He/Him

Experience: Former Missouri State NFA-LD debater for 4 years. 3rd in NFA-LD at NFA Nationals in 2019. 2ish years of judging college debate. Now work in think tank world.

TLDR: Do what makes you comfortable. Make sure you are keeping the debate accessible and educational for everyone involved. Be nice. I’m more knowledgeable and comfortable with policy debate than K debate but I want you to do what you feel good about. Go fast if you want. Condo is good and your theory argument probably isn’t going to be on my mind at the end of the round. Quality and depth of arguments > multiple shallow arguments. CP + DA =personal favorite type of debate.

A quick note about online debate

I would implore you to remember that we as a community are weathering this storm together and doing things that help make this process easier for everyone (including maybe going a little slower than normal because of low quality computer speakers). Keep your camera on while you debate please.

General thoughts:

At the end of the day, debate should be a game built around clever technical argumentation that enhances your education on the topic and relevant critical literature, while remaining open for as many people as possible. Tech>truth I think is key to preserving said game. I think speed is generally good but you should ask yourself if you are doing it because it is necessary to win or if you are being exclusionary. I do not think my ballot determines anything other than wins in losses in a casual game. Things that I feel are intentionally done to exclude people from the game will be held against you and could be a voter if bad enough (i.e. you made a racist/sexist/ableist/transphobic argument). You should disclose to your opponent before round and on the wiki.

Notes on different arguments:

Disads:

Disads are good. I don’t know what else to say really. I hope you spend time weighing the impact from the DA and contextualizing how it interacts with the aff rather than just saying “it outweighs”. I don’t think that should have to be said really but too many debates in NFA don’t contain that broader story and contextualization. I like a good politics DA a whole lot.

CP:

CP’s are very good for debate and your personal education. I think judge kicking a CP is pretty intuitive and I haven’t seen a great argument against it. PIC’s are generally good for debate and holding the aff to a reasonable intellectual standard. I tend to think that theory arguments are a reason to reject the arg not the team, BUT I can obviously be persuaded otherwise.

K’s:

I’m all for K’s...more so on the negative than the affirmative, but I’m open to both. I do have a few thoughts on what I need out of a K debate though. The first thing I want to specify here is that I really would prefer your alt to be more than a mad lib full of philosophy 350 jargon. I want to be able to walk away from the round with a fairly clear understanding of the action of the alt and a pair of contrasting worlds for me to evaluate. It’s fairly easy just to say “thing bad”, so I would hope for a little more substance than that. Second, I am familiar with the basics of a lot of K arguments (some more than others, I probably have a bit more background knowledge on islamaphobia or feminist theory than I do queer theory for example) but I was not a K debater and I have less and less time to read critical literature now that I am out of school. So while I am not entirely out of touch with the literature, I may need some high level contextualization at the beginning. Third, if you want to run K's on the aff I think that is fine but you still should find someway to contextualize your critique within the topic. I think this at least partially nullifies concerns over accessibility and education. I think people within NFA-LD have mostly gotten better at this over the last couple years but you occasionally still see a K aff that is so generic it feels like it was recycled from 3 topics ago.

T:

My general stance is that if you know deep down in your heart that your opponent's Aff is topical and you still want to go for T… you’ve chosen probably the least intellectually interesting way for this round to go. That aside I think T debates can be ok when done right and I'll vote on both proven and potential abuse. But would highly prefer proven abuse.

Theory:

I think theory arguments can serve as important guardrails against genuinely game breaking behavior but I also believe they are very abused by some debaters. I really dislike cheap, obscure two line theory arguments used as gotcha techniques. I think they are often used as crutch and end up harming the educational value of a round. That being said, I have voted for different theory arguments many many times over the years. I just need you to spend time on them and actually flesh them out into real arguments.

Speaker points:

Something I think uniquely plagues the NFA community is the lack of standardized and agreed upon speaker points. Some judges will hand out a 29.5 to anyone who strings a sentence together and others will give you a 28 for a round they said "blew them away". While I don't think I am necessarily going to solve that myself, I wanted to be transparent and clear about how I think this should work. So here are my breakdowns for speaker points in NFA-LD

25 or below: You said something offensive or mean to the other debater. Booo

25.1-25.9: You filled up less than half of your speech time or seemed to struggle to grasp the fundamentals of debate. I'll hand these out pretty sparingly.

26-27: You made some pretty significant mistakes in this round, conceded a major impact, and could use a fair amount of practice. You probably couldn't quite figure out how to utilize the arguments you were making or made a bunch of blippy arguments with no contextualization and they were never expanded upon later.

27-28: You did pretty ok. If I was tournament god I would not give you a speaker award, there were some clear areas of improvement that could be worked on, but it was a pretty solid performance otherwise.

28-You did pretty good. You had a solid path to victory at one point or another in the round and deserve a low speaker award.

28.5-29: I left the round with a very clear understanding of exactly what you were going for and why you deserved to win. You know what you had to do to win, and even if you ultimately lost, you were never truly out of the game. You contextualized exactly how your impact or framing interacts with your opponent's and pulled a few clever tricks.

29-29.5: Fantastic job. You deserve a high speaker awards and I would very much expect you to be in deeper elims. Not only were your final arguments well developed and weighed, but you were able to give me a legitimately deeper understanding of the competing worlds with specific warrants from each card and demonstrated you genuinely knew your stuff. You pulled out something neither me nor your opponent expected and had excellent round vision.

29.5-30: This speech should be shown to future novice debaters as an example of what to do.

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short Version:
-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com

-if you would like to contact me about something else, the best way to reach me is: bootj093@newschool.edu - please do not use this email for chains I would like to avoid cluttering it every weekend which is why I have a separate one for them

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley (local policy circuit in Kansas) and college @ NYU (CEDA-NDT) for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-head LD/policy debate coach at Bronx Science and assistant policy coach at The New School, former assistant for Blue Valley West, Mill Valley, and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-t-framework impacts ranked: topic education > skills > clash/arg refinement > scenario planning > fun > literally any other reason why debate is good > fairness

-I updated the t-fw part of my paradigm recently (under policy, 12/4/23) - if you are anticipating having a framework debate in front of me on either side, I would appreciate it if you skimmed it at least

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume one way or the other for theory questions

-all kinds of theory, including topicality, framework, and/or "role of the ballot" arguments are about ideal models of debate

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-for high school policy 23-24: I actually used to work for the Social Security Administration (only for about 7-8 months) and I have two immediate family members who currently work there - so I have a decent amount of prior knowledge about how the agency works internally, processes benefits, the technology it uses, etc. - but not necessarily policy proposals for social security reform

Long Version:

Overview: Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Feel free to adapt arguments, but please don't change your style of debate for me. I want to see what you are prepared for, practiced in, and passionate about. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Speaking and Presentation: I don't care about how you look, how you're dressed, how fast or in what manner you speak, where you sit, whether you stand, etc. Do whatever makes you feel comfortable and will help you be the best debater you can be. My one preference for positioning is that you face me during speeches. It makes it easier to hear and also I like to look up a lot while flowing on my laptop. For some panel situations, this can be harder, just try your best and don't worry about it too much.

