Yes email chain: Averyadover@gmail.com

Please label your email chains; team names, tournament, round

Prep time ends when the email was sent

Debate History

I have debated 2 years an Eisenhower High school

and 2 years at Maize High

And am now debating for the University of Mary Washington.

UK Digital 2022 Update

I have not judged many debates on this topic at all so I will not be familiar with acronyms or what DA's/ Solvency advocates are supposed to mean, so explain things.

Clarity - Especially in online debate

If I cannot understand you, im not just going to look to your doc, I think debate is a communication activity and will judge it as such.

Evidence Quality

Adrienne Brovero said this well in her paradigm, highlighting has become pretty bad. I think evidence quality matters way more than quantity. I am very receptive to pointing out flaws in arguments and bad highlighting. If you highlight word salad, I will judge the argument based on the word salad you read, and I obviously didn't understand.

The Debate stuff

Tech>Truth

I will vote for anything you want to read, if you are technically winning it on the flow. I have read a lot of weird arguments throughout my career, meaning that I am totally down to listen to whatever you want as long as it is not harming people in round.

Cross Ex: Im not strict do whatever you want as long as you are the "Asking team"

Ill go into specifics now

Topicality:

Its a voting issue, and I dont think RVI's are a thing.

I default to competing interpretations, but like everything else, you can persuade me otherwise. If you are going for T I need analysis on why this is important for my ballot. All to often I see debaters undercover or dont provide enough offense of topicality.

Kritiks: I will listen to them but do not expect me to know the nuances of how your K works, you are going to have to explain that to me. Planless affs need to tell me what my position in the debate round is along which how I resolve the problems.

Theory: More likely than not I wont vote for stand alone theory arguments, I think debaters should frame theory as a threshold or mitigation question.

FW: I lean towards resolutional action being good but I can be convinced otherwise.

I will vote on presumption

I love a good case debate.

I think circumvention is underrated, if deployed well, it can highly mitigate the case and provide offense on each advantage.

My favorite arguments in debate are case arguments and impact turns, and I have empirically been known to go for them. If the aff can clearly articulate how their aff interacts with the off case, it can mitigate the offense on the off case.

Counterplans:

They are fine, read what you want, but I can be persuaded on theory arguments. The aff should be able to prove why the counterplan cannot solve the aff, and or why the perm is best.

Conditionality:

This might sounds old school, but I think rampant conditionality, especially when contradicting is hurting debate. This is not me saying you can't read them, just a heads up that if deployed well, I will vote on conditionality is bad.

Impact Calc: This is incredibly important

You can't just tell me you are winning the debate, tell me why you are winning specific arguments and what it means to the debate if you win them.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round.

Good with speed.

T-Won't vote on cheap T. I want well-constructed T, with Specific voters! Don't just say education and expect me to weigh that over the plan. DO THE WORK.

K's are cool! But, you need to understand what you are reading. You should be able to articulate your cards in your own words. Personal analysis is vital to rebuttals. I don't want 5 min of cards in the 1NR unless warranted. But the 2NC should do the work. Run K's! I'm open to any ideas that aren't oppressive and are used for improving the debate community, and society. However, I hold high expectations. You need a clear framework on how the negative, or affirmative has ground in the round- How can the other team win?

IE AT to switch side.

A dropped argument can win you the round. I won't do the flow work for you. I will do my best to follow the clash and arguments, but I will not create a link for you. YOU need to give an order of your speech- Transitions, and road mapping. The order is ____, _____, ____, and transions. Next _____ DA...etc.

I like unique DA's general Econ, etc is so dry. Have good links!

All in all have fun, and good luck.

Debate-

I did Debate for all four years of high school so I am comfortable with most types of arguments. My only rules are that you have to be able to explain your arguments well and don't run a bunch of arguments if you plan to drop half of them. Debate is ultimately just something fun so don't take it all that seriously.

DO CONGRESS

I do not have formal training in judging, but I have judge tournaments for 7 years. I look mainly at the ethics of the case and the philosophy of the arguments. I do not mind spreading, and will track the flow of the debate.

EXPERIENCE: I competed at State all four years of high school in the 4 speaker category on the negative side. I went completely undefeated, winning the State Championship in 2017. I have also been judging semi-regularly since then.

PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa - this is your debate, argue it how you see fit. I will be flowing and keeping track of arguments. Below are some more defined opinions of mine on arguments, but I'm open to anything.

TOPICALITY: this is honestly my favorite stock issue when it's used correctly. If you are using it include standards AND voters, or it's not a complete argument. T is also AU PRIORI.

DISADVANTAGES: I will listen to any DA no matter how generic it is. That being said, generic links don't hold as well as specific links, especially when AFF knows what they're doing. I am fine with any impact, you know its always fun when things end in nuclear war.

COUNTER PLANS: if you run one of these, please know what you are doing. There is a right and a wrong way to run and argue against a counterplan, and if you don't argue it right, you will lose my vote.

KRITIKS: I will listen it to. If there's one type of argument I don't particularly like, its this one. But if you feel it necessary, go for it, but be able to justify why you are using a kritik.

OTHER THINGS: I will only vote on things brought up in the round, so if there is a glaring contradiction and its not pointed out, I will not be considering it. I don't really care how fast you talk, just make sure that everyone can understand you.

If you have any questions about my judging style, just ask before the round starts!

TLDR: As long as the debate is fair and educational, you're doing fine.

Preferences: Topical cases, I find topicality important to the education and structure to debate. I also prefer a even distribution of breadth and depth. I don't have a preference for either. Be sportsman like and professional and it'll be an enjoyable round for us all.

Dislikes: Spreading, when it gets to the point I can no longer hear or keep up with you then the debate is no longer educational. Reading fast is fine, just be clear and understandable. K, Kritik arguments are hard for me to follow, but as long as you explain things it should be fine. I don't expect to see many Kritiks in Novice though.

Politics: I don't really swing right or left so as long as your convincing with your politics argument I'll listen.

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: owenwcrouch@gmail.com

Owen W. Crouch

He/Him

former debater at Olathe East

Tell me a dad joke before the round to let me know you read my paradigm :)

I Like Theory and Policy. I can handle a simpler K like Cap or Imperialism. I can handle speed but I prefer a more traditional debate style.

My biggest thing is that you need to be explaining arguments. You need to tell me why I need to vote on a given point. Especially on your voters for T, the framework for Ks, Impact calc, Etc. Tell me why I Care.

If I get to tell you who won right after the round, I invite you to ask questions about my decisions, respectfully disagree and tell me I'm a fool, and/or schedule an appointment to catch these hands.

