Tabroom.com

Hub City Swing

2021 — Online, MS/US

IPDA Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Oluwadamilola Ajayi Park University 8 rounds None

Pamela Alba Dallas Baptist University None

Joseph Alcazar Dallas Baptist University 8 rounds None

John Amacker University of Southern Mississippi 8 rounds None

Abbigayle Arbuckle Abilene Christian University None

Joey Baker University of Arkansas None

Steven Barhorst Middle Tennessee State University None

Abbey Barnes University of Southern Mississippi 8 rounds None

Martin Bayazitoglu Southern Methodist None

Addison Beatty OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Klaus Berry University of Southern Mississippi None

Richard Bradley University of Southern Mississippi None

Chloe Brownell Abilene Christian University None

Colin Cameron University of Southern Mississippi 8 rounds None

Brandon Carlson Mississippi State University None

Jane Carroll Abilene Christian University 8 rounds None

Ally Cherry Mississippi State University 8 rounds None

Courtney Cochran Mississippi State University None

Lora Cohn Park University

Valerie Colbert Dallas Baptist University None

Katherine Cooper University of Southern Mississippi

Carly Crotty Belmont University 8 rounds None

Steven Dallas OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Elana Daniels University of Southern Mississippi

Last changed on Mon January 11, 2021 at 2:59 AM CDT

Elana Daniels

Pronouns (she/her)

4 years HS Policy debate @ Edmond North High School

University of Alabama 2023 (ROLL TIDE!)

Double majoring in Political Science and Communications.

Add me to the email chain: dontreadaplan@gmail.com <i made this in high school hahaha

First, if there's anything in this paradigm that isn't clear, please feel free to email me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify!

General notes!

Please keep track of your own prep time.

I do read the evidence sent in the chain. Quality of evidence is important!
Clarity > Speed. Since the rounds are online now please read a little slower, zoom can make it hard to understand you.
Read whatever you are most comfortable with. I will evaluate every and any argument provided it is explained, warranted, and implicated well. I won't vote on claims without warrants even if they're dropped. I won't vote on an argument that I don't understand.
Debate safety is a priority for me: use trigger warnings when necessary, use your opponent’s correct pronouns, and don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic ect.

Public Forum

I really enjoy public forum debate, I did it my freshman year of high school. Please keep in mind that I wont be as well versed in the topic as you are so refrain from using any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or buzzwords. Ultimately the biggest problem I see in PF debate is a lack of warranting, evidence comparison, and impact calculus. These three things are essential to winning my ballot. I am a very technical judge, I flow everything (including cross-ex) and dropped arguments are true arguments. Warranting and evidence comparison is essential. You should explain should I prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence. Similarly you need to compare the impacts, do not just extend your own impact while ignoring the opponents, think about why does your impact outweigh? Lastly please be respectful of each other and have fun!

LD Paradigm

I’m more familiar with the traditional form of LD, but I do have experience in policy debate so I’m open to hearing more progressive arguments. Please keep in mind that I wont be as well versed in the topic as you are so refrain from using any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or buzzwords. I think framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain perspective then all the work that you do needs to fit under that perspective. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round. Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

Speaks:

What gets you good speaks:

Following the flow
Making things interesting
Clear spreading
Productive CX

What hurts your speaks:

Wasting CX or Prep time
Being rude to opponents or partner
Clipping
Stealing prep

+.5 speaking points for each GOOD TikTok reference/ puns. They are very appreciated :)

Daniel Davis Louisiana State University Shreveport 8 rounds None

Mik Davis Middle Tennessee State University

Last changed on Mon February 7, 2022 at 8:42 AM EDT

NPDA/IPDA/TIPDA at Tennessee Technological University 2016-2020; Occasionally compete in pro now.

I'm a flow judge and I flow on paper, so clean, organized, signposted cases are my favorite. I keep time. I will do my best to make the RFD clear based on what I flowed in the round, but if you have questions about my ballot I'm always down to answer them after the prelim rounds or after the tournament.

I don't mind speed/spread and I can keep up with that fine, just be mindful of how that comes across in online debate.

I'm not a tabula rasa judge, but I will weigh the round how the aff asks me to as long as it's reasonable.

I tend not to flow CX in IPDA/TIPDA unless it's super relevant to actual argumentation or top case. (As a total aside, please don't try to convince me you can cross your own speech in TIPDA).

In NPDA, definitional arguments and T's are fine with me as long as they truly serve their purpose and you run the whole T. I'm not a fan of "soft T's" when opp/neg will contest the definitions but doesn't run a full T. If a T is warranted, you need to run the whole thing in order for me to vote it on it. I tend not to look favorably on opp/neg who run a T and then proceed to debate their gov/aff line-by-line.

In IPDA/TIPDA, I will hear you out on definitional arguments but you need to be clear about why you're running it and provide a reasonable alternative.

For both formats, the definitional arguments need to carry all the way across the flow. If you contest the definitions in your 1NC/LO and then drop it, I'm going to drop it too.

K's are fine with me; I'm pretty versed on the K literature. Just make sure you're actually linking the parts of your K to literature you're citing.

I don't mind intense/aggressive debating, just please be respectful. There's a clear line, to me, between intense debating and being mean, and I don't look favorably on people who are being aggressive when it's not warranted. We're all trying to have a good round, you know?

My pet peeves tend to be little things like taking too long to get through pleasantries and into the flow. I love debate and I like judging so you don't need to thank me excessively for being here. Other things I don't like include ground shifts, logical fallacies, things like that. Again, I'm not a tabula rasa judge and I don't like it when debaters try to convince me that down is up and up is down when it clearly isn't. I will listen to evidence presses from your opponent if what you're citing doesn't make sense/clearly isn't credible.

If you tell me to cross-apply your case to your opponent's, that's fine but if it doesn't actually clash with their case and it's more clumping and dumping, I do kind of see that as a dropped argument. Dropped arguments, to me, are when you don't actually interact with something that's on the flow. Acknowledging that the argument is there is not the same as clashing with it, to me.