Speed - I do not like to follow along in the speech doc while you are giving your speech. I like to read cards in prep time, when they are referenced in cx, and while making my decision. I will use it as a backup during a speech if I have to. This is a particular problem in LD, that has been exacerbated by two years of online debate. I expect to be able to hear every word in your speech, yes including the text of cards. I expect to be able to flow tags, analytics, theory interps, or anything else that is not the interior text of a card. This means you can go faster in the text of a card, this does mean you should be unclear while reading the text of a card. This also means you should go slower for things that are not that. This is because even if I can hear and understand something you are saying, that does not necessarily mean that my fingers can move fast enough to get it onto my flow. When you are reading analytics or theory args, you are generally making warranted arguments much faster than if you were reading a card. Therefore, you need to slow down so I can get those warrants on my flow.

Clarity - I'm bad at yelling clear. I try to do it when things are particularly egregious but honestly, I feel bad about throwing a debater off their game in the middle of a speech. I think you can clear or slow your opponent if you are comfortable with it - but not excessively to avoid interruption please - max 2-3 times a speech. If you are unclear with tags or analytics in an earlier speech, I will try to let you know immediately after the speech is over. If you do it in a rebuttal, you are 100% at fault because I know you can do it clearly, but are choosing not to. Focus on efficiency, not speed.

Logistical Stuff: I would like the round to run as on-time as possible. Docs should be ready to be sent when you end prep time. Orders/roadmaps should be given quickly and not changed several times. Marking docs can happen outside of prep time, but it should entail only marking where cards were cut. I would prefer that, at the varsity level, CX or prep time is taken to ask if something was not read or which arguments were read. I think it’s your responsibility to listen to your opponent’s speech to determine what was said and what wasn’t. I don’t take prep or speech time for tech issues - the clock can stop if necessary. Use the bathroom, fill up your water bottle as needed - tournaments generally give plenty of time for a round and so long as the debaters are not taking excessive time to do other things like send docs, I find that these sorts of things aren’t what truly makes the round run behind.

Email chain or speech drop is fine for docs, which should be shared before a speech. I really prefer Word documents if possible, but don't stress about changing your format if you can't figure it out. Unless there is an accommodation request, not officially or anything just an ask before the round, I don't think analytics need to be sent. Advocacy texts, theory interps, and shells should be sent. Cards are sent for the purposes of ethics and examining more closely the research of your opponent. Too many of you have stopped listening to your opponents entirely and I think the rising norm of sending every single word you plan on saying is a big part of it. It also makes you worse debaters because in the instances where your opponent decides to look up from their laptop and make a spontaneous argument, many of you just miss it entirely.

Stop stealing prep time. When prep time is called by either side, you should not be talking to your partner, typing excessively on your computer, or writing things down. My opinion on “flex prep,” or asking questions during prep time, is that you can ask for clarifications, but your opponent doesn’t have to answer more typical cx questions if they don’t want to (it is also time that they are entitled to use to focus on prep), and I don’t consider the answers in prep to have the same weight as in cx. Prep time is not a speech, and I dislike it when a second ultra-pointed cx begins in prep time because you think it makes your opponent look worse. It doesn’t - it makes you look worse.

Speaker Points: I try to adjust based on the strength of the tournament pool/division, but my accuracy can vary depending on how many rounds in the tournament I've already judged.

29.5+ You are one of the top three speakers in the tournament and should be in finals.

29.1-29.4 You are a great speaker who should be in late elims of the tournament.

28.7-29 You are a good speaker who should probably break.

28.4-28.6 You're doing well, but need some more improvement to be prepared for elims.

28-28.3 You need significant improvement before I think you can debate effectively in elims.

<28 You have done something incredibly offensive or committed an ethics violation, which I will detail in written comments and speak with you about in oral feedback.

The three things that affect speaker points the most are speaking clearly/efficiently, cross-x, and making effective choices in the final rebuttals.

If you win the debate without reading from a laptop in the 2NR/2AR your floor for speaks is a 29.

For Policy:

T-Framework: The fw debates I like the most are about the advantages and disadvantages of having debates over a fiated policy implementation of the topic. I would prefer if your interpretation/violation was phrased in terms of what the affirmative should do/have done - I think this trend of crafting an interpretation around negative burdens is silly - i.e. "negatives should not be burdened with the rejoinder of untopical affirmatives." I'm not usually a big fan of neg interpretations that only limit out certain parts of the topic - strategically, they usually seem to just link back to neg offense about limits and predictability absent a more critical strategy. I think of framework through an offense/defense paradigm and in terms of models of debate. My opinion is that you all spend dozens or hundreds of hours doing research, redos, practice, and debates - you should be prepared to defend that the research you do, the debates you have, and how you have those debates are good.

1. Topic-specific arguments are best - i.e. is it a good or bad thing that we are having rounds talking about fiscal redistribution, nuclear weapons, resource extraction, or military presence? How can that prepare people to take what they learn in debate outside of the activity? Why is topic-specific education valuable or harmful in a world of disinformation, an uninformed American public, escalating global crises, climate change, etc.? Don't be silly and read an extinction impact or anything though.

2. Arguments about debate in general are also great - I'm down for a "debate about debate" - the reason that I as a coach and judge invest tons of time into this activity is because I think it is pedagogically valuable - but what that value should look like, what is best to take from it, is in my opinion the crux of framework debates. Should debate be a competitive space or not? What are the implications of imagining a world where government policy gets passed? What should fiat look like or should it be used at all?

I can be convinced that debate should die given better debating from that side. But honestly, this is not my personal belief - the decline of policy debate in terms of participation at the college and high school level makes me very sad actually. I can also be convinced that debate is God's gift to earth and is absolutely perfect, even though I also believe that there are many problems with the activity. There is also a huge sliding scale between these two options.

3. Major defensive arguments and turns are good - technical stuff about framework like ssd, tvas, relative solvency of counter-interps, turns case and turns the disad arguments, uniqueness claims about the current trends of debate, claims about the history of debate, does it shape subjectivity or not - are all things that I think are worth talking about and can be used to make "try or die" or presumption arguments - though they should not be the focal point of your offense. I like when tvas are carded solvency advocates and/or full plan texts.