TLDR- I know my ballot is long, its so that you can understand my approach on any argument don't read it all if you don't want to especially if you know your strat going in is a 1 off k why read my thoughts on T then lol. Go for what you're familiar with as a judge my job is to adapt to you as long as you engage with the debate rather than spewing off your coaches 100-page brief. I'm fine with speed or speed K's, open to nontraditional debate or straight stock issues. Please ask questions before round if you're not sure of my opinion of something or what I default to on things such as T standards and Judge kicks. * if a judge is against spreading that I'm on a panel with please accommodate that judge its always so awkward to have 2 of us in the know just to ruin the round for the outlier. However, don't apply that logic to k's please!

add me to the email chain Jaceyg957@gmail.com

TOP LEVEL

Tech > Truth

Plan specific analytics > generic links.

NEG FLEX GOOD (unless you win condo neutral on condo)

Open >Closed CX (I flow CX but don't apply it to the debate unless in speeches)

Bias always exists no matter what another judge writes we all have bias and let them manipulate the ballot in one way or another I will do my best to ignore them and judge purely off of the mechanics of the round however don't be afraid to post round me if you feel that I'm wrong, however be respectful about it (especially seniors)

I'm more than fine with spreading I've ran 11 off rounds before however slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

Rebuttals I really like 2nr 2ar consolidation So slow down and go for what you'll win.

Judge instruction is key even if you don't debate K's arguments such as framework, ROJ, ROB, telling me how to evaluate evidence is crucial to an easy ballot, I need to be able to justify the route I took to sign the ballot for you even if it's a simple MAG= EVERYTHING, PROBABILITY= 100% TIMEFRAME=YESTERDAY.

Please call me Jacey or J calling me Judge is kinda weird when most of you have debated me or at bare minimum are only 1-3 years younger than me, I'm "old" to you but not to the world at least not yet :(

Plan text/CASE (policy)

1AC often times go in with a plan like "set standards on (insert)" I have no idea what this means please be able to specify in cx or 2ac, more specificity the better or else I will lean neg on generic case debates/theory. I love high quality evidence and miss when case debate was a thing, it's okay if your evidence isn't 100% accurate but if the competitors call it out then good luck :).

DO line by line I beg, often people do overviews and then move onto to the off case, I will not cross apply for you.

Read re-highlights I need to know what part the highlight takes out

Presumption is so underutilized; I will grant 0% solvency if warranted however this goes both ways if a CP/ALT is introduced.

DA-

I care most about the tech and utilization of the DA I'm a good judge to run DA's you wouldn't run on lay circuits, you have to defend the entire DA if you lose one part that's wraps (mitigation is different that's below☝). "DA outweighs and turns case" + the inverse aren't actual responses flesh out what that means.

Lastly idc if the impact is both nuke war or if its climate v nuke war, explain why your side is more important too often debaters get lost in the sauce on the magnitude level when the other aspects are far more important unless FW tells me otherwise and even then, when it's both nuke war, we have to break that tie somehow.

CP-

I love Funky CP's do ADV CP's or PICS if you want just execute them well.

Explain the perm, most times the CP can easily be permed but Aff teams don't go further than "perm, perm solves" without explaining what the world of the perms look like.

Theory-

If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it, Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.

Condo vagueness and disclosure are all viable with me, anything else you'll have to just try and see.

K's!!! -Just ask me my thoughts on your k lit before round lol

I ran a lot of Cap and eco fem k's throughout my last two years in high school with a little bit of set col and anti-blackness, I understand the general thesis behind psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, and some of the pomo k's but don't be afraid to overexplain. Do not expect me to do the work for you if its cap or eco I have some leniency.

I could care less if the alt is "discuss the aff through a Lens of (insert)" or "we set a global paradigm shift." just be able to defend the strategy you go for. Don't do 5-minute overviews and then cross apply it just do the line by line at that point.

please read the literature and be able to explain the link story clearly, I will not grant you 100% of the systematic violence your k tries to address, that's so unrealistic so gage what you can or cannot solve for and or what impacts the aff causes due to the link.

I'll def get heat for this but I think too often teams are afraid to take the positions they believe. I'll listen to a cap good debate, even if people argue its immoral 1 no it isn't it's a discourse, I'd rather have the discussion in a controlled environment like debate and 2 we should engage in all perspectives 3 its real world most old heads support cap.

K affs/performance -

I've written a couple k affs and ran one myself for a little bit, I would like some relationality to the topic however if you decide not to then please be ready for the T debate.

I like K aff debate however don't be annoyingly snarky most of the time inclusion is better to resolve harms addressed then making everyone opps right off the bat. being assertive is good but there is a line I'm a very expressive person you'll see if I think it's too far.

I'd like clear framework with a ROB and ROJ often times when K affs drop its due to a lack of understanding on what exactly the ballot does or how my specific orientation with the aff resolves any harm.

when responding to T I like impact turning T however a crafty counter interp would be nice!

T/FW

I default to fairness acting as an internal link to something like Edu however if you make fairness an impact beef it out.

T v K- I think that Policy teams too often stick to the blocks rather than engaging with the merits of the 1AC. If you go for T in the 2nr explain why the method is bad and do a fair amount of case/presumption work. even if you win that the game of debate should have rules and the aff violates, you need to be able to defend why the game is good or else I'm left confused on what to maintain and K teams entire 1ac at least gives somewhat of a stasis point on if the game is good or not.

T v policy- LOVE LOVE LOVE! I love cheeky interps, T subsets sure why not! I default to C/I however have been persuaded by reasonability, but it needs to be fleshed out more than two lines in the 2ac

I don't agree with some judges that T has to be all five minutes of the 2nr I'd prefer if it was, but I understand that on Pannels where a lay judge is present making T five minutes isn't going to work out.

If asked be able to give a case list.

In front of me arguments about standard setting on research and what it means for the season or next season of debate tend to sway me the most.

MISC

please make the flow clean, don't overstep your partners speeches more than is necessary to win the round.

My hand writing is AWFUL so I'll probably just type out RFD/comments and send them to you if possible so that your coach doesn't wonder what caveman judged the round.

(if you get me in LD or PFD just ask me questions I'm not writing another paradigm when I don't know how they got me in here!)

I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.

The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.

Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.

The last speakers should weight the round.

I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.

Hello, my name is Denise Hiracheta a former 4-year debater at Olathe East Sr. High School. This is my first official year judging. I have competed in Novice, JV, Open, and KDC. I also competed in Congress at local, state, and national as well.