Voters weigh pretty heavily on my flow and in my RFD's. I think you can win or lose a whole round in the voters.

I like to think that I'm a pretty reasonable judge, but then again every judge kind of thinks that about themselves. :)

Happy debating and good luck!

Claire DeVol University of Arkansas None

Derek Dismukes Middle Tennessee State University 8 rounds None

Ruth Dismukes Jefferson State Community College None

Lindsay Duede Louisiana State University Shreveport None

Maggie Eaves East Texas Baptist University None

AJ Edwards Louisiana State University Shreveport None

Jascha Ely Dallas Baptist University None

Madison Flores Howard Payne University None

Miranda Flores Dallas Baptist University None

Shanisha Ford Louisiana State University Shreveport None

Alyssa LYNN Foster William Carey University None

Cole Franklin East Texas Baptist University None

Nick Ged Middle Tennessee State University None

Matthew Gedeon Louisiana State University Shreveport 8 rounds None

Jacob Goldberg Jefferson State Community College None

Abigail Gray Arkansas State University None

Michael Gray Arkansas State University 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 14, 2021 at 6:10 AM CDT

"I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios."

I repeat: "I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios."

This part pertains mostly to Parli and other argumentative debate formats.

Even if you practice an oration / persuasion-based format, you should probably read this since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.

Me: Debated for A-State from 2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some LD, IPDA, and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.

What is debate? By definition, competitive debate is a game of rhetoric and argument.

Why does access matter? The outcome of any game becomes suspect when certain players are denied access to the determining factors - the shared resources - within the game. For this reason, access must be a prior question to any format, any tournament, and, in fact, any particular round. A major avoidable barrier to access is speed reading (spreading). Because this is such an issue in debate, I prefer all participants to receive consent before doing this. Let me be clear... I do not believe "clear" or "slow" solves. You can argue about that in the round if you want, but without articulation on the flow, my default stance is that spreading is fair ONLY when all parties have consented to it.

Content: I'll listen to anything, but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact scenarios. I also wish people would try to use more irony and satire in debate, so thank you in advance if you're funny.

Preferred Form/Style: I prefer listening to accessible, slightly elevated rates of speech. That's about it.

Speaker Points: These exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that.

Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can convince me otherwise, do it.

I'll gladly vote on an aff K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.

T: I love a well-run topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art. I'll gladly listen to and enjoy an "oldschool" T shell, too. It's also a lost art.

Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the word "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you need when answering.

K: Yes, please. Avoid any blatant mis-readings and misapplications of theory. You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're (intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.

DA/CP/Condi: structure, specificity, and clarity.

My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.

Speed and Speed K: I prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about 200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.

If I or your opponent calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."

Rebuttals: By the time we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech (pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact analysis at the bottom.

Time, Timers, & Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.

At the end of the day, I believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.

--------

IPDA

There aren't a lot of specific argumentation-focused norms for this community, so I can't really speak to anything in particular. What I said up there ^ is what I believe about argument, so if you're relying on it heavily in IPDA, you'll want to read up there. A lot of what I said above applies to any format of debate.

Do your best to make your advocacy and burdens clear and I'll vote on who does the best at upholding their burdens.

I think IPDA debaters should all decide how they're going to handle/interpret article 1, section J of the constitution so that both aff and neg have fair and balanced ground. Too often, it seems that judges' thresholds for abuse are out of sync with the seriousness of fairness in debate. The IPDA constitution mentions fair/fairness and abuse a significant number of times compared to governing documents for other formats of debate; so... it seems like an important part of the format to me. I just don't know what to do with it because nobody ever really talks about it in specific, argumentative ways. Although it's not necessary to do this in IPDA, I really wish competitors would just choose to do it.

Regardless, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have the right to ask for my ballot based on that alone - with or without a counter-definition

Ashley Hale Louisiana Tech University 8 rounds None

Justin Hamilton Dallas Baptist University 8 rounds None

Keely Hardeman Abilene Christian University None

Regan Hardeman Abilene Christian University None

Samantha Harris Middle Tennessee State University None

Holly Harrison Mississippi State University None

Joshua Hendricks University of Southern Mississippi None

Sahori Hernandez-Quinones Abilene Christian University None

Parker Hopkins University of Southern Mississippi

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:47 PM CDT

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

Katie Howard Abilene Christian University None

Caitlin Hurlbut OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Andrew Ignatius Mississippi State University None

Andrew Jackson OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Tyler Jahraus Mississippi State University None

Thomas James Louisiana State University Shreveport 8 rounds None

Kylie Jenkins OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Cooper Johnson Louisiana State University Shreveport 8 rounds None

Sadie Johnson Louisiana Tech University None

BPCC Judge Bossier Parish CC None

Kellie Kinnie University of Arkansas None

Kelli Kirkland University of Southern Mississippi 8 rounds None

Ashley Knight William Carey University None

Brandon Knight William Carey University

Macy Kolacny OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Parker Krag Mississippi State University None

Sidney Lain Louisiana Tech University None

Hanan Levis-Betancourt University of Florida Debate None

Josiah Macumber University of Florida Debate

Last changed on Thu September 23, 2021 at 12:22 PM EDT

Debated for Liberty University.

Current: University of Florida

Yes email chain: josiahmacumber@gmail.com

TLDR: Do not feel the need to adapt to my preferences I will do my best to judge fairly. Be persuasive and tell me why arguments are important. Dropped arguments are true arguments, but you need to still explain them and why they matter.

Speaking Preferences:

Slow down on analytics people can only write/type so fast, so slow down if you want me to flow it all. Same applies for theory arguments.

I do not have a concrete method for assigning speaker points. That being said things that help are: clarity, volume (not a big fan of barely being able to hear someone), cross ex (good questions/good answers), and strategic decisions.

K: Have a specific link to plan action/reps/epistemology makes it a lot easier to win instead of generic state links- those are cool and all, but at least contextualize it. Many times bad link debating is done so that the link explanation could have been read against any affirmative on any topic. Those are bad ways of explaining a link and it should be articulated in context of the round that is being had. That can take a variety of forms such as reading through the other team's evidence and pulling quotes that prove your link argument or the logic of the link. It could also take the form of using the answers that other teams provide in cross ex. Each link should have it's own unique impact and it would behoove you to explain how the link turns the case.