4. I do not like judging debates about procedural fairness:

A) They are usually very boring. On every topic, the same pre-written blocks, read at each other without any original thought over and over. I dislike other arguments for this reason too - ultra-generic kritiks and process cps - but even with those, they often get topic or aff-specific contextualizations in the block. This does not usually happen with fairness.

B) I often find fairness very unimportant on its own relative to the other key issues of framework - meaning I don't usually think it is offense. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyway), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me to reasonably compare it to the aff's offense - saying "well we all must care about fairness because we're here, they make strategic arguments, etc." - is not sufficient to do that. I usually agree that competitive incentives mean people care about fairness somewhat. But how much and why is that important? I get an answer with nearly every other argument in debate, but hardly ever with fairness. I think a threshold for if something is an impact is that it's weighable.

C) Despite this, fairness can be impacted out into something tangible or I can be convinced that "tangibility" and consequences are not how I should make my decision. My hints are Nebel and Glówczewski.

5. Everyone needs to compare their impacts alongside other defensive claims in the debate and tell me why I should vote for them. Like traditional T, it's an offense/defense, disad/counterplan, model of debate thing for me. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. Impacts are negative effects of the status quo, the alternative resolves the status quo, and the links are reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening. Perms are a test of the strength of the link. Framework, ROB, and ROJ arguments operate on the same level to me and I think they are responsive to each other. My feelings on impacts here are similar to t-fw.

I still study some French high theory authors in grad school, but from a historical perspective. In my last couple years of college debate I read Baudrillard and DnG-style arguments a lot, some psychoanalysis as well - earlier than that my tastes were a little more questionable and I liked Foucault, Zizek, and Nietzsche a lot, though I more often went for policy arguments - I gave a lot of fw+extinction outweighs 2ARs. A lot of the debates I find most interesting include critical ir or critical security studies arguments. I have also coached many other kinds of kritiks, including all of the above sans Zizek as well as a lot of debaters going for arguments about anti-blackness or feminism. Set col stuff I don't know the theory as well tbh.

Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in debates without a neg advocacy. Turns cases/turns the da is usually much better than timeframe/probability/magnitude. Between two improbable extinction impacts, I default to using timeframe a lot of the time. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card that you explain well in rebuttals rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing, but hard to prove, like presumption.

Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. My favorites are advantage cps, specific pics, and recuttings of 1AC solvency ev. I like process cps when they are specific to the topic or have good solvency advocates. I will vote on other ones still, but theory and perm do the cp debates may be harder for you. I think some process cps are even very pedagogically valuable and can be highly persuasive with up-to-date, well-cut evidence - consult Japan on relevant topics for instance. But these arguments can potentially be turned by clash and depth over breadth. And neg flex in general can be a very strong argument in policy. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and thinking of interps as models of debate. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best. I find arguments about limits and the effect that interpretations have on research to be the most convincing. I like topicality debates quite a bit.

Theory: Slow down, slow down, slow down. Like T, I think of theory through models of debate and default to competing interps- you should have an interpretation to make your life a little easier if you want to extend it - if you don't, I will assume the most extreme one (i.e. no pics, no condo, etc.). If you don't have a counter-interp in response to a theory argument, you are in a bad position. If your interpretation uses debate jargon like pics, "process" cps, and the like - you should tell me what you mean by those terms at least in rebuttal. Can pics be out of any word said, anything in the plan, anything defended in the solvency advocate or in cx, any concept advocated for, etc.? I think there is often too much confusion over what is meant to be a process cp. The interpretation I like best for "process" is "counterplans that result in the entirety of the plan." I like condo bad arguments, especially against super abusive 1ncs, but the neg gets a ton of time in the block to answer it, so it can be really hard to give a good enough 1ar on it without devoting a lot of time as well - so if you are going to go for it in the 2ar, you need to expand on it and cover block responses in the 1ar. Warrant out reject the argument vs. reject the team.

For LD:

Prefs Shortcut:

1 - LARP, High Theory Ks

2 - Other Ks, Topicality

3 - Phil, Theory that isn't condo or pics bad

4/5/strike - Trad, Tricks

My disclaimer is I try to keep an open mind for any debate - you should always use the arguments/style that you are most prepared with and practiced in. You all seem to really like these shortcuts, so I caved and made one - but these are not necessarily reflective of my like or dislike for any particular argument, instead more of my experience with different kinds, meaning some probably require more explanation for me to "get it." I love when I do though - I'm always happy to learn new things in debate!

Phil Debates: Something I am fairly unfamiliar with, but I've been learning more about over the past 6 months (02/23). I have read, voted for, and coached many things to the contrary, but if you want to know what I truly believe, I basically think most things collapse into some version of consequentialist utilitarianism. If you are to convince me that I should not be a consequentialist, then I need clear instructions for how I should evaluate offense. Utilitarianism I'm used to being a little more skeptical of from k debates, but other criticisms of util from say analytic philosophy I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Trad Debate: By far what I am least familiar with. I don't coach this style and never competed in anything like LD trad debate - I did traditional/lay policy debate a bit in high school - but that is based on something called "stock issues" which is a completely different set of standards than LD's value/value criterion. I struggle in these debates because for me, like "stock issues" do in policy, these terms seem to restrictively categorize arguments and actually do more to obscure their meaning than reveal it. In the trad debates I've seen (not many, to be fair), tons of time was dedicated to clarifying minutiae and defining words that either everyone ended up agreeing on or that didn't factor into the way that I would make my decision. I don't inherently dislike LD trad debate at all, it honestly just makes things more difficult for me to understand because of how I've been trained in policy debate for 11 years. I try my best, but I feel that I have to sort through trad "jargon" to really get at what you all think is important. I would prefer if you compared relative impacts directly rather than told me one is better than the other 100% of the time.

Plans/DAs/CPs: See the part in my policy paradigm. Plans/CP texts should be clearly written and are generally better when in the language of a specific solvency advocate. I think the NC should be a little more developed for DAs than in policy - policy can have some missing internal links because they get the block to make new arguments, but you do not get new args in the NR that are unresponsive to the 1AR - make sure you are making complete arguments that you can extend.

Kritiks: Some stuff in my policy paradigm is probably useful. Look there for K-affs vs. T-fw. I'm most familiar with so-called "high theory" but I have also debated against, judged, and coached many other kinds of kritiks. Like with DAs/CPs, stuff that would generally be later in the debate for policy should be included in the NC, like ROBs/fw args. Kritiks to me are usually consequentialist, they just care about different kinds of consequences - i.e. the consequences of discourse, research practices, and other impacts more proximate than extinction.