Policy:

Novice: The thing I look for in a novice debate is not just a person reading off of their computer but someone who is invested in the debate. I will not accept any rude, racist, or derogatory behavior from any debater. If you do show any of this type of derogatory behavior it will affect your ballet negatively. Now let's move on to the content of the debate...

Inherency: What I expect out of an inherency card is not only just to state that your case is related to the status quo but to have it as the basis of your arguments. Starting your case with a minor argument makes the debate harder to keep track of. Inherency is one of the most underestimated cards in the debate and should be taken more seriously.

Plan: If you don't have a clear plan it will be hard to debate negative arguments. If the plan in context is poorly worded having an entire debate just on the wording of the plan will take away from all the impact and DA arguments. (PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO READ YOUR PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT READ A PLAN THERE IS NO POINT IN THE DEBATE)

Topicality: If you are going to run topicality make sure that it makes sense. If you run topicality on a case that relates to the resolution the affirmative team will have the upper hand. I don't mind a good topicality debate, as long as it makes sense and has valid arguments to go along with it.

CP: If you are going to run a counter plan make sure to have your arguments in order from - how the affirmative team is wrong to how your plan solves the affirmative teams better. I love counter-plan debates and will always consider the arguments in each. When it comes to perms explain to me why you are perming. Prove to me that both the federal government and the opposition plan can work together.

Forensics:

I competed in OO, INFO, Impromtu, and congress

What I look for in any piece is to number one have a strong presentation. It does not have to be perfect because I know sometimes it just happens but if you show me that you know your piece and that you made an effort to convey the information then that right there is what matters. The second thing I look for is the overall communication. That simply means, getting my reaction. Did you make me interested in the piece? Did you get a strong reaction out of me? Those kinda things. When it comes to the overall piece selection it would be nice to get a trigger warning before you get started because I would like to be warned if I am going to hear a piece about something dark at like 8 am. I will try to put in as much feedback as possible on the ballot some might be on paper but the majority would be online just because you have access to it faster than that of a paper ballot. If you have any questions or concerns I would be more than happy to answer them before and or after the round.

Overall:

The debate around should go smoothly and steadily with no interruptions unless it is urgent or a technological issue. I will try and give as much feedback as possible on the ballot but if you would like more feedback please feel free to talk to me after the round is over for a more one on one response.

Don't forget to have fun!!!

Good Luck Debaters!!!

*I do NOT accept speed*

Your job is to convince me that you win the debate. I don't care if the arguments are out of this world as long as you do a good job explaining them to me

Please don't just read evidence, tell me why your evidence is meaningful & explain why your evidence supports your argument and how it deconstructs your opponent's case

I ask that you please signpost your arguments, give a roadmap before your speech, & indicate when you're starting so I can follow the debate easier

I will be keeping time of your speeches, cx, & prep time, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be keeping your own time

Aff

If you drop a single neg argument, you will lose the debate. It's the job of the aff to refute the neg and their arguments against your case. If you drop their arguments, then you concede that the impact of that argument can/ will happen, meaning your case won't be worth passing. If the neg drops the argument you dropped, or they never bring it up that you dropped it, I'll let it slide.

extend all of the case throughout the debate & hammer home why aff is the best way to go

Neg

Please, signpost your arguments, I won't know what you're running if you don't signpost.

T- I'll gladly vote on T if you prove the aff isn't topical with good standards and definitions

CP- give me a good solvency card & a valid reason why the cp will solve better than the aff

K- if you know how to run a k, go for it just make sure you understand what you're talking about and thoroughly explain to me why the alt is more advantageous than the aff plan

Debated four years at Maize High School '20

Former assistant coach at Wichita East High School '20-'21

Duke 2024 (not debating)

Add me to the chain: jason.g.lin20@gmail.com

NCFL - PFD

There are 2 rules in PFD

-No Ks

-No Spreading

Overall

*I'm 2 years out from thinking about policy debate, so I will struggle some to keep up with national circuit speed. I will try my best. Decisions will also likely take longer. I can still watch lectures on 1.75x at least, #PortableSkills.

Tech > Truth, and evidence quality matters to me. I find a lot of cards are atrociously highlighted. That said, I don't wish to read through all your cards; Make arguments about them, so I don't need to default to ev.

Clarity > Speed - note, this is even more true for online debate. Speed = # of ideas effectively communicated to the judge.

Don't clip/steal prep. Let me emphasize again -- DON'T CLIP, actually physically mark cards when you say to mark cards. Stealing prep after a warning has great speaker point consequences.

Evidence comparison/argument resolution good. Shadow extension/no clash bad.

I would rather listen to a politics+CP debate than a kritik debate, but I would also rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences. Ks must pass the make sense test

A well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by its "card name"

Cross x is a speech-I figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points

DA

- Disads are about story telling - If I can't explain the story of the DA back to you then I won't vote on it.

- I think link debates require the most skill, and I will focus on it heavily. Many internal links also are often sus but overlooked.

- Do turns case and comparative impact calc. Canned overviews without any change round-to-round are bad. Judge instruction is good. Impact calc about risk is also pretty convincing since I'm often left with two existential impacts

CP

- Great, but like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.

- CP's like consult or conditions that compete off certainty aren't great, but the aff can't blow it completely off either

- Floating PICs/Word PICs are pretty iffy for the neg--reading it as a K should solve most of the education impact, but I have yet to see many of these debates

T/Theory

- Blocks are good but no substitute for the line-by-line.

- I find a bunch of T-interps are arbitrary. Precision/predictability should prolly outweigh a marginal limits impact. However, negs that coherently connect their interpretation, violation, and standards with tangible impacts will be rewarded

- Default condo good. Somewhat high threshold, but I do recognize how forcing the aff to double turn themselves can (debatably) be problematic

- Perf Con is better utilized as a solvency takeout rather than a theoretical issue

FW

- Impact calc matters a bunch here; offense is key.

- I read both fairness and education impacts, and I don't have a strong preference for either against K affs.

- K affs in the direction of the topic are better for me

- new-ish to these debates

K

- I most likely only have a surface level understanding of your Kritik. Even less for postmodernist theories. More common K's like Cap and Security make more sense to me.

- Impact turning is often underutilized. Extinction first/heg good can be persuasive if done right

- Go more in-depth with each aff argument rather than shotgunning a billion perms. That increases my burden on the negative to disprove your arguments

Hello my name Is Josh Little, this is my fourth year of debating and I absolutely love it. I have debated on the novice, JV, and open circuits. I have qualified for state every year so far and made it again for the last time senior year.