Framing for these debates is essential and direction is key for what to prioritize. It's nice to win the alternative, but I don't think it's necessary. IF you are not going for the alternative make it clear otherwise I will evaluate the perm and whether the alt can overcome the instances of the links.

CP: A good CP and DA combo is a solid option for the 2NR. I also enjoy well thought out PIC's. CP's don't necessarily need evidence, but it is preferred (solvency advocate theory is probably a good arg against this).

Maybe it's just me, but after a team spreads through the planks and card for a CP I am still somewhat unsure what it does. Explanation is important in terms of explaining how it solves and why it is different from the affirmative.

DA: Explain it well and it's interaction with the case. You need to do the analysis of why it outweighs the case or turns it. Do comparative evidence analysis and provide reasons why their evidence is not as warranted or does not really answer the DA and tell me why your evidence is better. That does not mean "our ev post dates by 3 days so it's better", but rather "our evidence analyzes long term trends through X method that provides a predictive claim, and their's is an opinion article".

T: Not really a big T expert, so explanation is key.

Generally I believe that over limiting is better than under limiting due to in depth research providing better education. Provide a coherent view of what the topic would look like without the limit that you set on it versus what the affirmative justifies when you are impacting out the T debate. That could include a case list that they justify that explodes research burdens or specific ground loss. You do not have to win in round abuse. Just impact it out well and you should be good.

Analyze the other teams evidence and make smart args against it. I think that is specifically true in the context of things like T subs (some ev makes claims of what substantial is not, but does not set a standard for what is substantial).

Framework: Strategic and I vote on it. However, I think that there are a few different ways to do it that are less offensive / more strategic. Top level winning that debate is a game probably means that fairness is an impact, but that work needs to be done. If education is the impact you are going for there must be good reasons why policy education is desirable or better than critical education. I think it is less strategic to make arguments like "our education spills over and we can one day do _____ to change the system"... that relies on a notion of spill over from policy education. If that is true, why then does that spillover not apply to the affirmative and their method/epistemology?

Theory: Dropped theory arguments are pretty easy to vote on, so don't drop them. Provide a reason why the abuse outweighs any other possible impact and make it a big deal. Just don't blaze through it and expect to win even if it was dropped.

-Policy AFF's: Tell a coherent story and do good impact calculus. Often times teams forget to do that and it's a super important part of the last rebuttals. If you are reading a hard right AFF I find it is better to just stick with it and go for util/death outweighs. I really do think it's more strategic against the criticism to go hard right.

-K AFF's: I think there is a great value to critical affirmatives. Just be prepared for the framework debate and explain why your model of debate is better or have disads to their model. I find it very helpful when critical affirmative provide examples and have in depth historical knowledge about their theory. In addition, providing examples of things the aff could do or would do helps to materialize some of the theory that can make it easier to grasp especially if it is not a literature base I am familiar with.

I typically find that most teams are not ready to defend the entirety of their aff, so if you are negative against a K aff I think that a well developed PIK argument and some case arguments are rather strategic.

There is no single way to my ballot and there are often a variety of strategies that can work in the debate. Be smart and strategic... I often find that the debates I enjoy the most are guided by bold choices from the debaters.

Be nice to other debaters. That doesn't mean you can't be witty or funny just be respectful of others. I think debate is a great activity to make new friends and to enjoy yourself. There is no need to take yourself and other people too seriously, creating a fun environment to debate in makes debates 100% more enjoyable. Jokes are also appreciated. On second thought... maybe don't.

Esmeralda Maldonado Howard Payne University

Kiara Malone University of Southern Mississippi None

Rezi Manaj Belmont University None

Lucy Manning Howard Payne University None

Charlsey Marcus University of Arkansas None

Heaven Martin Mississippi State University None

Abhijit Mazumdar Park University 8 rounds None

Ashley Mcclinton William Carey University 8 rounds None

Josh McCoy Mississippi State University None

Clara McDonald Abilene Christian University None

Anna McFetridge William Carey University None

Mary McKey OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Anthony McMullen University of Central Arkansas

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 11:47 AM CDT

Experience: Competed for the University of Arkansas (2000-05); Coach at the University of Central Arkansas (2007-present). Most of that experience is in IPDA. While I appreciate and am happy to judge other forms of debate, I'm an IPDA purist at heart, and that governs my philosophy. I'm also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. My job involved reading arguments with real-world consequences. While I am willing to vote for any well-reasoned argument, I'm a policymaker judge more than anything.

Delivery: I'm not a fan of speed. I sometimes listen to podcasts at 1.5x speed, and that is about as fast as I would prefer a debater go before I get uncomfortable. If it is a form of debate where speed is frowned upon (basically anything other than CEDA/Policy) and you speed, it will be reflected in your speaker points, even if I can follow you.

Don't spread. I would rather hear three well-developed arguments than 5-6 poor ones.

Speaker Points: Pretty arbitrary, especially if the ballot does not contain a rubric. If it is an IPDA round, I will have traditional criteria in mind: delivery, courtesy, organization, tone, logic, support, CX, refutation. Each is assessed on a 5-point scale. I will add them up, and that will be your total. An average debater will receive a 4 in each category, a good debater will receive a 5. I won't go less than 3 in a category unless you affirmatively do something to warrant it.

Case and Burdens: Unless it is a public forum round, the affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has the burden of clash. Failing to meet that burden is an automatic L before we reach the rebuttals. If it is an IPDA round and both sides fail their respective burdens, I will default to the stronger speaker.

As a policymaker judge, I would prefer to vote based on the merits/demerits of the resolution itself, especially if it is form of debate where you get to choose the topic. I'll vote on topicality, but if it is close, I'll give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt. (If you are going to run T, I'm big on framer's intent.)

I'm willing to vote for a K, but again, I would rather vote on the merits of the resolution itself. Like topicality, the affirmative will get the benefit of the doubt if it is close. Also, assume that I know little to nothing about the theory and prepare to explain it to me.