ROB/ROJs: In my mind, this is a kind of theory debate. The way I see this deployed in LD most of the time is as a combination of two arguments. First, what we would call in policy "framework" (not what you call fw in LD) - an argument about which "level" I should evaluate the debate on. "Pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are the terms that you all like to use a lot, but it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to this. I could be convinced for instance that research practices should come before discourse or something else. The second part is generally an impact framing argument - not only that reps should come first, but that a certain kind of reps should be prioritized - i.e. ROB is to vote for whoever best centers a certain kind of knowledge. These are related, but also have separate warrants and implications for the round, so I consider them separately most of the time. I very often can in fact conclude that reps must come first, but that your opponent’s reps are better because of some impact framing argument that they are making elsewhere. Also, ROB and ROJ are indistinct from one another to me, and I don’t see the point in reading both of them in the same debate.

Topicality: You can see some thoughts in the policy sections as well if you're having that kind of T debate about a plan. I personally think some resolutions in LD justify plans and some don't. But I can be convinced that having plans or not having plans is good for debate, which is what is important for me in deciding these debates. The things I care about here are education and fairness, generally more education stuff than fairness. Topicality interpretations are models of the topic that affirmatives should follow to produce the best debates possible. I view T like a DA and vote for whichever model produces the best theoretical version of debate. I care about "pragmatics" - "semantics" matter to me only insofar as they have a pragmatic impact - i.e. topic/definitional precision is important because it means our research is closer to real-world scholarship on the topic. Jurisdiction is a vacuous non-starter. Nebel stuff is kind of interesting, but I generally find it easier just to make an argument about limits. Reasonability is something I almost never vote on - to be “reasonable” I think you have to either meet your opponent’s interp or have a better one.

RVIs: The vast majority of the time these are unnecessary when you all go for them. If you win your theory or topicality interp is better than your opponent's, then you will most likely win the debate, because the opposing team will not have enough offense on substance. I'm less inclined to believe topicality is an RVI. I think it’s an aff burden to prove they are topical and the neg getting to test that is generally a good thing. Other theory makes more sense as an RVI. Sometimes when a negative debater is going for both theory and substance in the NR, the RVI can be more justifiable to go for in the 2AR because of the unique time differences of LD. If they make the decision to fully commit to theory in the NR, however, the RVI is unnecessary - not that I'm ideologically opposed to it, it just doesn't get you anything extra for winning the debate - 5 seconds of "they dropped substance" is easier and the warrants for your c/i's standards are generally much better than the ones for the RVI.

Disclosure Theory: This is not a section that I would ever have to write for policy. I find it unfortunate that I have to write it for LD. Disclosure is good because it allows schools access to knowledge of what their opponents are reading, which in pre-disclosure days was restricted to larger programs that could afford to send scouts to rounds. It also leads to better debates where the participants are more well-prepared. What I would like to happen for disclosure in general is this:
1) previously read arguments on the topic are disclosed to at least the level of cites on the opencaselist wiki,
2) a good faith effort is made by the aff to disclose any arguments including the advocacy/plan, fw, and cards that they plan on reading in the AC that they've read before once the pairing comes out,
3) a good faith effort is made by the neg to disclose any previously read positions, tied to NC arguments on their wiki, that they've gone for in the NR on the current topic (and previous if asked) once they receive disclosure from the aff,
4) all the cites disclosed are accurate and not misrepresentations of what is read,
5) nobody reads disclosure theory!!

This is basically the situation in college policy, but it seems we still have a ways to go for LD. In a few rare instances I've encountered misdisclosure, even teams saying things like "well it doesn't matter that we didn't read the scenario we said we were going to read because they're a k team and it wasn't really going to change their argument anyways." More intentional things like this, or bad disclosure from debaters and programs that really should know better, I don't mind voting on. I really don't like however when disclosure is used to punish debaters for a lack of knowledge or because it is a norm they are not used to. You have to understand, my roots are as a lay debater who didn't know what the wiki was and didn't disclose for a single round in high school. For my first two years, I debated exclusively on paper and physically handed pages to my opponent while debating after reading them to share evidence. For a couple years after that, we "flashed" evidence to each other by tossing around a usb drive - tournaments didn't provide public wifi. I've been in way more non-lay debates since then and have spent much more time doing "progressive" debate than I ever did lay debate, but I'm very sympathetic still to these kinds of debaters.

Especially if a good-faith attempt is made, interps that are excluding debaters based on a few minutes of a violation, a round report from several tournaments ago, or other petty things make me sad to judge. My threshold for reasonability in these debates will be much lower. Having some empathy and clearly communicating with your opponent what you want from them is a much better strategy for achieving better disclosure practices in the community than reading theory as a punitive measure. If you want something for disclosure, ask for it, or you have no standing. Also, if you read a disclosure interp that you yourself do not meet, you have no standing. Open source theory and disclosure of new affs are more debatable than other kinds of disclosure arguments, and like with T and other theory I will vote for whichever interp I determine is better for debate.

Other Theory: I really liked theory when I did policy debate, but that theory is also different from a lot of LD theory. What that means is I mainly know cp theory - condo, pics, process cps, perm competition (i.e. textual vs. functional, perm do the cp), severance/intrinsicness, and other things of that nature. You can see some of my thoughts on these arguments in the policy section. I've also had some experience with spec arguments. Like T, I view theory similarly to a da debate. Interpretations are models of debate that I endorse which describe ideally what all other debates should look like. I almost always view things through competing interps. Like with T, in order to win reasonability I think you need to have a pretty solid I/meet argument. Not having a counter-interp the speech after the interp is introduced is a major mistake that can cost you the round. I decide theory debates by determining which interp produces a model of debate that is "best." I default to primarily caring about education - i.e. depth vs. breadth, argument quality, research quality, etc. but I can be convinced that fairness is a controlling factor for some of these things or should come first. I find myself pretty unconvinced by arguments that I should care about things like NSDA rules, jurisdiction, some quirk of the tournament invitation language, etc.

Tricks: I think I've officially judged one "tricks" round now, and I've been trying to learn as much as I can while coaching my squad. I enjoyed it, though I can't say I understood everything that was happening. I engaged in some amount of trickery in policy debate - paradoxes, wipeout, process cps, kicking out of the aff, obscure theory args, etc. However, what was always key to winning these kinds of debates was having invested time in research, blocks, a2s - the same as I would for any other argument. I need to be able to understand what your reason is for obtaining my ballot. If you want to spread out arguments in the NC, that's fine and expected, but I still expect you to collapse in the NR and explain in depth why I should vote for you. I won't evaluate new arguments in the NR that are not directly responsive to the 1AR. The reason one-line voting issues in the NC don't generally work with me in the back is that they do not have enough warrants to make a convincing NR speech.