Novice Expectations:

I know many of you are just developing a basic knowledge of debate, so take a breath I'm not expecting the best from you. But do not just look down at your computer the entire time and read cards that I know you don't understand. Make eye contact, body language, thorough explanations, and try to sell me your case.

Case:

I have loved good case arguments since I was a novice and if you successfully prove that the affirmative can't solve, they have no inherency, or their advantages don't do what they say they do, I will have a much easier time voting for the negative.

DA's:

While I do love case arguments, you can't leave out reasons that the affirmative will be bad like disadvantages. DA's are key to prove that the affirmative does more harm than good. But I like plausible DA's. I will 100% vote for crazy impacts but if you shout in my face "nuke war" and "extinction" make sure you walk me through it. I have no problem with those impacts just make them realistic. Must protect uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If any of them fall I won't weigh the DA.

CP's:

Better chance of me voting on the CP if it can avoid the DA or if it has a super good net benefit. Prove to me the perm won't work. There are some crazy counter plans coming up so prove to me that your counter plan is worthy of my vote and the perm is not.

T:

I will vote on topicality... but it better darn good. Hint- if your reading T against a case list affirmative, well good luck. My threshold for T is high but if it is a cheeky affirmative that is blatantly untopical I will actually be disappointed if you don't run T against it.

any pronouns except it/its

Debated four years at Olathe East High School (2019-2023)

Currently debating at University of Kansas (2023-present)

Currently coaching at Olathe East High School (2023-present)

Updated: October 2023

Add easton.logback@gmail.com to the email chain.

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm or about debate stuff more generally, I’ll usually answer any emails with debate-related subject lines.

---Top Level---

“Policy debaters lie and K debaters cheat. If you believe both of these, you should pref me”---Joshua Harrington

To answer the two questions I always asked when reading a paradigm:

---Is this judge willing to evaluate my argument?

Yes. I consider myself on the extreme end of tech over truth. I will not listen to arguments actively harmful to anyone in the room ('discrimination good', 'death good because life is bad'). Other than that, however, I will vote on any argument you win (including arguments that are blatantly untrue, dubiously ethical impact turns, frivolous theory, call outs, or 'death good because wipeout').

---Is this judge capable of evaluating my argument?

Probably. I have experience debating every type of style and argument. I am confident in my ability to flow, and I am confident in my ability to evaluate claims that have warrants & impacts and construct a coherent decision out of them. This confidence decreases if you are too fast for me to flow (this is usually an issue of pen time, not clarity) or if you are making claims that do not have warrants & impacts. As long as you convey what your arguments are ('there’s a reformism link', 'status quo goes nuclear', and so on), why I should believe them ('they uphold the legitimacy of the system by recognizing its flaws then addressing them with tweaks', 'new tech creates use-it-or-lose-it pressure and miscalculation', and so on), what they mean in the context the round ('that turns case because they sustain the root cause', 'that means its try-or-die to prevent extinction', and so on) and giving me enough time to write all three of those things down (my flow for the above examples would probably look like 'reformism-legitimacy w/ tweaks-t/c, r/c' and 'squo nuclear-use or lose/miscalc-t-o-d'), I should be fine.

---In-Round Adaptation---

I would rather you debate in the way you are most conformable with than change how you debate to adapt to my paradigm.

That said, I do view arguments in certain ways that may impact my ability to evaluate them. My decision will never intentionally be because you did/didn’t do something mentioned below, but they may unconsciously alter how I evaluate the round, so it may be beneficial to adjust to these.

Following these thoughts won’t necessarily give you a decision you want; it may prevent you from hearing a decision you disagree with.

---Top Level---

At the end of a debate, I will identify every argument made in the 2NR and 2AR and resolve them based on other arguments in the round. After I have resolved each individual argument, I will look at how those conclusions interact with each other and determine the winner of the round from there.

This is made significantly easier for me if you pick one or two arguments you are ahead on and develop them to implicate the rest of the debate as opposed to extending a ton of substance from the 1AR/block with little contextualization. For example, if you know you are winning the link, extend the link, explain why winning the link means the rest of the debate is irrelevant, flag what arguments could potentially be responsive to the link, and answer those.

This also means I struggle in late-breaking debates. I generally make sure that every 2AR/2NR argument was present in the 1AR/block, but can be flexible if, for example, the 1AR or 2NR makes new arguments and you need to respond. However, the more of the final rebuttal that is reading cards, the more I am going to have to come to my own conclusions about how certain arguments are interacting, which means my decision may be increasingly out of your control.

This also also means that I take a very long time to make decisions, since I try to resolve every single argument in the 2AR and 2NR and explain why it does/does not matter in the context of the round in my RFD. Like, I think I have been the last judge to submit in literally every round I have judged, and then finish typing up speech-by-speech comments in my free time after rounds. Do with that information what you will.

---Logistics---

I would prefer if you referred to me by a name or nickname, not 'judge'.

I would like to be on the email chain (or SpeechDrop or flash drive), but more so to monitor clipping or to evaluate evidence indicts than to flow. If an argument is not on my flow, even if it is in the document, I’ll assume it wasn’t made. This means it is also good to give me pen time and clearly label arguments as you make them.

A lot of teams are clipping to some extent. I don't feel comfortable voting on clipping absent a team making an argument about it, so I think questions of clipping (or other debate ethics related violations) should be a theory argument made in the round rather than an independent claim to stake the round on. Having an audio recording of a team clipping is helpful but not necessary, if I catch them clipping and you call them out on it I'll consider it sufficient for a violation, but you should still win why clipping (or any other debate ethics violation) is bad and/or why I should reject the team.

I don’t care about speed as long as you are clear, unless you are in a round where someone has an ability-based aversion to speed. If your opponent does not have an ability-based aversion to speed but is more comfortable in a slow round, you aren’t obligated to slow down, but your speaks will benefit if you do.

I will not read evidence to check for quality unless I am explicitly told that a certain card does not make a certain claim. I like smart evidence spin, but if questioned, there should be a line in your evidence you can refer to that you are spinning.

I don't think you need carded evidence for every claim. I think there are a lot of scenarios people read that have very intuitive answers (usually thumpers or link turns) that should be made as analytics for more efficient coverage.

I don’t really have a set scale for speaks. What constitutes a certain score will probably be dependent on the tournament and round. I will give you higher speaks if you are making smart technical decisions, sound good, read arguments I enjoy, are knowledgeable about what you are talking about, and appear to be having fun.