I flow the round. By the time we get to rebuttals, you should be telling me why you have won the round. Put out any fires created by your opponent's previous speech if necessary, but please don't go line by line. I'm very big on impact calculus, especially if the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, comparative advantage, or something similar.

Evidence: Quality over quantity. Better evidence beats more evidence. Explain why your evidence supports your case. I do not enjoy rounds where debaters dump numbers and stats without context. Second, source presses are a waste of time unless (1) your opponent makes a spurious claim or (2) you have evidence that contradicts your opponents. If the only argument you have against an argument is that no source was provided, you will lose that argument unless you explain why the lack of source is important.

Topic Disclosure: If the resolution is straightforward and affirmative's interpretation is in line, I will not entertain an argument that the debate was unfair due to a lack of disclosure. If the resolution is metaphorical or otherwise vague, you should probably disclose.

While I will not punish a debate who does not disclose, I will DQ a debater who gives a false or misleading disclosure. At the same time, I believe that the affirmative is entitled to use the prep time as they see fit. If your plan takes you in a different direction, you are entitled to change your mind (especially if the negative pressed you for disclosure before you started prepping your case). But be reasonable. Doing so with twenty minutes of prep left is fine. Doing so with ten minutes left is not.

NPDA debaters: I miss points of information. Please use them.

Elle Meneghetti Southern Methodist None

Leia Mercier Louisiana State University Shreveport None

Bryton Miller University of Arkansas None

Christine Miller OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Harmony Miller Dallas Baptist University 8 rounds None

Swasti Mishra The University Of Tennessee-Knoxville None

Joshua (Dima) Mixon University of Southern Mississippi None

Joshua Morgan OKBU Oklahoma Baptist

Price Morgan Southern Methodist None

Hannah Morris University of Arkansas None

Cole Pawlaczyk The University Of Tennessee-Knoxville None

Madison Peel OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Angelina Peruzzini Middle Tennessee State University 8 rounds None

Louie Petit University of North Texas

Maggie Phillips Mississippi State University None

Bethany Pye Louisiana State University Shreveport 8 rounds None

Colin Quinn University of North Texas

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:56 PM UTC

Colin Quinn
University of North Texas

Highland Park High School (TX)

Please include me in email chains, thanks: aqof05@gmail.com

Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.

Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.

Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).

Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.

Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.

Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.

I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.

Don't cheat.

Emmy Rains Jefferson State Community College None

Sofia Randall Dallas Baptist University None

Kristin Raveneau University of Southern Mississippi 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 12, 2022 at 5:46 AM CDT

Note: Once my timer goes off, I am no longer flowing what you say.

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

I want to be on the email chain: kamorav10@gmail.com

I debate College Policy for 4 years at NYU. Earlier in college I read more soft left Affs with performative elements, but I've been getting progressively more performative and more kritical as my college career progresses. That means I'm open to hearing whatever arguments you want to read as long as you're able to defend it. In terms of policy, I've never read a strictly "policy" AFF, but I've coached teams reading them and am familiar with that style. With this in mind, you should read whatever makes you most comfortable and confident and I'll vibe with you.

Flow - I will flow what I hear. If you're fast, I can keep up as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you I will say "clear." I flow performative elements (music, poetry, dance), but if you think I might not flow something, flag it for me. It's your job to tell me what is most important, I won't do that work for you.

Flashing/email chain - Be organized. I don't want to wait 5 minutes for you to reply to the email chain or flash files. If I feel like you're taking too long prep time will start again. Don't waste my, your opponent's, or your partner's time. Stealing prep is disrespectful and if I see it, your speaker points will be docked. That applies to Novices too (although my threshold is a bit higher) because it's important to get into good habits from the beginning.

Speaking/CX - Be respectful. I love sass and attitude in CX and in speeches, but be aware of where the line is between sass and disrespect. This includes being disrespectful to your own partner (don't talk over them during CX). Debate should be a community and space where we all feel safe, if you jeopardize that and the other team problematizes and impacts this out, I am willing to vote on that outweighing all of your hypothetical policy impacts. If you make me laugh your speaks are going up.

FW/T - I will vote on T and FW, so feel free to read it in front of me. For both AFFs and NEGs, you need to have a clear abuse story and explain to me why your interpretation creates a better model of debate. Don't just say "our model of debate is better for fairness and education," you must also prove to me why those things are necessary and good and why the counter-interp is insufficient.

K - I mostly read them in college and they are my favorite arguments in debate. THERE SHOULD BE CLASH WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE. You need to link specifically to something in the AFF, not the squo. Even though I am familiar with K lit, I'm not going to do work for you. Explain clearly and have a compelling story. You need to show me the world of the Kritik. If at the end of the debate I don't understand what your alt is (how it functions, what it looks like, how it resolves the links, how/if it solves the AFF) I probably won't vote for it. You should be giving explanations that compare the world of the AFF and the world of the K.

NOTE: Be careful if you read anthro against anti-blackness teams. I find it is often argued in very problematic ways and I typically hate hearing anthro in those rounds. I have, however, voted for anthro many times (unfortunately), so it can be done successfully, just TREAD CAREFULLY.

DA - Here, it's all about the link and impact debate. Have specific links to the plan and have a cohesive impact story. If you're going for the DA, I want to hear in depth impact comparisons. If everyone is claiming the same impacts or everything leads to extinction, you will need a more robust story to get me to prioritize the DA. My preference is that you read a CP that solves for the DA. If you're not reading a CP that can overcome the DA, make it clear to me why this is worse than the squo.

CP - It's all about solvency and competition. That means you need to have a net benefit.

