation is better.

I think you should probably have to read re-highlighted ev, not just insert it. Open to persuasion but debates where both teams are inserting re-highlightings without analysis or explanation are negative persuasive to me.

I am generally open to whatever arguments you want to run, the substantive exception is wipeout. More critical arguments about death are fine, but I am not particularly interested in listening to or voting on suffering outweighs any potential for pleasure/we are primed to be afraid afraid of death but should die anyway.

I will read along with you in the doc while you are reading cards but I will not read along with the analytics you send, that's not a substitute for clarity or slowing down to give pen time. I also don't generally re-read a ton of evidence at the end of the debate unless told to, your analysis/explanation in round is much more important to me. If I'm in a position at the end of the debate where I have to put things together myself by sorting through a lot of evidence that received very little explanation, neither of us will probably be particularly happy with the decision.

Pet peeves: talking over each other in CX excessively---I cannot hear or understand anyone when this happens especially online, asking what cards were/weren't read in a speech if it's not prep time or cx, not having the email chain ready or sent when round start time hits, stealing prep (if it's not speech, cx, or prep time you shouldn't be typing/talking), calling me by my first name when we don't know each other. They're small things and old grumpy judge complaints, but they'll give you a sizable speaker point boost.

Online Debate

Slow down, be clearer. Make sure you can hear judges/other people in the round so you don't miss people telling you to pause or repeat an order.

Theory

I will vote on it if you win it, but that probably means you need more than one sentence on it in the 2AC. Slow down on these debates. I lean condo being the only reason to reject the team.

T

Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.

DAs and CPs

I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.

Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Winning terminal defense/zero percent risk is possible.

Ks

Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.

You don't necessarily need a material alt to win if you go for framework.

2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.

K Affs

Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.

Framework

Neg: Best neg args are usually about models but can be persuaded it's about this round. Explain why fairness, clash, etc. is an impact and how your model accesses the aff's impacts. A well-developed TVA is great. These debates are pretty hard to win in front of me if you fully concede case.

Aff: Explain what debate looks like under your counter interp or counter model of debate or explain why you don't need a counter model. I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out, two well-developed disads are more powerful than seven one-line ones.

Debate Ethics

If I cannot follow along in the evidence as you're reading it due to clarity issues or I can see you're skipping words as I'm following along, I will clear you once. If you continue skipping words or clipping and the other team does not call it out, I will let the debate continue and give feedback for educational purposes but will drop the team clipping. If you're clipping and the other team does call it out and issues an ethics challenge or otherwise ends the debate, I will end the debate, drop the team clipping, and give feedback based on the debate thus far.

If there is an ethics challenge issued and the debate is stopped, the team who is correct (about the clipping, miscut evidence, citation problem, etc.) wins the debate. Arguments about evidence ethics can be made absent an ethics challenge and without stopping the debate; for example, when connected to a citational politics argument. However, if one team says to stop the round because something is an ethics challenge, the round will stop and the team who is correct about the issue will win.

Arguments that are racist, transphobic or queerphobic, sexist, or that otherwise make the debate violent or unsafe will result in contacting your adults/coaches and a response proportional to/appropriate given what is said.

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

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

Email: goconnorw@gmail.com

About me:

I debated for 4 years (2013-2017) at New Trier High School. I have judged 18 debates on the water topic.

About my philosophy:

Everything I say here is simply a reflection of my preferences as a debater, which may or may not be useful to you in debating in front of me. I will always attempt to evaluate the arguments on the flow irrespective of my personal opinions, but as a human being I feel it’s useful to inform you of any predispositions I may unwittingly retain.

Things I believe about debate:

Tech over truth. Dropped arguments are true assuming a claim and a warrant. The implication of the argument is up for debate unless there is also a dropped, warranted implication to the initial argument.

Inserted rehighlightings are bad - you should read it.

Card quality matters a lot, but only if you explain why. I don’t want to do evidence comparison for you. One great card is usually better than five okay ones, but like anything this is debatable.

T/Framework:

Outside of round, I believe that teams should read topical advocacies and went for Framework all the time in high school.

Is fairness an impact? I don’t really even know what this question means. Economic decline is an impact, but despite this classification its desirability is still up for debate. Fairness is “an impact” but that doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically good and I generally think other impacts are more strategic.

T vs. Plans:

I think the desirability of an extremely limited topic is more debatable than most judges.