---Policy AFF v Policy NEG---

As hinted at by the quote at the top of this paradigm, I think the vast majority of arguments made in these rounds are not true and borderline unethical. That’s fine, because I am evaluating them through the lens of tech over truth. This has two broad implications:

First, I generally find claims reliant on your arguments being true or having educational value pretty unpersuasive.

Second, I enjoy tech over truth because of the way it parodies actual scenario planning. This means the more your arguments are creative, obscure, and somewhat absurd, the more I will enjoy them.

---AFF:

I defended plans with both soft left and big stick advantages in high school. I haven’t defended a plan in college.

I prefer specific advantage and impact scenarios (naming specific countries, technologies, policies, and so on) to broader ones. This generally translates to liking big stick advantages more than soft left ones.

I think the 2AR case outweighs push is always a good option, but should be contextualized to the round. Instead of just asserting that it’s try-or-die or that I should vote AFF on 1% risk of the counterplan not solving, explain why it’s try-or-die ('our impacts are more probable/happen sooner') or what the 1% risk is ('we're winning a certainty deficit').

---Case:

Most of my experience going for case, in both high school and college, is going for what are functionally DAs placed on the case page, and occasionally picking one or two pieces of defense the AFF mishandled.

I enjoy any form of case turn debate (link turns, impact turns, dedev, spark, wipeout, and so on).

As long as there is sufficient 2NR framing on the question, I can be persuaded to vote NEG on presumption. However, having even a slight amount of offense lowers the bar of how much defense you need to win significantly from only having defense.

I think explicit explanation of how the off case position you are going for makes case irrelevant (turns case, controls the root cause, and so on) can supplement for actually debating case in the 2NR, but winning defense on case will always make the threshold for voting on any of those off case arguments lower.

---T:

Topicality against policy AFFs in the second most common argument I have gone for in both high school and college (the first is Ks).

I am generally more persuaded by teams that choose either precision/predictability/other research-based impacts or limits/ground/other debate-related impacts and explains why that standard outweighs the other one. It is far easier to evaluate predictability versus limits when one team has explicitly said predictability is less important than predictability versus predictable limits where both teams seem to think predictability is good to varying degrees.

I can be persuaded that some other argument outweighs topicality (or any other theory argument) or that it (or any other theory argument) is a reverse voting issue, though it will not take much from the 2NR to dissuade me from voting on the latter.

---DA:

In high school, I commonly went for generic, core-of-the-topic DAs. In college, I have prepared generic, core-of-the-topic DAs, but not gone for them in tournament. I have less experience preparing and going for more AFF-specific DAs.

I enjoy creative turns case analysis (for clarity, that means 'link alone turns solvency due to overstretch', not 'warming causes nuclear war').

I do not care about how generic links are, as long as you are able to contextualize the warrants to the specificities of the AFF. However, the less specific your links are, the more persuasive the 2AC no link or link turn that probably is specific to the AFF will be.

I can be persuaded there is zero risk of a DA if substantial defense is won. However, this can be mitigated about which parts of the DA frame the other parts (for example, 'uniqueness controls the link because they’ve conceded the status quo solves their terminal impact which means any risk of a link is a NEG ballot').

---CP:

In high school, I almost exclusively went for agent counterplans. In college, I have prepared and read more substantive counterplans, but have not gone for them. In both, I have prepared but never read critical and/or joke counterplans ('sacrifice something to some god, that solves'), and have very little experience with advantage counterplans.

The way I view these debates is often influenced by K debate. I tend to care about the interaction between the net benefit & case and between the counterplan & the net benefit more than between the counterplan & case. This can be helped or mitigated with the use of framing arguments.

I am not sure whether to understand permutations as a test of competition or a third advocacy. This usually depends on the specific counterplan and perm, but I could also be persuaded to adopt either view by in-round argumentation.

I don’t care how substantive the permutation argument is in the 2AC, but if you just make a perm with zero explanation, I am not going to be very receptive to new 1AR or 2AR explanations of the perm.

I think I am more conservative than most on counterplan theory. Some of the things people are reading are ridiculously abusive. I am more than willing to reject the team on a well-developed theory argument (that means contextualizing the abuse story to the specific argument and round, not just reading blocks).

My general ideological dispositions for counterplans (I will never default to these, but they probably unconsciously lower the bar for me to vote on them): conditionality and agent counterplans are probably good; new 2NC counterplans out of 2AC counterplan solvency deficits, multi-plank conditionality, and judge kick are probably bad. Any argument not mentioned above I feel pretty neutrally about.

---Policy AFF v K NEG---

---AFF:

I did not have a ton of experience answering Ks while defending a plan in high school. I usually went for some combination of framework and their thesis is wrong. I have no experience answering them in college.

Given my general view summarized in the quote at the top of this paradigm, I think there are usually two angles to win my ballot.

First, winning framework and extinction outweighs. I think extinction outweighs is a pretty blatantly wrong and unethical argument, which means I will find even small answers using the substance of the K persuasive. However, if you can win framework, especially arguments about why debate is a game, fairness comes first, and so on, I am much more willing to vote on it.

If you are going for framework, I generally find fairness and predictability to be the most persuasive standards. I am pretty neutral about clash, and am usually not super persuaded by topic education or advocacy skills. This does not implicate which of these you should go for, but how far ahead you need to be to win one of these (as in, I could vote for fairness even if you are behind on substance as long as you win your debate is a game overview, I will probably resolve clash pretty neutrally, and I will struggle to vote for topic education if the 2NR has any contestation).

Second, winning a link turn and perm. I think a lot of the time, theories get over-simplified for the purpose of making a coherent debate argument. This means these arguments do not need to be, and are often better when they are not, carded. I think a lot of teams would be better off if they just really made an effort to understand what the K is saying and logically thought through how the AFF could be in the direction of that.

Indicts of the thesis of the K are useful for both of these angles. These do not always need to be carded (see the note about teams over-simplifying their theories, I think many teams could benefit by just thinking through the theory and pointing out the most apparent flaws). I think I am generally more persuaded by arguments that the implications of their theory are problematic and/or that their theory is not applicable in the context of debate than arguments that their theory is completely wrong (as in, I prefer 'psychoanalysis is anti-black' or 'psychoanalysis can’t explain politics' to 'psychoanalysis is non-falsifiable'). However, the latter argument becomes more persuasive the more totalizing their theory is (as in, if they are making claims that progress is never possible, you could win specific historical examples that disprove that thesis).

I am generally not super persuaded by arguments that scenario planning or talking about existential impact scholarship are good, that holistic theories about how the world works are bad, that the negative has read other positions that contradict their thesis, that the alternative is abusive, or that a certain theory lacks scientific support. I will listen to these arguments, but it will not take much for the NEG to dissuade me from voting for them.