Kale Rector Louisiana State University Shreveport 8 rounds None

Tyler Redmon Belmont University

Daisy Rehbock University of Arkansas None

Douglas Rehm University of Southern Mississippi

Giselle Reyes-Lemus William Carey University None

Hannah Risker Arkansas State University

Sydney Robbins Middle Tennessee State University 8 rounds None

Jessica Rogers Middle Tennessee State University 8 rounds None

Joshua Rogers William Carey University

Last changed on Mon October 1, 2018 at 3:07 PM CDT

Joshua D Rogers Paradigm

Joshua Rogers

B.A. Classics, Ph.D. Linguistics

Director of Forensics & Latin Teacher - Presbyterian Christian High School (Hattiesburg, MS)

Forensics Head Coach - William Carey University

Experience:

Oratory and Communication experience in High School

Discourse and Communication theory in Undergrad and Graduate work

Teaching Speech and Debate since 2015

Basic Judging Paradigm:

I will judge the flow

I want substantive arguments and clash

Weigh your impacts at the end

Bad sportsmanship leads to reduction of points

Don't talk down to the judge

Public Forum: Give evidence, cite, analyze - don't just restate claims three ways. I encourage Neg, don't just rebut, build a world in which you can win.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to understanding and applying morality arguments. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all theory. If you define value and criteria, stay with your parameters.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

Policy: I like to hear clash on evidence. Evaluate evidence since you have it in front of you. But more important, outline and build a plan. Explain how and why it works.

Don't give me outrageous impacts, we all know the world COULD end. Show how the plan results in impact, not just slippery slope.

Neg feel free to build Kritic if you can, always enjoyable.

I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.

Mitchell Rogers University of Arkansas None

Mitchell Sadler OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Kallie Siebrasse University of Southern Mississippi None

Gavin Simone The University Of Tennessee-Knoxville None

Harvinder Singh Mississippi State University 8 rounds None

Megan Smith Louisiana Tech University None

Beth Snow Arkansas State University None

Jade Stauffer OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Marie Stone Arkansas State University None

Paul Strait University of Southern Mississippi

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 2:09 PM CDT

February 2015

The most important thing to know about me is that I have not judged any debates in the last two years (which means zero debates on this topic). Two big implications:

a) You should assume I don't have any topic specific knowledge -- jargon, background information, what the community consensus has defined as the range of topical affirmatives, etc.

b) I am almost certainly unfamiliar with any new conventions re paperless debating that have developed over the last couple years. I will probably flow on paper. If you want/expect me to do something, please ask. For example, I have no idea if it is now common for judges to get a copy of the speech doc in real time. That would be a new experience to me, which I would be happy to do or not do at the preference of the debaters.

The second most important thing to know about me is that I am likely a poor judge for arguments in which the links are connected to something besides the plan/counterplan/alternative/advocacy statement. I'm not an impossible judge for those arguments, but on balance I'm a tougher sell on those arguments compared to other judges. Similarly, I am a poor judge for affirmatives that lack an articulable connection to the resolution.

On other matters, please consult my judge philosophy from 2010, which follows:

Bumper stickers:Tech beats truth. Debate is a game. Relative risk. Offense/defense. Reject the argument not the team.

Kritik/Policy:In general, I am good for Ks that disprove the desirability of the affirmative's advocacy. I am also good for K affs that criticize the USFG's nuclear weapon policy and at least implicitly contain the position that a reduction in size, roles, or missions would be preferable to current nuclear policy. I think many teams might not know this about me, and might be mislead by the rest of this judging philosophy into believing that I am on balance hostile to K. However, I also must point out that I am good for T, and I am good for conservative policy teams that go for framework. For the same reason, I'm good for K teams that go for framework. I think this distinguishes me from many judges that fall into one or the other camps. It is your debate, I have an extremely accurate flow unless you are abnormally unclear, and my academic background (and the kinds of debate research assignments I take) makes me familiar with virtually all of the relevant topic literature, both policy and K. My favorite debates to judge are extremely complicated policy debates -- and, sadly, almost every debate I judge is a clash of civilizations -- but more than anything else this is an aesthetic preference.

Biases:Most judging philosophies are useless because people just say "do whatever you want, I'm cool with anything." Now, to be honest, my specific argument preferences are mostly irrelevant -- 90% of the time my biases won't matter. Nevertheless, I am a really bad judge for certain things, and you should know what they are. I'm really not as ideological as this might suggest, and I am disturbed by how politicized judging has become in recent years. But like every judge, whether they admit it or not, when things are close my biases may very well come into play. If you are reading this before the debate, and you have some choice in the matter, avoid the following:

1. 'Non-traditional argumentation.'I am unlikely to be compelled by non-logical 'argumentation.' If you are planning on losing on the flow, you should not prefer me. This does not mean that you have to answer the other team's arguments in order -- though you probably ought to because it will help you win -- but if you spend a large part of your speech time on a performance or something else besides logical argumentation, you can probably find better judges to prefer than me.

2. Planless or blatantly non-topical affirmatives.I am a bad judge for this. Debates that start with a stable, clear, and predictable advocacy are overwhelmingly better than the alternative.Obviously. And the resolution doesn't just ensure predictability -- it divides ground so that no side has a large inherent 'truth' advantage. I will certainly try to be objective, and I will listen very carefully to your arguments and rigorously examine the flow, but as the magic-8 ball says, "outlook not so good," "very doubtful," and "my sources say no." Note: if you have a creative interpretation that is directly grounded in the words of the resolution, I doubt I'm any worse than the average judge for your aff. But, I am bad for teams that rely on attacking the impact of T.

3. Word PICs.Textual competition is stupid; the suggestion that I should find it persuasive is borderline offensive. If your CP is not functionally competitive, I will not pretend that I am comparing two competitive policy systems simply because your CP "competes" textually. Plan and counterplan texts are convenient shorthand for actual policies; this is "policy debate," not "text debate." If you have to read a word PIC, at least have an argument about why the actual policies would be different.

4. Alternatives that include the plan.Obviously not competitive.

5. Kritiks that have nothing to do with the plan.No, you have to disprove the desirability of the plan. This isn't impossible with a K -- it is certainly the case that our representations are the vehicle through which we see and know the world, and so they determine how we evaluate truth claims, including the claim that the plan should be endorsed... but if you want my ballot, focus on explaining why your link arguments prove that theplanis undesirable. Many kritiks meet this standard, but many don't. If you win that your opponents' representations or methods are bad, that isn't enough. If their representations are dangerous, because they lead to badness, show me how me how the thing their reps lead to (the plan) is bad. If their worldview is incorrect, prove to me that it means that I shouldn't endorse the plan. Don't say "that's the wrong question" or "this is a prior question" -- in front of me, it isn't either.