I generally believe in competing interpretations.

CP Theory:

As a debater, I thought CP’s competing off certainty and immediacy were cheating and not competitive.

I hated textual competition, loved PIC’s, and enjoyed taking advantage of teams’ unwillingness to go for conditionality.

I presume theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team absent an explicit warrant otherwise.

Kritiks: Quite a few of my favorite and least favorite debates as a debater involved a kritik. Kritiks that critically engage an affirmative are often very effective strategies, but many kritik debates turn into blobs of incoherent philosophy babble vs. policy relevance. Contextualization and examples will probably win you the debate.

Affirmatives will be granted a lot of leeway when the block extrapolates or alters the thesis of the kritik unpredictably based on the 1NC. Line by line will be rewarded and long overviews will not.

DA’s/Case:

Zero risk is definitely possible.

As a debater, I hated most variations of politics/elections DA’s but read them anyway.

Most DA’s and advantages are terrible and should lose to smart analytics.

Other:

I love plan flaws and thought structural inherency was a great arg on the China topic.

Zachary Watts (call me Zach, please)

Affiliation: Jesuit Dallas

History: Debated at Jesuit Dallas for 3 years in high school and at UT Austin for 4 years, coached at Jesuit Dallas for a year.

Speaker Position: 2A/1N in high school, 2N/1A in college

Email: zeezackattack@gmail.com

Updated 10/19/2023

Note: I haven't been too involved with judging, research, or argument development on this topic (for both college and high school), so I likely won't be super familiar with topic-specific arguments - when you're going for arguments, make sure that you're fully explaining them!

If you need a shorter version because this is right before a debate -

1. be nice to your opponents - debate isn't an activity to make people feel bad.

2. Make sure you're clear - I'm okay with speed, but if I can't understand you I can't flow you.

3. You should feel free to run the arguments that you're used to running and the debate will probably flow better if you do that as opposed to trying to fit my preferences - make sure you're condensing down to the key questions of the debate in the final rebuttals providing impact framing so I can evaluate which impacts I should view first.

Have fun and good luck!

General:

I will try my best to evaluate the debate based upon what I flow, although I am human and have some tendencies/leanings (discussed further below). I will flow the debate to the best of my ability - go as fast as you like, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow you (if this is the case, I will say clear - if you hear this either slow down or enunciate more (or both)). I will read a piece of evidence at the end of a debate if it is particularly important to my decision and heavily contested or you ask me to read it after the round (and have explained what you think is the problem with the evidence/why it warrants reading it after the round), but I think that the debate should come down to your analysis of the evidence in your speeches and comparative arguments as to why I should prefer your evidence/argument. I don't count flashing as prep - however, if you are obviously prepping after you called to stop, I will start prep and notify you that I'm doing so. If you are cheating (i.e. clipping cards) you will lose the round and get minimal speaker points; if you accuse somebody of cheating and there is not proof that they did so, the same will happen to you (and, in that case, not the team accused of cheating) - debate is supposed to be a fun, educational activity - don't ruin it for other people by trying to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

Speaking:

As stated above, I'm fine with you speaking quickly, just don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Please engage in line-by-line and clash with the other team's arguments (this means doing some comparative analysis between your argument and that of your opponent, not just playing the "they say, we say" game or extending your arguments without referencing those of your opponent). If you could stick to the 1NC order on case and the 2AC order of arguments on off-case, that is very much appreciated. Using CX strategically (i.e. setting up your arguments, fleshing out some of their args to contextualize comparative analysis, pointing out flaws in their evidence, etc, and actually implementing them in your speech (it's okay to take prep to make sure some of the good things from CX make it into your speech)) will definitely earn you points. I will start at 28.5 and add or deduct points from there. Doing the things I said above will earn you more points (more points for executing them well) and not doing them or being rude to the other team will lose you points.