Updated for the Legalization Topic 9/11/14

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

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

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

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

Ways to kill your speaker points/irritate me

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

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

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

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

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

Ways to impress me

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

Topicality - K Affs

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

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

Counterplans/Disads

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

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

K's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

email chain: ethan.eitutis@gmail.com

>>If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.<<

I debated for 4 years for Cindy Burgett at Washburn Rural High School where I graduated in 2017. I coached for Annie Goodson at Blue Valley West for 4 years. I went to KU, studied Political Science, and graduated in 2022.

I will not do any work for you.

You can read fast but don't go 100%. I need to be able to understand your tags and analytical arguments, especially during online debates. I'd much rather you make 3 good, thought out, real arguments than 6 garbage ones. Getting through your T shell in 2.8 seconds is cool I guess but I won't be able to flow it.

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

Extending claims without warrants is not making an argument.

I am familiar with Cap, Security, Abolition, and some SetCol. I'll gladly listen to whatever K you read, but for ones outside of those 4 I will probably just need some explanation.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1nc hoping that the 2ac will undercover one and you'll win that way. That's bad for debate and horrible to listen to. I wish aff teams would make args about this in the debate. If your arg is that pqd stops nuisance lawsuits about naval sonar, and naval sonar kills horseshoe crabs which are key to the survival of the human race, perhaps you should lose. Stop it

((I'm not saying affs should make speed bad or condo args, I'm saying affs should make args that pqd -> sonar -> horseshoe crabs -> human extinction is bad for debate))

If you're not flowing, I'm not flowing.

I debated for 4 years at Cedar Rapids Washington. They/Them pronouns. I was always a 2N/1A

Put me on the email chain: 22cgay@gmail.com

General Notes:

I have not judged on the NATO topic. If you think an acronym or concept may be confusing and is key to you winning, make sure to explain it.

Do what you are best at.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/ect. I will call you out and vote you down. You are not better or above anyone else in the room. We're all here because we like debating, don't make the experience miserable for someone.

If there is a real reason that's out of your control that makes it so your spreading may be slower/less clear (that's not tech related) either email me or say something before round and I'll remember that when assigning speaks.

Online debate is rough. I have debated online so I understand the struggle. If theres tech issues thats not prep time. That being said, please dont fake tech issues as a way to steal prep. Its not nice and is pretty obvious that you are lying. It will hurt your speaker points.

T:

I will vote on it. Any aff can lose to T, but the 2NR needs to have some impact that is warranted out.

I want to see clash here.

Case list or TVAs are a must when the aff asks.

Theory:

I will vote on it but you need to do the work.

Don't just read your blocks--clash.

Tell me why what the other team is doing is bad, and what the impact to that is.

I default to durable fiat being real and good, but if you tell me its not and the other teams drops it ill take what you said.

DAs:

I like DAs. I went for politics a decent amount.

Impact Calc is needed to win.

Make sure you’re winning the framing flow or both sides agree on framing.

Uniqueness and Link pushes by the aff can be really good.

CPs:

CPs need a net benefit, don't assume we all know what the net benefit is, take the 3 seconds to say it.

2-3 condo is typically fine but I can be convinced that 1 condo is bad--see theory notes above.

Ks:

I’m the most familiar with Ks like cap, security, biopower, etc. Most of my 2NRs were Ks but that doesn't mean I know/understand everything K related.

Clash on framework is really good and usually is needed to win.

PoMo is a no go.

Case:

Case turns are a totally legit 2NR and can be a great tool to attack affs. Very underrated strat.

Clash on framing debates makes debate way more fun and tends to be underestimated in rounds.

I read mostly soft-left affs, but also have gone for extinction impacts. Do what you are best at.

I’m not anti k-aff on face but I won’t pretend like that’s my arena. I've never read a k-aff and I think having a plan text is key to ground.

When the aff has multiple advantages, everyone needs to be super explicit about what arguments are on which flows and keep them there throughout the debate--especially in novice deabte.

Put me on the e-mail chain - aegoodson@bluevalleyk12.org and annie.goodson@gmail.com

**I'll be honest, I'm writing my dissertation right now and have done less reading on this debate topic than any other year I've been coaching. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific literature you are reading.

Top Level:

I'm the head coach at Blue Valley West. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to advocate for some sort of action, even if they don't present a formal policy action. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. This is an awesome activity that makes us better thinkers and people, and when we get caught up in the competition of it all and start being hateful to each other during the round (which I've 100% been guilty of myself) it bums me out and makes me not want to vote for you. Be mindful of who you are and how you affect the debate space for others--racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in you losing the round and I won't feel bad about it.

Delivery:

Clarity is extremely important to me. Pause for a minute and read that last sentence again. Speed is only impressive if you are clear, and being incomprehensible is the same as clipping in my book. I'm generally fine with [clear] speed but need you to slow down on authors/tags. You need to speak slower in front of me than you do in front of a college kid. Slow down a few clicks in rebuttals, and slow down on analytics. The more technical your argument, the slower I need you to go. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story. We often forget that debate, regardless of how fast we are speaking, is still a performative activity at its core. You need to tell a story in a compelling way--don't let speed get in the way of that. Going 9 off in the 1NC is almost always a bad call. I'd rather you just make a few good arguments then try to out-spread the other team with a lot of meh arguments. I think going a million-off in the 1NC is a bad trend in this activity and is often a bad-faith effort to not engage in a more substantive debate.

T:

I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. Give me a case list and topical versions of the aff. If I'm being honest I definitely prefer DA/CP or K debates to T debates, but do what you enjoy the most and I will take it seriously and evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Performance-based:

These are weird for me because I don't have as nuanced an understanding of these as some other judges in our community, but also I vote for them a lot? I'm not the best judge on these args because they're not my expertise--help me by explaining what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective/safe elsewhere. I have the most fun when I'm watching kids do what they do best in debates, so do you. Know that if the other team can give me examples of how you can access your performance/topic *just as meaningfully* through topical action within the round, I find that pretty compelling.

CPs:

These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan, unless the aff completely drops it. I think delay and consult CPs are cheating generally, but the aff still needs to answer them.

K:

Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. One thing I like about this activity is that it gives kids a platform to discuss identity, and the K serves an important function there. Non-identity based theoretical arguments are typically harder for me to follow. K affs need to be prepared to articulate why the aff cannot/should not be topical--again, TVAs are really persuasive for me.

DAs:

Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.

Framework:

Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.