---NEG:

This is my favorite argument to read and the one I have gone for the most. I high school, I primarily went for anti-capitalism and a variety of “high theory” Ks. In college, I have gone for Nietzsche.

I think I am pretty well versed in K literature. I have read aesthetics, anti-capitalism, anti-statism, Baudrillard, biopower, Deleuze, feminism, Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, and queer theory in debate. I have read literature for all of the above plus existentialism, Levinas, linguistics, and theology outside of debate. I have also coached teams who read anarchism, anti-blackness, afropessimism, anthropocentrism, black feminism, and settler colonialism. However, the way that authors are explained in debate often differs from their source material, and even within debate differs from round to round. Therefore, you should still explain your theory to me from scratch, but I will probably be able to comprehend it.

I am of the opinion that the number one factor in determining the ability of critical teams to succeed is knowledge of their literature. If you understand what you are talking about, you can probably explain why the AFF is bad and why their answers are wrong.

I don’t care how generic the 1NC is as long as the block contextualizes it. If the block makes it clear you haven’t through about how your theory relates to the topic, or it becomes apparent you don’t know your theory at all, your speaks will reflect that.

I typically care more about the link & impact, how those implicate case, and how the alternative implicates those, than how the alternative implicates case. I am susceptible to K tricks (root cause, turns case, presumption) that allows you to win the K without disproving or solving the case. I do not care if you go for the alternative in the 2NR, or if framework can functionally act as an alternative. If you are winning the tricks above, I have no reservations about voting on the K as if it were a DA.

There is a list of arguments in the AFF section that I do not think are very persuasive against the K. Spending any amount of time answering these will probably be sufficient to dissuade me from voting on them.

I do not think the overview needs to be anything more than an explanation of the theory and maybe a lens I should use to frame the round (I think this should often be embedded into the extinction outweighs debate, since you know that’s what the 2AR wants to go for). I find longer overviews hard to flow and think that the majority of the arguments they make could be done somewhere on the line-by-line.

Ressentiment <3

---K AFF v Policy NEG---

---AFF:

I defended a planless AFF almost exclusively my senior year of high school. I have defended one exclusively so far in college.

I think it is important that the 1AC is internally consistent. Your topic links, impact, angle against framework, and method should all be either part of the same theory or be constructed in such a way that makes it appear as if they are. This overarching theory should then be your primary angle against any off case argument.

I think performance aspects of these rounds are great but often struggle with how to evaluate them. The later AFF speeches will probably need to explain if I should understand it as part of the method, a solvency mechanism, or something else.

If you have a role of the ballot, I need very explicit judge instruction about what it means contextually to the round.

---Case:

I am a good judge for presumption. I am more persuaded by arguments about investing the ballot with the capacity for change being bad or movements like the AFF already existing and being appropriated in the status quo, and less persuaded by arguments about the ballot not solving or debate not changing subjectivity.

I think the best angle for AFFs against presumption is to deny having the burden to prove their method actually solves, followed by arguments as to why their method actually does solve.

Teams seem to think that the only way to engage K AFFs on case is offense. Teams should be more willing to read defense. Explain why their theory is not true, not applicable to the topic, or not what their authors are talking about. This does not need to be carded.

---T:

I prefer AFFs to have very offense heavy approaches that impact turn specific standards or topicality as a whole, coupled with a few pieces of defense that mitigate some of the NEG standards.

I usually consider the AFF counter-interpretation first and foremost a way to mitigate NEG offense without linking to your own, which means I am generally less persuaded by standards created by the hypothetical model of debate you have defended. I think the most important part of your counter-interpretation is what the role of the NEG under it is and how they can interact with AFFs allowed by your counter-interpretation.

I prefer NEGs to develop one or two standards and explain how those standards independently turn the AFF offense, coupled with switch-side debate or a topical version of the AFF as a piece of structural defense.

I care about the NEG interpretation significantly more. I think the specific wording of your interpretation often implies more or less than that teams should read topical AFFs. Both teams should consider exactly what the interpretation entails and use that to their advantage.

I do not think a 2NR that goes for T needs to go to case to win. I also think it is possible for a 2AR to beat T with only case. It is dependent on how both teams frame the interaction between the two arguments.

---DA:

I think more teams should be willing to read DAs against K AFFs. Most of them are making critiques of the topic or broader concepts like capitalism, security, and hegemony, and it is offense at the level of their theory to prove that those things are good.

I think winning a DA requires winning some level of turns case analysis, because I would struggle to vote on extinction outweighs against a K AFF that makes any substantive response to it. These are usually done best as a description of the negative consequences of your impact’s absence, not positive consequences of it’s presence (as in, go for 'losing hegemony causes increased inequality', not 'hegemony solves equality').

I am usually not persuaded by AFF no links to DAs. Even if your method does not necessarily trigger the link, these still function as an indict of your scholarship, and winning that you do not cause the link is probably harmful to the arguments you are making on presumption. If you understand the theory you are defending, you should be able to win that capitalism, security, and hegemony are bad.

I think AFF teams are better off using their scholarship to prove why defenses of capitalism, security, hegemony, and so on are problematic, and proving why that is more important than whatever existential impacts the DA attributes to them. This does not have to be carded, and is more persuasive than reading policy answers from an impact turn file.

---CP:

I do not have an aversion to reading policy counterplans against K AFFs, but I am yet to see one deployed in a way that is strategic. Almost all of them are predicated on using the state, which the AFF has either preemptively impact turned, or has not, in which case they will probably win a permutation.

I think these are best deployed as an advantage counterplan for a DA, such that you can go for an existential impact while still mitigating some of the structural impacts of the AFF. However, this requires you to be very intentional in ensuring that your counterplan does not link to its net benefit.

---K AFF v K NEG---

I find myself concerned as much about truth as tech in the debates. This does not mean that I will vote on anything other than my flow. However, it means that winning one good argument that uses your theory to explain why the argument they have made is wrong is as good as a ton of smaller, technically advantageous arguments. As long as an argument is not completely dropped, the truth of your argument matters.

---K:

In both high school and college, my preferred option against K AFFs was a psychoanalysis K.

I can be persuaded that there should not be permutations. I find the best justifications for these are often based on how it implicates the efficacy of the methods, not based on fairness.

I care as much about how your different thesis-level claims about how the world works explain the instances of violence described by the 1AC as I do whether or not the AFF has said something that links to your literature base. Both teams should be doing comparative analysis of how their theory can explain the instances of violence spoken to by the other, while pointing out examples from their literature based that their opponent’s theory cannot explain.