Topicality:

I think that topicality tends to be a bit overused as a time-suck for the 2AC, but don't let that deter you from running it - just an observation. If you're going to run T, you need to clearly articulate what your vision for the topic is, why the aff does not fit in that interpretation, and why the aff not fitting under that interpretation is bad and a reason that your interpretation is good. A lot of this comes down to the standards debate, but really explain why allowing the aff's scholarship being read in the round is bad for debate - why does the aff being outside of your interpretation make debate unfair for the negative team and why is that bad and/or why does the aff's form of scholarship trade off with topic-specific education and why should that come before the aff's form of education? On the aff, you should push back on these questions - you should have a we meet, a counter-interpretation (or at least a counter-interpretation and a reason why their interp is bad for the topic), and a reasonability argument - if I think that the aff fits within a fair interpretation of the topic and doesn't cause the "topic explosion" internal link that the neg is saying you do, I'm very likely to lean aff in that debate (please don't go for only reasonability in the 2AR - at that point, if you don't even have a we meet, it's very difficult for me to determine how you are reasonably topical). Please also be framing the impacts in terms of what the aff justifies (for the neg) or in terms of what it does in the round (for the aff, especially if you're pretty close to the topic) and explain why I should look at the T debate in a specific light (i.e. "in-round abuse" vs. "it's what they justify"). Especially in the rebuttals, please slow down a little bit on T (you don't have to go conversational speed, but please don't sound like you're going as fast as you would reading a piece of evidence) - it's a very technical debate to have and I might not get every warrant if I can't write down the words that you're saying as quickly as you're saying them, which may be frustrating to you if I didn't get something important. There's not a lot of pen time (i.e. times when I can catch up with flowing such as when cards are being read), so slowing down a bit on T would probably be beneficial for you.

Counterplans:

I think that counterplans are extremely useful and strategic for the negative and are often blown off by the aff. Counterplans should be competitive (textually as well as functionally - aff, if you point out that a CP is not functionally competitive, I am pretty likely to lean aff and dismiss the CP - be careful with this, though, as process CPs often have an internal net benefit; you should engage that CP on a theoretical level as well. Use CX to determine what the CP actually does before making the arguments about CP competitiveness), and I think process CPs are usually not theoretically justifiable. I am more likely to view these CPs a legitimate, however, if you have a solvency advocate specific to the aff or can use the aff's solvency evidence to justify the CP (especially if you have a reason why whatever process you do the aff through can't just be tacked onto the aff via a perm). Perms should not sever or be intrinsic, and CPs must demonstrate an opportunity cost with the aff.

Note about CP competition - CPs must be both textually and functionally competitive - that means if you're running a PIC, in order to compete, it must not only functionally do less than the plan, the CP text must also be written in such a way that it does not include all of the plan text.

If you're running a process CP, it must have a net benefit that is a DA to the aff and not simply an advantage to the process the CP has chosen. If it is the case that the process must be done in the context of the affirmative in order to achieve that advantage, then you have established an opportunity cost with the plan. If not, you have not established an opportunity cost with the plan.

DAs:

Neg, run specific links, diversify your impacts across DAs and make sure that the 1NC shell isn't just a case turn. Both sides need to do some impact calculus and tell me why your impacts turn the other team's or just outweigh them. Aff, especially in debates with multiple DAs, make sure your strategy is consistent - don't double-turn yourself across flows.

Politics DAs - I'm not a fan of the politics DA - I'm not saying you can't run it, but I'm more likely to reward smart aff analytics that point out inconsistencies in the uniqueness-link-internal link logic chain of the DA even if you read a lot of evidence highlighted to produce a warrant where none actually exists.

Kritiks:

I don't think that Ks should be excluded from debate, and I think that questioning the philosophical and theoretical basis of the arguments that are run is a good educational exercise that can be enjoyable to watch when it is done well. I think that you should read a specific link to the aff (or at the very least be able to explain why something the aff does is indicted by the link evidence you've read), an impact with a clear internal link to the link argument, and an alternative to solve that. While I think that Ks that impact out the implications of the aff's rhetoric in-round might lower the threshold for alt solvency beyond a rejection of the plan, anything (like the cap K) claiming larger and broader impacts will have to do more work to prove that the alternative is capable of solving that and explaining a reason why the permutation cannot function. For both sides, the FW debate needs to be handled like T in terms of competing interpretations for how I should evaluate the debate and explaining how your interpretation accesses your opponents standards and how your standards outweigh or turn the ones you do not solve. On both sides, you should also be explaining by the rebuttals what the implication of your interpretation is - if I, for example, treat the aff as an object of scholarship, what does that mean in terms of how I evaluate whether or not the aff is a good idea/should be endorsed? I think interpretations should be somewhat generalizable to debate as an activity, not your specific K - I think FW interps along the lines of 'ROB is to do whatever the K is' are too easily characterized by the aff as self-serving and arbitrary metrics for how the debate should be evaluated. Make sure to include turns case analysis in the block in addition to the impact in your 1NC (and remember to extend it in the 2NR!). Affs, you should have a reason that your scholarship should be prioritized, and take advantage of the fact that the weakest part of a K is usually the alt - if you can win reasons why the alt can't solve case or the K, it makes it easier for you to outweigh the K using case. Also, if the link is not specific, you should point that out and use your advantages (if possible) to prove a no link argument or a reason why the perm can solve. While I've become more familiar with the form of some Ks of communication, they're not my favorite and, from what I've seen, usually just become a fiat bad argument. My K literacy is less along the lines of post-modern Ks, so it'll probably take a bit more explanation on those for me to vote on them. I'm not the judge for death good arguments.