General Cranky Stuff:

1. A ton of you aren't flowing, or you're just flowing off the speech doc, which makes me really irritated and guts half the education of this activity. You should be listening. Your cross-x questions shouldn't be "Did you read XYZ?" It's equally frustrating when kids stand up to give a speech and just start mindlessly reading from blocks. Debate is more than just taking turns reading. I want to hear analysis and critical thinking throughout the round, and I want you to explain to me what you're reading (overviews, plz). I'll follow along in speech docs, and I'll read stuff again when you tell me take a closer look at it, but I'm not a computer with the magic debate algorithm--you need to explain to me what you're reading and tell me why it matters.

2. 1NCs, just label your off-case args in the doc. It wastes time and causes confusion down the line when you don't.

3. The point of speed is to get in more args/analysis in the time allotted. If you're stammering a ton and having to constantly re-start your sentences, then trying to go fast gains you nothing.....just......slow down.

4. You HAVE to slow down during rebuttals for me--other judges can follow analytics read at blistering speed. I am not one of those judges.

5. In my old age I have become extremely cranky about disclosure. Unless you're breaking new, you should disclose the aff and past 2NRs before the round.

**Clipping is cheating and if I catch you it's an auto-loss

**Trigger warnings are good and should happen whenever needed BEFORE the round starts. Don't run "death good" in front of me.

I use this scale for speaks:http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

Anything else, just ask!

Benjamin Hamburger 10/2022

Sure, you can add me to an email chain. benjamin dot hamburger at gmail. So you know, I probably will NOT follow along on your speech doc, though.
For Wisconsin legal purposes, you should consider me tabula rasa. don't make me talk about it too much though because there's no such thing as that.

Information about me:
*I have judged and coached in what would be considered "national-circuit" style Midwestern high school debate since about 1998 as a card-cutting coach, as the primary policy coach, as a head coach, and now as a head coach at Central High School in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I am also a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in the History Department. I am now getting old in debate terms--42 at the time of writing--which means I have old ideas and am grumpy about certain things.

*A Debate History:
1993-1998 Policy debater at Hastings High School, Hastings, NE
1998-1999 Judge/minor card cutter, Hastings Senior High School
1999-2005 Assistant Coach for Policy Debate at Fremont High School, Fremont, NE
2005-2007 Director of Forensics, Iowa City High School, Iowa City, IA
2007-2016 Assistant Varsity Coach, Cedar Rapids Washington High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
2016-Present Director of Debate, La Crosse Central High School, La Crosse, WI

*Academic Info that Might Be Relevant:
B.A. in Political Science (emphases in international relations and political theory) and History, a minor in Women’s Studies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
M.A. in Secondary Social Studies Education and History from the University of Iowa.

Argument choice issues:
*Choose your arguments. I try to avoid evaluating rounds based on what I like to hear. Even if I don’t like your argument, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost it, etc. My self-estimation is that I am fairly even on the K vs. Policy question. I believe that both are very interesting and useful styles of debate. Most of the time framework debates aren’t particularly productive, the aff will win that they get to weigh the case, the neg will win that they get some form of an alternative, etc. (hint: if you are serious about winning framework, don’t waste your time on the rest of the debate—prove that you’re serious about it and go for it.)

Disad thoughts:
*One of the areas I am slightly old school. Left to my own devices, I am more likely than many judges to evaluate the risk of a disad as zero if there is a step which has been substantially defeated. I do not particularly prefer offense-defense paradigms, it is my feeling that it is necessary to win your arguments to get a DA. Similarly, I think you need to win a link to generate offense, so without justification I do not default to a uniqueness-focused decision-making process. In spite of these warnings, a justified argument can change those decision-making processes. Generally, though, a good politics debate with developed turns-case analysis is a thing of beauty. Quality of evidence comparison/warrants will always beat number of cards.

*I have increasingly found myself somewhat lost in fast debates about security policy which include multiple interacting internal links--not because I am incapable of understanding them, but because I am not as familiar with these arguments as you all are. On occasion debaters need to slow down and explain some arguments.

K Thoughts:
*My favorite negative strategies are about criticisms that isolate and condemn social injustice or reveal power relations and debate epistemology smartly. I have no problem with generic criticisms like security and the cap k, but to win them or to get decent points requires specific discussion of the 1ac—isolating the links and their implications for evaluating the aff is what makes it awesome. Affs lose lots of K debates largely because they pile up cards rather than planning what the 2ar endgame looks like. Often affs are better served defending their own assumptions than reading argument-specific cards that are not part of a specific strategy. To wit, affs regularly go for permutations or no link arguments when they claim an advantage which impact turns the k while conceding a utopian alternative. Because I am a sucker for well-developed analysis about epistemology/ontology, I don't think as a rule the 2nr needs to go for external case defense, at least if you can give examples of how aff authors have specific problems or biases. Wisconsin teams have proven to think that mindless tech can win you a permutation, this is not generally true--most neg args against one permutation work against all of them.

*I consider myself generally well-read on critical arguments, but that reading maybe stopped being so robust in like 2007 or 2008, and so I'm not as up-to-date on the more recent turns in that literature. I can observe some additional relevant tendencies: I often find myself frustrated in rounds that involve a lot of psychoanalytic arguments (I get the cap bad part of Zizek. That may be about it). I dislike the Nietzsche alternative viscerally. In each of these cases, if this is your only game, I am probably not a good judge for you. I will also explicitly note some critical arguments with which I am well acquainted: I’m fairly well read in Foucault, Heidegger, lots of feminisms, critical international relations business, cap bad, etc. Lots of experience now with Afro-pessimism, Orientalism, at least some entré into queer theory args. I still need someone to convince me that Bataille and Baudrilliard are more smart than confusing.

*I’m probably a decent judge for a T debate. Most of the theoretical issues are up in the air—competing interpretations vs. abuse as a standard, etc. If you concede a competing interpretations arg, though, be aware that you’ll need offense on your interp.

*I can enjoy a good theory debate, but if you actually want to win it you probably need to convince me early on in a debate that you are going to do something other than just read your block at full speed. i have a natural dislike towards theory debates that i see as unnecessary. I'm not the ideal judge if you *plan* on going for theory a lot, but again, i try to evaluate those debates fairly. I will note that I do not have a neg side bias when it comes to counterplan debates--be it issues of conditionality, fiat, or competition issues. Some people see that fact in and of itself as an aff side bias on those theoretical issues, but what it means is that i am more than willing to vote aff because a counterplan is cheating, if you win that debate.
*I have found that I am getting older and more dinosaur-like on counterplan theory: I think I have an aff bias on these issues: multiple counterplans, consult counterplans, and conditionality.