6. Domestic agent counterplans.Especially on this topic -- do you really expect me to take seriously your contention that the supreme court should make nuclear policy?

7. International agent counterplans. Your counterplan to have some nation in Europe solve the U.S.'s problems in Europe is not a logical response to the affirmative, and the suggestion otherwise is a tad bit disrespectful to your opponents. Imagine a squad meeting in which your debate coach said to you "I'd like you to do the politics updates for this weekend," and you said "I've got a better idea: I'd like the debaters on all the other squads to work on other stuff besides updating the politics da -- it solves equally and has the net benefit of saving time for everyone." Do you think your coach, and your teammates, would appreciate you taking up their time during a squad meeting with this nonsense? If your coach and teammates are there to work hard and be serious, and you waste their time with such a frivolous suggestion, how are you not being disrespectful to them? Is what you said actually a reason why you should not cut the politics updates? So then why do you insist--sometimes vigorously and ideologically--that these kind of counterplans are good for debate? At least if you are going to do this, don't smugly maintain that you are a 'hard-working' team. Please. "Oh we hate the consultation counterplan, because it is lazy-- instead we like to say that problems should just be solved by someone else or go away on their own." Ok, fair enough, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously as a member of this community.

8. Consultation/condition/process counterplans. Two problems with these: [A] They probably aren't functionally competitive. To prove otherwise, the negative has to win that the plan includes things that are not in the plan, nor ever even discussed by the affirmative (like, e.g., 'immediacy' or the alleged 'unconditional nature' of the plan). If you are defining "resolved" and "should" and you expect me to be thrilled, you are probably high. [B] They are lazy. The aff didn't do a ton of research on their case so that they could debate about which week would be best to do the plan, or whether we should give some nation or organization a veto that they will not even use. In front of me, you are much better off reading a specific, responsive strategy that clashes with the basic thesis of the aff. That said, you'll do okay if you have VERY SPECIFIC evidence that compares the desirability of the counterplan to that of the plan -- not some garbage about "nuclear policy" or even "reducing the role of nuclear weapons," but the actual specific policy outlined in the plan text.

9. Voting issues. I really like theory, and I think it is useful for all sorts of reasons, but you are unlikely to persuade me to vote on it. Even conditionality -- the remedy is that the aff gets to decide if the neg is forced to go for the counterplan or the status quo. Maybe conditionality "skews the strategy of the 2AC," but if you are so far behind that you cannot win even when you get to decide after listening to the 2NR... well then, it wasn't conditionality that did you in. Your problems go well beyond conditionality. (Also, conditionality isn't bad).

10. Cheating.Don't lie about how much of a card you have read. When you write down permutation texts, write down exactly what you said, not what you wished you said or planned on saying but didn't say. Don’t dishonestly extend evidence you didn’t read, and certainly don't try to hand me evidence you didn't read. Mark your cards as you read them, not after your speech. Do not be shady before the round -- if it is not really a brand new plan, don't say it is a new plan without giving a qualifier.

11. Immaturity.Be helpful to your opponents during their prep time. Do not offer me evidence I did not ask for, unless my request is genuinely unclear. Do not insult your opponents. Do not be pissy to your opponents in cx. Answer every cx question even if you don't think it is relevant or you don't think they made that arg in their speech. When you are asking questions, let your opponents finish answering.Aside from making the experience unpleasant, debaters who are disrespectful to their opponents tend to underestimate the strength of their opponents’ arguments.Great debaters win without making anyone feel bad.

---
Evidence

1. Some claims require more data than others.

2. Evidence quality trumps spin.Evidence is not merely ‘support’ for an argument, it is part of the argument. I do not view tag lines as arguments that find support in evidence as much as tools to organize the arguments which exist within the evidence.

3. Avoid redundancy.Redundant cards that do not offer distinct warrants are not worth reading unless you have a reason why the mere repetition of an argument in multiple publications somehow bears on the question of whether that argument is likely to be true. It is totally irrelevent that you are "outcarding them 10 to 1" if your ten cards make the exact same argument and their 1 card answers it.

4. I wish qualifications were debated more.Authors should not just be qualified, but qualified to make the specific claims that they are making in the evidence you read. Also I wish publication sources were debated more, especially now that it has become commonplace to read evidence from blogs and other random webpages. Passing peer review or editorial review means something.

5. In the final rebuttal you need to resolve differences in evidence quality. Don't just extend your slew of cards-- explain why the reasons in your cards beat the reasons in their cards. If all you are doing is extending cards and repeating your arguments, then why not just call it a day after the 1ar is over?

---
Delivery

*By and large, I wish debaters were much more clear, and I tend to think most debaters should slow down a little bit. This is not about my flow, which is quite good-- rather, it is because I have noticed that I am much more in sync with those debaters who speak clearly enough for me to understand the internal claims and warrants within their evidence as it is being read. This is not a deal-breaker, and to be honest I read a good deal of evidence after debates, but in close debates I suspect this is often the determining factor -- when the complete arguments of one team are very clear to me in real time, it colors the way I process the arguments of the other team. This makes it much more likely that my final RFD will line up well with the way you saw the debate.

*This is especially true for complicated counterplan texts-- it is more than just annoying to not understand what a counterplan does until the negative block or later. Remember that debaters get to pass things back and forth during the debate, while I don't get to look at anything until the end.

*T should not be first in the 1NC/2AC. It is so much easier to flow if I am already used to your voice.

---
Topicality

*When comparing interpretations, I am most interested in determining what the resolution actually means. I am skeptical of claims that I should always prefer the most limiting interpretation -- an interpretation that is not predictable to both sides is useless. That said, ceteris paribus, a more limited interpretation produces better debates. My point is just that if the aff can prove that the actual meaning of the resolution includes their plan, that is 'offense' for their interpretation that will very likely outweigh the 'limits' offense the neg will probably be winning. And likewise, if the neg can prove that the actual meaning of the resolution does not include the aff's plan, that will almost certainly outweigh the 'learning about more things' and 'creativity' offense the aff will probably be winning.