K aff v. K debates:

In these debates, it is very important for the negative to distinguish themselves from the aff. I know that sounds obvious, but truly, you need to be very specific about the link - what in specific about the aff are you criticizing (the way they construct the world/explain how violence operates, their solvency mechanism, etc.) and why does that matter - this is particularly true when there's not a whole lot of difference between the aff's and neg's impacts. This can be helped by distinguishing the alternative from the aff in order to resolve whatever link you make. For the aff, use the theoretical grounding that's probably already in your 1AC in order to engage the link debate (it's probably going to be a question of proving that your understanding is correct and good) and (if applicable) make perms. Neg, if you're going to make the argument that the aff shouldn't get perms in a method debate, do a bit of explanation about why (I'm not asking for like a minute on perms bad - maybe a 5 second explanation about testing the affirmative's method is good in debate or about why the two methods are mutually exclusive should be good enough).

Non-Traditional Affs/Framework:

After having many of these debates in college, I've come to enjoy thinking about FW debates from both the aff and the neg side. I think that when you're aff, whether you're running a creative take on the topic or have very little relationship to it, you need to come prepared to defend a model of what debate looks like (or why your unlimited approach to debate is good) and why it's better than switch side debate. I phrase it like this because I think that one of my biggest issues with aff approaches to answering FW is that they rely on winning some exclusion offense (that the content of what is being discussed by the aff/1AC is excluded under the neg's interpretation). I feel like that's often not the case - even if you're right that the neg's interpretation precludes you from running this 1AC when you're aff, it doesn't preclude you from running your critique of the topic as a negative strategy. I think that, if you approach the debate with trying to beat switch side debate in mind, you'll have a much better chance of winning that your model of debate is actually key to your offense. On the negative, I think that one of the most important framing arguments you can utilize to neutralize much of the aff's offense is the argument that debate is ultimately a competitive activity - even if it's educational, the ballot and a presumption that either team could get it if they win the debate incentivizes teams to do specific, in-depth research. I think that this allows you to claim that if you're winning a limits DA or another internal link for why the aff's counter-interpretation/model of debate creates an undue procedural burden on the negative, it means that the education impacts the aff claims to solve don't get debated or researched under the aff's model because there's not an incentive to do so.

Theory:

Theory requires a significant time investment for me to vote on it. I think that most theory arguments (i.e. one of the many reasons a process CP is theoretically objectionable) are reasons to reject an argument not the team; of course, conditionality is a reason to reject the team (if you win the theory debate). Theory arguments should have a clear interpretation, violation, and impact when initiated; the answer should have a counter-interpretation and reasons why that's a better vision of debate. I think that smart counter-interpretations can get out of a lot of theory offense because most theory impacts are based on worst-case scenarios. I think that there is definitely a scale for theory (i.e. I'm much more likely to vote on multiple conditional contradictory worlds than just condo) - while I apparently used to prioritize fairness over education in this calculus, that has decidedly changed. I think that in a condo debate, for example, you're much more likely to convince me that debates are worse quality if the negative gets conditional advocacies than that it is unfair for the negative to get conditional advocacies. Like on topicality, slow down on theory. If this is your victory path, it should be the entirety of your final rebuttal (2AR) - you're going to win or lose on this, and none of the rest of the debate matters when theory is a question of whether the debate should be happening in the first place (although if there are other parts of the debate that the neg has gone for that may be considered a prior question to theory, you need to have arguments for why theory comes first).