I generally prefer specific, nuanced analysis to cards in these debates. I think your understanding of the intersection of the two specific theories will often be better than any general cards from your literature base.

---PIK:

I never read, prepared, or went for a PIK against a K AFF in high school or college.

I enjoy these arguments and think that they are often creative ways to point out flaws with the AFF. However, the AFF will almost always be more persuasive against an advocacy that does the entirety of the AFF except the endorsement of a single word, phrase, or author. I would try to get more creative with your advocacies to make them functionally different from the AFF method, which can also be done by impacting out how whatever thing you are PIK-ing out of implicates the AFF method more broadly.

---LD---

Almost all of my experience in LD was more traditional. Even when I did circuit tournaments, I did them reading a value and value criterion.

For both progressive and traditional LD, I think the 1AR is an extremely difficult time tradeoff against good NEG teams. The best remedy I have found to this was using the 1AC to preemptively answer the most popular NEG arguments (for example, I read an AFF on the term-limit the Supreme Court topic that said 'term-limits politicize the Court which is good', so that when the NEG inevitably said that 'term-limits politicize the court', the 1AR could cross-apply the disadvantage to impact turn it and move on). As a result, I am pretty sympathetic to allowing AFFs to use their case to answer most NEG arguments.

---Progressive:

If you want to just do 1v1 policy, then do 1v1 policy. Everything from the above paradigm applies.

I do not have an aversion to watching 'meta-ethic' 'phil' debates or 'tricks', but also have zero experience with them, so I will need judge instruction to understand how winning the substance of these arguments implicates the round.

My experience debating with a smaller school accustomed to traditional LD makes me fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments that you should defend the entire resolution.

---Traditional:

Value and value criterions function as impact framing devices to me. I care less about who wins their value than who wins under the winning value, which means I think both sides should be contextualizing their arguments to both their and their opponent’s value.

I strongly dislike the trend of AFFs and NEGs defending single instances of the resolution being good or bad and using that as grounds to vote AFF or NEG. Teams should defend broader theoretical reasons as to why the topic is true or false. My threshold for voting for general principle framing arguments and using them to bracket examples out of the round is very low.

---Forensics---

I don't know if I was the only one who read judge paradigms before limited prep events, but I did and tried to adapt, so here is this if you want it. I did international extemp, impromptu, and oration. I generally care about speech content more than speech delivery, but sounding good always helps.

I like when you take unique directions on topics. I usually inserted some philosophy or critical theory into my speeches to make them stand out more. I think critiquing underlying assumptions of your topic or question counts as a response to it and is preferable to just explaining the some niche political topic for seven minutes. My favorite extemp speeches answer the question with a 'yes/no, but...' that speaks to the traditional level of analysis, but adds a meta-level critique of that frame of analysis that complicates the answer further.

Obviously if it’s not a limited prep event just do your thing, I don't even know what adapting a DI would like especially when I like speech content the most. Just pick a good piece, I guess.

Tabula Rasa.

Make the debate interesting; A good K debate is always welcome but if you do not feel you are competent enough to run one well, then please choose a different strategy.

T - Should be more than just competing definitions, rather I would like to witness a debate about why I should care about topicality as an argument as a whole.

DA - Always a good strategy, make your links specific although I will not disregard a generic link but I will value it less.

Cp - Perm as long as it is conditional.

K - Always a wonderful debate, but I would rather see a K debate where everyone understands the literature, and is productive. Alternatives can remain vague but if questioned, need to be answered.

Condo - The best kind of debate.

Lynn A. Miller
Derby High School
Derby, Kansas


Debate Experience:
4 Years High School (1980s)
3 Years College - CEDA and NDT (circa 1990s - old guy!)
Coaching: Current head coach of Derby High School and former head coach of Kapaun Mount Carmel High School.
lmiller@usd260.com
Updated: August 17, 2016

I have been around for a long time and I have remained progressive in my coaching and views on debate. I am fine with theory and/or non-traditional debate strategies, but I will try to outline some predispositions.

T:
I will vote on it and I think it is still an issue. I prefer CI but teams need to explain their interpretation and why it is better. I prefer to see some link that indicates a loss of strategic ground for the negative. I may be persuaded by potential abuse, but prefer some in-round loss of ground or strategic disadvantage.

FW:
I honestly think clash is very important. Teams who try to frame the debate in ways in which ground is extremely limited or non-existent for their opponent tend to lose my ballot when this is properly debated. I evaluate this on the flow based on what was presented in the round, not what I think about the position. I am not persuaded by FW that says Ks are bad/illegitimate - they are part of debate get over it!

CP:
Not particularly fond of conditions CP or plan + CP positions. Fairly open to anything else, but CP solves better is not a net benefit!

K:
I have read some literature, coached some successful K teams, open to hearing whatever you like, but don't expect me to vote on (or catch) K buzz words and vote because you said something that sounds cool. K teams have a higher threshold for me in establishing a link and point of clash with opponents. Just because someone told you, "say this phrase and you will win" probably won't work with me. However, a solid K position with clear link/impact/relevance will get my ballot if well defended.

DAs/Advs:
I tend to give some risk to even sketch link stories. That works for both aff and neg. Focus on timeframe and magnitude for me.

Solvency:
Again, I tend to give the aff some risk of solvency usually. I expect both teams to do solid impact calc and weigh everything in the round.

Bottom-line - I like debate which for me means clash. Not too concerned about what you are presenting, but I am concerned that a debate happens and I can make a decision based on how arguments are presented and who best explains why they should win. In the few instances where teams have been disappointed with my decision it usually revolves around what they "thought" they said in the round and what I "heard" in the round. I will not do work for you, so explanation trumps reading a ton of cards in most of my decisions. Any more questions, just ask me.  

 

I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 18 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.

Intro

My name is Isaiah, I am currently in college studying History, Political Science, Social work, and philosophy. In high school, I debated all 4 years and did forensics all 4 years also. I have not judged a round this year so new to the topic and arguments.

MOST IMPORTANT!!

There are three things that will decide a round:

1. Education- debate is about learning how to develop critical thinking skills, speaking skills, arguing skills, and analytical skills. You are supposed to learn from the rounds you debate in and it should be a continuous learning process.
2. Explaining- if you don't explain, then there is no case being made. After every argument you make, explain it and link it. Tell me why it matters or why I should consider it in today's debate round.
3. Impacting- impacting is one of the best ways to win me over. You should impact the significance if you do/ don't go with the affs plan. Why is it significant? What's going to happen if the aff plan doesn't/does pass? Tell me!