*Reasonability vs. competing interpretations.[1] Topicality is always a question of competing interpretations. I'm just not a 'reasonability' kind of guy --- but you can reframe 'reasonability' arguments as a way to compare interpretations (i.e., their interpretation overlimits if it excludes things that are 'reasonable,' and it probably isn't very predictable for the affirmative). [2] When talking about reasonability, you have to win a link. This means you need to provide criteria for judging whether or not an affirmative is reasonable. [3] If, at the end of the debate, the affirmative's advocacy does not meet the best interpretation of the resolution, they lose. If the affirmative fails to offer a counter-interpretation, it does not matter how stupid the negative’s interpretation is.

---
Disadvantages

*Smart analytical defense can make the risk of a DAextremelylow. Also true against advantages. Impact cards tend to be ‘worst case scenarios’ rather than ‘most probable outcomes.’ There are often several alt causes or uniqueness problems for every internal link making up a disad. Many elements of a DA are often empirically denied. If you concede "economic downturn = extinction," for example, you are just asking to lose. In real life, outside of debate, do you think the plan will cause nuclear war, really? Like, if the plan happens, are you going to take out a huge loan, buy a bunch of wasteful fun stuff, and then head for an underground bunker? I'm guessing no--- and you can convince me to be equally unpersuaded. Just tell me all the actual reasons why it is stupid.

*When comparing the link to the link turn, keep in mind that both might be true.You will have to win defense to the link in addition to your link turn (or vice-versa). Additionally, unless you have a card that compares the link to the link turn (very uncommon), the question is going to be resolved by analytical arguments about which is most likely to be true in the context of the internal link. Do not simply extend your ev in the final rebuttal. If the DA is about health care reform, then compare the link to the link turn in the context of health care reform -- who are the actual swing voters? What kinds of things in particular will cause these people to change how they are going to vote? Why might spending be more or less salient than national security? Why might the kind of political capital spent by doing the plan be more or less relevant to the kind of political capital needed? Why might public popularity be more or less important? I cannot emphasize enough that this is a question that is resolved by debating, and not simply by reading/extending evidence.

*Arguments interact.More often than not, debaters win the debate when they do a better job explaining why the impacts they are winning interact with, access, or turn the impacts that their opponents are winning. That is good advice in general, and particularly good advice when I am judging, because this is often the stasis issue that ends up determining the round winner.

*You are unlikely to persuade me to evaluate uniqueness before evaluating the direction of the link.Very often, uniqueness is closer to 50% than it is to either 0% or 100%, usually because something is far off in the future, or because we really just don't know or can't be sure at this point. The more certain you are that something is unique, the stronger your link has to be to overcome that uniqueness; likewise, the less certain you are that something is unique, the stronger your link has to be to distinguish the plan from other possible factors that could trigger the disadvantage. Either way, the link is more important, and the uniqueness question is only relevant insofar as it helps determine the importance of the link or link turn that has been won.

*Magnitude is a lot more important than time frame. Unless the time frame difference is several years, long enough that it is conceivable that some intervening event will prevent or solve the impact, I am going to prioritize magnitude. For the most part, time frame is relevant only when two impacts are equal in probability and magnitude, or when both impacts trigger the other.

---
Kritiks and critical affirmatives

*I have no overwhelming bias toward either the ‘policy’ or ‘kritik’ genres. I do prefer, however, when debaters can make their arguments work on the negative without having to win a framework argument. So against a non-USFG aff, don't read a DA to USFG action. And against a policy aff, don't read a K that doesn't speak to the desirability of the plan. I don't get why this is controversial. Go for T if you can't do that.

*It isn't really about the plan vs. the alternative.Most alternatives aren't really 'advocacies,' they are more akin to criterion statements. At the end of the debate, I have to decide whether endorsing the plan is better than not endorsing the plan. Your alternative is really just a set-up to win your link to an argument that proves that I should not endorse the plan as a desirable policy option.

*I default to the role of an individual taking a position about whether the United States Federal Government should enact the mandates of the plan. I do not pretend that I am the USFG (does anyone actually do this?), but I am very unlikely to be persuaded that my ballot 'does' very much politically, and all things being equal I'd like to support policy proposals that I believe will have good consequences, even though I know my support is without material consequence. I could easily be persuaded that my status as an individual should have a great deal of bearing on how I decide what position to take. It is not unheard of for people take what they believe to be principled positions irrespective of their likely negative consequences. Nevertheless, you could easily persuade me that as a rational individual, I should adopt the most 'true' position, removing myself from the picture. You could appeal to my self-interest, the greater good, or something in between -- you just must win a. that the decision-making framework you would have me use is more desirable than any alternative presented in the debate, and b. that within this decision-making framework I must take a position in favor of (or against) the plan.

*Framework is about what kind of link arguments you get, and what kind of things you get to advocate.It has nothing to do with "getting to weigh your impacts." I don't understand why people don't understand this.

*The permutation only needs to solve the links as well as the alternative does.This should be obvious, but I point it out only because I have noticed that the alternative often does not solve all of the links, especially new link arguments read in the block, and especially if the kritik combines authors and intellectual traditions that are not similarly connected in the literature. The other reason I point this out is to draw attention to the fact that the permutation exists in order to solve the links. Therefore, when extending the permutation, especially in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain individually how the permutation solves each of the links. When teams do this, and also cover everything the block said against the permutation, I very often find myself voting aff on the permutation.

---
Counterplans

*As an architectonic, 'the CP solves the entire case and there is a risk of a net benefit' is extremely persuasive.

*Don't neglect case defense.If the plan is twice as likely to solve than the counterplan, but there is only a 1% risk that the plan will solve, then the difference between the plan and the counterplan is only half of a percent. If the aff wins that their plan sends a much stronger signal than the counterplan, but the negative wins that probably no one will respond to a signal, then the difference between the plan and the counterplan is trivially small despite a "huge solvency deficit". It is sometimes quicker and more effective in the 2NR to go to the case page where you are overwhelmingly ahead than to depend completely on beating the affirmative's solvency deficit claims outright. 2NR choices are everything, and this is something worth considering unless you are sure that you solve all of the case.