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

winchellanthony@gmail.com – add me; also add trojandebateteam@gmail.com | they/them | Updated for Minnesota/Texas 2023

Minnesota/Texas Update: I judged 3 rounds at Wake (all AI affs, all prelims). Judging record is 2-1 aff.

Wake Update: This is my first experience judging college debate. I debated for USC with very limited success. I haven't been very actively involved in debate over the last two years, but I did a lot of research for the AI IPR aff USC has been reading this year. It's been a while since I've judged, so I recommend you go a bit slower than usual and overexplain your arguments. I'm not very good for the K, especially high level K debate. The paradigm I wrote below was written for high schoolers, but my thoughts should translate to college debate just fine.

(Stuff below was last updated for Berkeley 2022)

Online Debate: I have judged and participated in roughly 100 online debates over the course of the pandemic. Things I've found to be useful are going slower than you normally would and sharing analytics if they’re already written out in a speech doc. Also, I feel it's important to note that I flow on paper, so with lag and poor mic quality, it's extra important to give me enough pen time. Lastly, if my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech unless I've said otherwise.

Policy --

Rounds Judged on this Topic: 0. I haven't been very active in judging or coaching this year so I am well behind the curve when it comes to topic knowledge.

About Me: I did policy debate for three years at Green Valley High School in Las Vegas and I’ve been debating at USC and coaching Chaminade College Prep in LA for two years now. I qualled to the TOC my senior year of HS and am currently in my third year of college debate. I am majoring in physics and in astronomy, so please don't assume I know all the intricacies of econ, IR, the law, etc. because it's not something I am actively studying. I'd say I have pretty good intuition about most things though, but it's always better to simplify the arguments you're making in front of me because I don't like to think too hard.

tl;dr: All the below thoughts are in no way set in stone and the way I evaluate a round depends a lot more on what happened in those 2 hours than anything I'll say here; with that in mind, I will vote for any argument as long as I think you are winning it. I'd say I'm pretty tech > truth, but this only goes so far (e.g. if your argument starts off with near-0% risk, even if you technically win the argument, I will only evaluate your argument with the level of risk that your evidence indicates I should). Most importantly, if I don't know how to explain to the other team how they lost to your argument during an RFD, then you're not getting my ballot.

Rhetoric: Debate is a rhetorical activity meaning if I can’t understand you, I won’t vote for you. Speed is fine, but clarity is key. A dropped argument only matters if you extend a claim, warrant, and impact to it. Please be nice to each other, we’re all here to learn and have fun.

K's in General: I am not going to lie, I am not proficient in any K literature whatsoever. So please, assume I have no idea what you’re talking about, explain your author's jargon, develop my understanding of your theory during the round, and tell me the RFD in your 2NR/2AR. However, I really try to not let my lack of knowledge be a determining factor in the decision. If you're going for a K, I tend to try extra hard to flow everything you say and read along with evidence as you are speaking, as well as be extra expressive so you have some indication if I am buying what you're selling.

Framework/K Aff's: I think that an affirmative team should probably read a topical plan, but well-researched and topic specific non-plan affs are generally more interesting to me than bland policy affs. I feel that framework debates turn into two ships passing in the night very quickly, so the more clash you have on either side, the better off you’ll be. Negative teams should try to have specific answers to the aff’s case and cross apply those to framework if they want a greater chance of winning the debate. Skills or fairness, I don't care, just have an impact or prove to me the aff doesn't. Most TVA's are egregiously bad (sometimes, not even topical), so read it on the neg is probably the better 2NR extension to make.

K’s on the Neg: The affirmative should probably get to weigh their plan. Negative teams need to explain their arguments in depth and without jargon. Alternative’s are usually incredibly vague and meaningless to me; please explain them to me like I were a five year old, I promise I won’t find it patronizing. Please provide specific and detailed link, internal link, and impact stories.

Topicality: I was coached by Cade Cottrell, which means that almost every aff I read throughout high school was borderline topical at best. I love creative and innovative affs that are right at the boundary of topical and non-topical, but I’ll still hold the line if the neg proves they have the better interp. I think that the best affirmative argument against any T violation is a combination of arbitrariness and reasonability, but my default is competing interpretations.

CP’s: Read whatever and however many CP’s you want, just make sure you can theoretically justify them if this becomes an issue in round. If you're neg tell me to judge kick, if you’re aff tell me why that’s bad; I’m leaving it up to you to decide if I should allow it or not.