Ultimately, the debaters will dictate how I vote. I am open to anything, besides T, I don't like T.

Xanna Joy Smith (She/Her)

Hi! My name is Xanna Joy and I have debated all 4 years while I was in high school.

I am a flow judge and will keep track of all arguments made in round. I would also like to be included in your speechdrop or email chain. My email is xannajoysmith2005@gmail.com

(If you have any questions please ask me before the debate round starts)

Solvency- Solvency is the most important stock issue for me as a judge. If you are affirmative, you need to prove to me that you solve for the harms in the status quo, even if the negative doesn't bring it up. If you are the negative, you need to prove to me that the affirmative won't solve such harm.

Topicality- I do not like generic topicality, not saying I won't vote on them if they are run correctly. When running a topicality in a round I need the negative to prove to me that the affirmative is truly in violation of the resolution. When you have to cherry-pick to make your topicality make sense, it's not worth running in a round.

Disads-If you are the negative and you don't run a disadvantage whatsoever you most likely have lost the debate round. (with few exceptions). Run at least 1 disad.

Kritiks-I will vote on a Kritik if you explain it well enough to me (This includes Aff-K's). Although not my favorite argument, Kritiks does bring something unique to a debate round and if it is done right, I will vote on it.

Theory-I don't like a theory, but similar to kritiks, if you can explain it to me then I would vote on it. But I don't think that theory should be your main argument.

Spreading-I really do not like spreading. I view spreading as very abusive towards the affirmative team. That being said, if you are affirmative you still have to answer the arguments but also show me how they are leaving you with no ground in the debate round.

Discrimination-As a judge, I will not stand with discrimination at play in a debate round. If either team is Homophobic, Racist, Sexist, etc. I will not stand for it in a debate round. Along with that, I will not discriminate against any person based on such things as a judge.

I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.

I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly and assume I don't know many abbreviations for the current topic).

I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments.

I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments. I also REALLY don't like kritiks... And if you make a ridiculous stretch to something leading to nuclear war or human extinction, you probably won't win that argument with me.

novice paradigm

he/they preferred, if u keep calling me "its" for giggles i'll be sad

3rd year debater at olathe east

please add me to the email chain BUT school emails suck i'll just give y'all my personal email or just use speechdrop assuming it doesn't break for the six millionth time

--o/v--

don't feel pressured to adapt to me based on what i say here. read what you're comfortable with and i'll do my best to understand and weigh it.

that being said, things like "their impacts aren't likely," "don't listen to their 2ar because we don't get to respond." and, god forbid, the boat analogy won't fly without good analysis unless the other team straight up doesn't respond to it. I WILL emphasize technical arguments and what i have on the flow over how good you are as a speaker.

do not EVER:

-be toxic, hostile, or full of yourself (this includes rattling overly technical arguments against people who can’t understand you and then proceeding to say that they dropped them and they lose) to the other team.

-be/read evidence that is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. this includes disrespecting pronouns, idc if you think "they" is plural.

-reference the popular social deduction game "among us"

or else you WILL lose the round and get bottom speaks.

------

aff/da/cp: policy is my bread and butter, so read any aff/disad/cp you like. i am more familiar with the advantage/plan text structure than plan planks or harms/significance but anything goes. line-by-line, evidence comparison, utilizing all parts of the flow, and in general analysis beyond just parroting what your cards said will go a long way in novice. please don't read a k-aff. i have almost no experience with them and you probably have no idea what you're talking about if you do it anyway

i evaluate the 2nr vs 2ar--if the round's been particularly messy i will reference earlier flows, but that's not going to be the norm. if you're arguing the counterplan in the 2nr, then that's what i'm going to base my ballot on. same with if it's the squo. i'm willing to vote neg on solvency if there's no perm but i'm only saying this due to the sadly high amount of rounds where this has been the case.

there are things like delay and consult cp's that are pretty unfair but it's on the aff to call you out (that said, if they do then i won't consider them.) no judge kick.

stock issues: not a stock issues judge. saying "x is a stock issue" won't get me to vote on it.

topicality: i'm more willing to vote on t on rounds where the aff is blatantly untopical than ones where you read t just for the sake of doing so, but it's still up to the aff to justify themselves--if they straight up drop the arg then the neg wins by default. (hint to aff: don't do that.)

if the aff does respond, i compare the interpretations of the aff and the neg--so you have to explain to me why your interpretation of what should and shouldn't be included in the topic/your model of debate is better than the other team's.

you also have to win that t is a voting issue and explain at least an internal link like fairness or education for me to vote for you.

k: beware this definitely isn't my area of expertise, so if you read these you'll have to be prepared to explain them to me and why i should vote for you. if you can't do this, please don't read a k. me, my flows, and everyone's collective sanity will sad

if you can, i'll compare aff vs alt. perm, root cause, no link/link turn, x inevitable, etc. from both sides will get high priority from me, since they're easiest to understand for those in round. and read framework. if they don't then winning the k becomes much easier. you can go more complex than that but beware that you're pushing the "i might pull a lay judge moment" limit by that point

theory: if you really want to read this go ahead. but given it's a novice tournament though i have a really low threshold for the other team--i won't reject them unless they don't even attempt to answer you. (hint #2: try to answer it.)

framing: read it. if you do and they don't answer then suddenly the round becomes much easier.

analytics: use them. don't be beholden to what you have with carded evidence. especially if it's backed up with empirics and a solid line of reasoning. i WILL consider them 100%.

speed: i can't follow spreading and unclear speeches that well. if you're a novice, then i should be able to understand you at any speed, but if it's an online tournament people won't have the best mics. if i have trouble, i'll say "clear." after the third time, i'll just stop flowing what i can't understand.

slow down when you're reading taglines, analytics, or anything important. mark new cards with some word like AND. it just helps me flow better.

------

if you can, give a roadmap of your speech (e.x. i'll be reading infrastructure disad, counterplan, then case.) if you don't know what that is (or anything else i mention) then i'm more than happy to explain before the round starts.

DO CLASH PLS (impact calc, directly answering opposing arguments, comparing evidence) as much as possible. it makes my rfd much easier to write, my brain happy, and your speaks higher.

i don't flow new arguments after the block.

and finally, y'all are here to have fun. don’t stress, i’ll try my best to give everyone useful feedback.

to quote owen crouch: “if i get to tell you who won right after the round, i invite you to ask questions on my decisions, respectfully disagree and tell me i’m a fool, and/or schedule an appointment to catch these hands.”

"god is dead? isn't that a movie?" - graydon dupree