*I lean slightly aff on permutations in general.I think this is mostly because I often decide that even though the plan links to the disadvantage, and the counterplan doesn't link to the disadvantage, and the aff is not winning a whole lot of link defense, the permutation solves some or most of the link. Very often, the neg just points out that the permutation doesn't solveallof the link (very often just by reasserting that the plan still links), and ignores the fact that this changes the link vs. link turn comparison, or the disadvantage vs. advantage comparison.

*I'm not entirely convinced that intrinsic permutations should be rejected outright.This is particularly the case for counterplans that include the entirety of the plan. If the thesis of your argument is that we should consult NATO about the plan, why isn't it a reasonable response to say that we should consult NATO about something else? Doesn't that test whether the plan is key? Isn't being a relevant opportunity cost of the plan the basic duty of a counterplan?

*When judging theory, I tend to prefer interpretations that are based on the logic of decision making.I don't care as much about "education" or "fairness" in the abstract because you are unlikely to prove conclusively that your interpretation is key to those things.

*If the counterplan is conditional, my default is that the status quo is always an option, even if the 2NR goes for the counterplan(unless the negative said earlier in the debate that they will only go for a single consistent 2NR strategy). However, this does not mean you shouldn't provide a sentence or two of explanation of why you win without the counterplan; likewise, unless it is totally obvious, the 2AR should provide a sentence or two of explanation of why they win against the status quo.

---
Dropped arguments

*Tech beats truth, but strategy can beat tech. Dropped arguments are true arguments. But, if a ‘dropped’ argument is logically but not directly answered by other arguments on the flow, I will not regard the argument as entirely dropped, i.e., if the thesis of a DA answers some argument which is technically dropped by the 2nr, I will not treat that argument as if it has not been answered. Also, an argument must make logical sense to me as a complete argument before it can be ‘dropped.’

*Give the most charitable interpretation of your opponents’ argument.This is especially important if you think your opponent has dropped something – figure out everything that they said that could potentially be an answer, and explain why it isn’t or why it is wrong. If you do this, I am likely to agree with you at the end of the debate, since even the most charitable interpretation of their argument is insufficient. If you don’t do this, you leave the door open (if you are negative) for cross-applications in the 2AR, or (if you are affirmative) cross-applications in my mind after the debate that seem logically implied, which I try to at least consider since the negative doesn’t get a 3NR.

---
Speaker points:

1. Talking pretty.How do you sound? If you screw up an argument, it might cost you the debate, but it won’t cost you speaker points if you sounded good while doing it. Ways to sound good: be clear; use examples to support your arguments (these examples can be historical, literary, or based on matters of common experience that are part of daily life); don’t repeat yourself; embed clash; employ ‘even if’ statements; word economy.

2. Effective CX.Did you set up future arguments? Did you cover lots of ground, instead of dwelling on a single issue? Did you ask and answer your own questions? I flow the CX, and sometimes right before I assign points I go back and look to see how productive you were in CX. The very best CXers, in my mind, are those who can figure out in advance the primary issues that I will have to resolve after the debate is over, and then ask questions that enable them to establish dominance on those issues.

3. Ethos.I think debate is best when it is hard, and I want to see you working as hard as you can throughout the debate. Be intense. Be serious. Did you sound like you knew what you were talking about? Did you come across like an expert in cx? Did you screw around during your opponents' prep time? Does your ev look like a total hurricane of disorganization?

4. Strategy.If your strategy is very specific, if it requires a ton of work to research, if it requires you to be ahead on several questions rather than a single generic or meta-level question, you will get higher points. If your strategy is generic enough to be applicable in almost every debate, if it enables you to avoid clashing with most of your opponents arguments, if it is a product of a decision to not research the entire topic, you will get lower points.

5. Decorum.I like aggressive and assertive debating. I dislike hostility, rudeness, browbeating, and evasiveness. If you made me smile, you will get higher points. Vulgarity doesn’t bother me, and can be used effectively as a point of emphasis from time to time, but if you are being vulgar for no reason or if it is so excessive that it fails to emphasize anything, you will get lower points. If you intentionally made your opponents uncomfortable, whether as part of your strategy, or simply because you felt like being a jerk, you will get lower points. If your opponents tell you that you are making them uncomfortable, and you continue to be rude, you will getmuchlower points, and I might vote against you. Your opponents may or may not be your friends, but as a rule of thumb you should not treat them no worse than you would treat your friends.

Thaddeus Stringer Abilene Christian University None

Hunter Sullivan Louisiana State University Shreveport None

Destiny Temple OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Faith Thiebaud East Texas Baptist University None

Christian Thomas The University Of Tennessee-Knoxville None

Jewell Thomas Louisiana State University Shreveport None

Jared Thomason OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Kinny Torre University of North Texas

Nick Troutman Middle Tennessee State University None

Hannah Van Curen University of Florida Debate None

Emilie Vann OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Megan Veilleux Louisiana State University Shreveport 8 rounds None

Taushiawna Vick OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Thomas C Anthony Vincent University of Florida Debate 8 rounds None

Ben Voth Southern Methodist

Amanda Walsh University of Southern Mississippi None

Jaden Warren Southern Methodist

Violet Webber OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Julie Welker Howard Payne University None

Abigail Welsh University of Southern Mississippi 8 rounds None

Joshua Wheaton Middle Tennessee State University 8 rounds None

Adam Wilkins Park University 8 rounds None

Janine Wilkins Park University

Ashlyn Williams Southern Methodist None

Nathaniel Williams Mississippi State University None

Adam Winningham The University Of Tennessee-Knoxville None

Ashtin Witt OKBU Oklahoma Baptist 8 rounds None

Tilson Young OKBU Oklahoma Baptist None

Login to Tabroom

Hub City Swing

2021 — Online, MS/US

IPDA Paradigm List

Judges