DA’s: I can see myself voting aff even if there aren’t any cards read on a DA if the negative team’s story is entirely incoherent. Turns case and solves case arguments are distinct and need to be answered differently; neg teams should probably have both. Link turns case arguments are more persuasive than impact turns case. The more specific the DA the better, but generic DA’s are fine. Impact calc is generally the most important part of these debates.

Theory: These debates rarely end up being good. I think theory args other than conditionality are probably not a reason to drop the team. 2A’s that terrorize the neg with theory will get higher speaks, but 15 seconds should be sufficient on ridiculously contrived and self-serving theory.

People I Agree With: Cade Cottrell, Samin Kamal, Parker Coon, Jaden Lessnick.

Things to do for Higher Speaks: I believe that the ballot is enough of a reward for the team who did the better debating, so ethos/logos/pathos will be how I evaluate speaker points. In general, you should make jokes about anyone mentioned above, do line by line, be funny, don't be rude, and end speeches/prep early when you are CLEARLY ahead.

Email: womboughsam36@gmail.com

UGA Law '27

Georgia Tech '23 (History and Sociology)

Woodward Academy ’20

Topic Knowledge: I have judged a lot of debates and worked at ENDI this past summer.

Last Substantively Updated: 1/7/24

ㅤ

Short Version + Novices (est. 45 sec. to read)

"Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge, clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates." — Bill Batterman

Flow.

Be nice.

Be clear.

Have fun!

Time yourselves.

It’s probably not a voting issue.

If you read a plan, defend and clarify it.

Do not request a marked copy in lieu of flowing.

Be an evidenced, well-reasoned critic, not a cynic.

If you stop prep and then re-start prep, take off 10 seconds of prep.

If you don't have your video on in online debate, I will struggle to stay engaged.

An argument must be complete and comprehensible before there is a burden to answer it.

Focus on depth in argument. It's more engaging and is the only reliable way to beat good teams.

Write my ballot for me at the top of your late rebuttals, without using any debate jargon or hyperbole.

"Marking a card" means actually clearly marking that card on your computer (e.g. multiple Enter key pushes).

If you advocate something, at some point in the debate, you need to explain the tangible results of your advocacy without relying on any debate or philosophy jargon.

There has been a significant decline in the quality of speaking since online debate started because debaters became less familiar with speaking directly to the judge and because judges gave more leeway to the absence of clarity due to the computer instrument. Judges should never have to rely on reading along with the speech document in order to flow tags/analytics. If you have no intonation nor emphasis during tags/analytics/rebuttals, you are a bad speaker.

ㅤ

ㅤ

More Stuff (est. 1:30 min. to read)

ㅤ

Debate

I really enjoy debate. Debate is the most rewarding activity I have ever done. But debate didn't always feel rewarding while I was doing it. Accordingly, I hope that everybody prioritizes having fun, and then learning and improving.

From Johnnie Stupek's paradigm: "I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that make the debate easier for me to flow including: structured line-by-line, clarity when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing important lines in the body of your evidence, and descriptively labelling off-case positions in the 1NC."

Purging your speech documents of analytics and then rocking through them will be just as likely to "trick" me into not flowing an argument as it will be your opponents.

ㅤ

Case

I will vote on absolute defense.

ㅤ

Critiques

Explain; don’t confuse.

It is anti-black for debaters that are not black (team) to present afropessimist arguments. This practice exists because of the anti-blackness or cowardice of some non-black educators in debate. Frank Wilderson III claims that he "grieves over" debate's appropriation of his work (“Staying Ready for Black Study: A Conversation”).

Postmodernism— Debaters often mischaracterize ornamental absolutism in philosophical writings as almost-theological dogmatisms about how the world operates. This is anti-modern, not postmodern. <— I don't know if that paragraph makes any sense.

I've seen a few debates exclusively about personal identity that were extremely distressful for both sides. I think it's really weird when a high school student prompts a rejoinder from their peers to a pure affirmation of their identity. Please don't make me adjudicate it.

ㅤ

Non-Topical Debates

"No" to aff conditionality. Defend your aff and comparatively weigh offense.

Please stop referencing college debate rounds that you only know about thirdhand.

ㅤ

Theory

The more conditional advocacies there are in the 1NC, the worse the debate usually is.