*Non-traditional affs: it seems that I am going to judge my share of clash-of-civs rounds, which is fine. I generally think that negative teams do not work hard enough to generate smart arguments against non-traditional affs, so I start with a slight lean against framework arguments, but a sophisticated execution of those debates are often successful. I will also say that aff teams that make efforts to meet some standard of topicality also will find me more forgiving than teams that do not; I think negs do deserve some degree of a starting point.

Decision-making Process:
*I believe my job as a critic is to evaluate a debate as it occurred, rather than retroactively applying my standards of what debate should look like to your round. I try as hard as I can to stay to this standard, but some intervention is inevitable. Read below in the “self-observed biases” section. I try to remain agnostic about the various frameworks for evaluating debates, so that means that if there is a difference in the round as to how I should evaluate it, you should propose your framework explicitly and defend it. My presumption is that debate should be an educational activity, and it would be hard to shake me of that idea, as I am an educator by trade. However, I am open to debates about what kinds of education debate should bring, and how it does so.

*My decisions are nearly always decided by a close review of the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR, with references to the negative block as necessary. I am not, however, a perfect flow, and you should be aware of that and flag important arguments as such. I believe a part of persuasion is correct emphasis.

*It is fairly uncommon for me to read evidence after a debate--use the evidence yourself, refer to warrants, etc. If you think you have good evidence, you need to show it off. The "in" thing to say is that I reward a team for good research, but the most important part of good research is understanding why your evidence is good, and exercising your ability to explain and use the evidence. I do not plan to do evidence comparison for anyone.

*As regards "offense/defense" distinctions: I understand the importance of offense, but I do not discount the art of defensive argumentation. The fact that the other team does not have a turn does not mean you are winning. I have probably evaluated the risk of a disad or other impact as zero (or close enough to not matter) more than the average judge.

*I generally speaking will not seriously consider any independent issue that is not in your final rebuttal for at least 2 minutes--I do not reward a refusal to put all eggs in one basket. This is particularly true for theory arguments. If you feel that a theoretical issue is strong enough to justify a vote, plan to spend the better part of your final rebuttal on it, or don't expect my ballot on it.

In Round Decorum:
*Not much here--but I absolutely cannot stand when debaters talk audibly during an opponent's speech. Increasingly it is hard for me to follow what a fast speaker is saying anyhow--when you're talking too, I am liable to get angry at you.
*I think most of the time you will tend to get better speaker points if you stand up when you speak. Also, pay attention to where your opponent is and where you are when you cross-ex--it is a speech. Cross-ex's where all the debaters are sitting across the room from one another and staring at their computers is not a good persuasive strategy.
*I will also likely get grumpy at you about your paperless crap, especially when it makes a debate round last 20 minutes longer than it should. Don't worry about that too much. Unless it gets out of hand. If you don't know the difference, watch me, and you'll be able to tell.

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.

2024 TOC update:

I have exclusively been coaching/judging college debate for the last 2 years and have done almost zero research on this year's high school topic. Please keep this in mind if I am judging you and err on the side of over-explaining.

General things:

Please add me to the email chain.

tayjdebater@gmail.com, dukesdebate@gmail.com

Currently the Interim Director of Debate at JMU. I debated on the local Missouri Circuit as a high school student and debated for 3 years at UCF when they still had a policy team (2011-2014). I coached Berkeley Prep for 2 years while in college, coached JMU as a grad student, took some time off to finish my PhD, and have recently returned to debate.

My MA thesis was about Indigenous anti-nuclear movements and I've spent a fair amount of time researching the intersections of settler colonialism, environmental justice, and nuclear testing/uranium mining/radioactive waste storage, so I have a higher-than-average amount of topic knowledge on that end of the topic, but probably a lower-than-average amount of knowledge on the various weapons systems/tech/military strategy side of the topic.

If I seem crabby in the round, there's a high probability it's not your fault. The later in the tournament it is, the higher that probability gets - my ability to mask my crabby faces/moderate my vocal tone is inversely related to my tiredness/hunger/stress levels, so I'm probably not actually mad at you, just irritated at the world.

My decision-making process/how I approach debates:

I tend to prioritize solvency/links first when evaluating a debate. I think it's totally possible to win zero risk of an impact and I'm definitely willing to vote on presumption (but if that's your strategy I expect you to do the work to make it explicit).

I like well-explained, smart arguments. I would rather hear you explain something well with good examples than read a ton of cards that all say the same thing. I'll stick as close to the flow as I can and judge the debate based on how the debaters tell me to judge.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. Dropped things only matter if you make them matter. It is your job to frame the voting issues in the round for me and make it clear how I should weigh arguments against one another.

I prefer to minimize how much evidence I read after the round. I expect you to do more than shadow extend things. If all I have on my flow by the end of the round is an author name, I'm not hunting that card down to figure out the warrant for you.

I flow on paper and line things up on my flow. Please give me sufficient pen time on analytics, signpost, and keep things organized. If I am unable to get something on my flow because you did not do these things or because you were not clear, that's a you problem. I will always do my best to get everything written down, even if it's in the wrong place, but it will make it more difficult for me to meaningfully weigh arguments against each other, which means longer decision times and probably worse decisions.

I don't flow CX, but will pay attention throughout CX and jot down notes if something particularly important/eye-catching seems to be happening. If something occurs in CX that you want me to vote on, it needs to make it into a speech.

I do not follow the speech doc while flowing. I may have the document open and refer to specific cards if they are referenced in CX, but I won't be flowing from your doc or reading your evidence along with you during your speech.

Stylistic things

Prep ends when you hit send on the email, and unless you're planning to ask questions about the extra cards they added, please don't make us wait to start CX until they send them. I will keep as close to a running clock as possible - we all have a role to play in making sure the tournament runs on time, and we all want a chance to get a halfway decent amount of sleep.

If you play music/videos/etc. while you are speaking, please ensure the volume of the music is substantially quieter than the volume of your voice. I have some auditory processing issues that make it extremely difficult for me to understand people's voices while there is any kind of background noise. I want to flow and evaluate your arguments, but I can't do that if I can't process your words.

I vote on things that happened during the debate. I do not vote on things that the other team (or their friends, coaches, squad-mates, acquaintances, enemies, etc.) did during pre-round prep, in the hallway yesterday, at the bar last tournament, this morning at the hotel, etc. I will not attempt to adjudicate interpersonal events I was not present to witness.

I generally think debate is good. That doesn't mean I think debate is perfect. There are absolutely valid critiques of debate that should be addressed, and I think there is value in pushing this activity to be the best version of itself. However, if your arguments rely on the assumption that debate is irredeemably bad, I'm probably not the right judge for you. I think you need a model of debate that you think is desirable and achievable within the confines of an activity in which two sides argue with each other and at the end one side is selected as a winner.