I am sympathetic to affirmative complaints about process counterplans and agent counterplans that do nearly all of the affirmative. These counterplans, with the States-multi-plank CP in mind, tend to stagnate negative topic innovation and have single-handedly ruined some topics (Education).

ㅤ

Extra

I almost always defer to technical debating, but in close debates:

I am a degrowth hack. T: Substantial against a quantifiably small aff is fun.

I am easily convinced that Bostrom-esque "extinction first" is incoherent and can justify repulsive ideologies.

I strongly believe that China is not militarily revisionist. I think Sinophobic scholarship is festering in debate.

With respect to "Catastrophe Good" arguments, "we must die to destroy a particle accelerator that will consume the universe" is less convincing to me than a nihilism or misanthropy argument. I value accurate science.

Lastly, don't purposefully try to fluster the judge if you want quality post-round answers.

ㅤ

Cheating

In the instance that a team accuses the other of clipping, I will follow the NDCA clipping guidelines (2).

Strawmanning is an ethics violation as per the NSDA guidelines.

(1) https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

(2) https://static.squarespace.com/static/53416a18e4b0aa2aaadf85e4/t/53665f81e4b03af4b79e088f/1399218049326/clipping.pdf

ㅤ

More References

https://the3nr.com/2009/11/03/judging-methodologies-how-do-judges-reach-their-decisions/

https://the3nr.com/2016/04/15/an-updated-speaker-point-scale-based-on-2015-2016-results/ (I inflate this).

https://new.debateus.org/to-consult-or-not-to-consult-on-the-theoretical-legitimacy-of-the-consultation-counterplan/

umichdocs@gmail.com for college email chains. mattzhu@umich.edu for high school. Please make the email subject something sensible that includes the tournament and round.

Arguments have to pass the sniff test.

I'm probably among the most willing to assign negligible risk to an advantage or DA.

I'm not good for affs that don't defend a plan. If I am judging a framework round then establishing that your interpretation can be workable for the neg is probably necessary. I think logically impact turning is also a good approach but I think I'm a hard sell on fairness totally bad or predictability totally bad.

Topic Notes

I don't closely follow any topic.

Judging Idiosyncrasies

Won't vote on ASPEC or new affs bad unless either dropped for 2 consecutive speeches or 1NC time invested exceeds 10 seconds. I don't presume (or think) that a new aff justifies infinite neg flex.

I usually find most impact calc to be totally useless. Everyone says extinction so it's all about probability at that point. I think timeframe is not an intrinsically important consideration in impact calc since impacts are magnitude times probability. It's more useful to me if you try to quantify how much each argument mitigates a particular piece of offense.

Cross-applications are best made on where they are being re-applied or say something to indicate I should look elsewhere.

Impact Turns

I'm fine for any impact turn including spark or wipeout. Aff moralizing should be accompanied with a genuine ethics argument.

Topicality

I am a *very* good judge for the con on topicality. I think it’s very important that affirmatives prove inherency for topicality.

Quality of definitions is vanishingly important to me. Precision almost never matters.

Very easy to convince me that it's preferable to interpret the plan through things other than plan text in a vacuum.

Disads

I could see myself voting for intrinsicness or other disad theory.

Extinction turns case is a useless argument.

Counterplans

Counterplan inherency is not as important as many think, but it can be relevant especially if you choose to “kick” the cp.

I'm probably among the worst judges for the opposition on nearly all CP theory. I think the ideal version of debate would not have conditionality, but I think debate could be too hard for the neg without condo. I think 50 state fiat does not make sense logically if the hypothetical scenario is someone deciding what to do, but debate could be too hard for the neg without it.

That said if you can defend that a cp is legitimate I'm probably among the better judges for judging a competition debate/a debate around somewhat intrinsic perms.

I think CPs need to have some indication that the action is somewhat practical (somewhat being very permissive). Doesn't have to be a full-on solvency advocate that's expected of affs, but I wouldn't accept a CP that has some random individual amend the Constitution without any indication that such an action is even possible.

Affs, please connect solvency deficits to specific advantages/impacts. Negs, please never say "sufficiency framing".

Kritiques on the neg

I think about the alt the same way as a uniqueness cp.

Framework is alright but if you're going for framework you should commit to it. Otherwise I will weigh the aff by default.

Pet Peeves

I'd prefer if you don't call me "judge". I'd prefer either "Matt" or "hey you".

When you're marking a card say "marked at [word]". Don't say "cut the card at [word]"