Most debaters would benefit from slowing down by about 20%. Not because speed is bad, but because few debaters are actually clear enough for the average judge to get a good flow when you're going at 100% speed.

Examples, examples, examples. If you take one thing away from my paradigm, it is that I like to be given examples. What does your theory look like in practice? What kinds of plans are included/excluded under your T interp? Etc.

Please do not assume I know what your acronyms/etc mean. If I don't know what the bill/organization/event you're talking about is, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to evaluate your link story.

I will open the speech doc, but will not necessarily follow along. I may look at a card if something spicy happens in CX, if you're referring to a card in a rebuttal, etc., but I do not look at or flow from the doc. If you are not clear enough for me to flow without looking at your doc, I will not fill in gaps from the doc.

Ethics Violations:

I take ethics challenges extremely seriously. I consider them to be an accusation of academic dishonesty equivalent to plagiarism. Just like any other instance of academic dishonesty, ethics violations can have serious consequences for debaters and programs, and the perception that our activity condones such behavior could have serious repercussions for the survival of our activity. If an ethics challenge is issued, that is the end of the debate. If the tournament invitation includes a protocol for handling ethics challenges, I will follow the tournament rules. If the tournament does not have a clear set of protocols, I will clarify that an ethics challenge has been issued, make a determination in regards to the challenge, and either vote for the team issuing the challenge or for the team against whom the challenge was issued.

If you become aware of something you think might be an ethics violation prior to the round (you notice a card that is cited incorrectly, etc.) I would STRONGLY PREFER that you reach out to the team/their coach before the round and let them know/give them a chance to fix it, rather than initiating an ethics challenge in the round.

Because of the seriousness of ethics challenges, I consider it the responsibility of the team issuing the challenge to 1) prove that a violation (defined as card clipping or intentionally manufacturing or mis-representing the source or content of evidence) occurred and 2) provide a reasonable degree of evidence that the violation was intentional or malicious (i.e., I do not consider someone mumbling/stumbling over words because they were tired to be the same thing as intentional card clipping, and do not think it should have the same consequences).

That said, I understand that proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is an impossible standard. I do not expect you to prove exactly what was going on in the other team's mind when the event happened. However, you should be able to show that the other team reasonably should have known that the cite was wrong, the text was missing, etc. and chose to engage in the behavior knowing that it was unethical. I do not think we should be accusing people of academic dishonesty as a strategy to win a round. I also do not think we should be engaging in cheating behavior to win rounds. No one debater's win record is worth more than the continued health of our activity as a whole. If we would like this activity to continue, we must have ethical standards, including not cheating and not frivolously accusing people of cheating.

Speaker Points:

These are relative for each division (e.g., what I consider an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in novice will be different from what I think of as an "average performance" that gets a 28.3 in varsity)

29.5-30: You should be in the top 3 speakers at the tournament. I can count the number of times I have given above a 29.5 on one hand.

29-29.5: This was an incredible performance. I expect you to be in late out rounds at this tournament and/or to win a speaker award

28.6-29: This was an above-average performance. Something about your speeches/CXs impressed me. Keep this up and I anticipate you will clear.

28.3-28.6: This was an average performance. You had some good moments, but nothing incredible happened.

27.5-28.3: I like your attitude. Some rough things happened during this round. Maybe you dropped an off-case position, only read blocks, were extremely unclear, etc.

Below a 27.5: Something majorly wrong has happened in this round. You failed to participate meaingfully in the debate and/or failed to demonstrate basic human decency toward other people in the room.

Case debate

Yes, please. I love a good case debate, particularly when it is grounded in specific and detailed analysis of what the aff claims their plan/advocadcy does vs what their cards actually say.

T/Framework

I judge a lot of these debates, and enjoy them. Ultimately, these are debates about what we think debate should be. Because of that, I think you need a clear description of what your model of debate looks like, what it includes/excludes, and why that's a good thing.

Debate is an educational activity unlike any other, and I think that's a good thing. I generally default to believing education is the most important impact in these debates, but can absolutely be persuaded that something else (i.e. fairness) should come first.

Despite what I just said, I think the competitive nature of debate is also good, which means there should probably be at least some parameters for what the activity looks like that allows both sides a reasonable shot at winning. What that looks like is up for debate.

I prefer affirmatives with some clear tie to the resolution. That doesn't mean you have to fiat a topical plan text, but I do think it means debate is better when the affirmative is at least in the direction of the topic and/or about the same general content as the resolution.

Your TVA needs to actually access whatever offense the aff is leveraging against T. Lots of TVAs fail this test. I think a good TVA can be super important, but a bad TVA is typically a complete waste of time.

Against policy affs, I think giving me specific examples of ground you lost (not just "we lost some DAs" but "We specifically couldn't read these 2 core DAs and this core CP") is important. If you can show in-round abuse via spiking out of links, that would be ideal.

Please give me pen time.

Counterplans

If your counterplan has a bajillion hyper-specific planks, you need to slow down enough for me to at least get an idea of what they are in the 1NC.

I like counterplans that are specific, well-researched, and have a clear basis in a solvency advocate. I don't love counterplans that have a million planks that are not clearly explained until the block or the 2nr and are not grounded in some kind of solvency advocate/literature.

You should be able to clearly articulate how the implementation of the CP works. I think most aff teams should spend more time articulating solvency deficits based on the negative team's inability or refusal to articulate what the implementation process of the CP looks like in comparison to the aff.

I think conditionality is good, within reason. I think PICs are good, within reason. I think multi-actor fiat, counterplans with a zillion planks, etc. are probably not great, but generally are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I can be convinced that any of the above opinions are wrong, given the right arguments by either team.

Disads

Please make clear what your acronyms mean, what your specific link story is, etc. early in the debate. I don't spend a ton of time judging giant big-stick policy rounds, so I'm probably not as versed in this literature as you. Please don't make me spend 20 minutes after the debate trying to decipher your impact scenario. Give me a very clear explanation in the 2nc/1nr overview.

Kritiks

I think the aff gets to weigh their impacts if they prove that the ideas underwriting those impacts are good and accurate. I think the neg gets links to the aff's reps/discourse/etc. I think the negative needs to win a specific link to the aff (i.e., not just to the status quo) and also either that the links are sufficient to undermine the aff's internal links (i.e. I should vote on presumption) or that the alternative can resolve the links. I don't think any of those statements are particularly controversial.

The role of the ballot is to decide who did the better debating in this round. Always. How I should evaluate what counts as "better debating" is up for debate, but I am pretty unsympathetic to obviously self-serving roles of the ballot.

If you say the phrase "vote aff to vote neg" or "vote neg to vote aff" in a round I am judging, you owe me $10.

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

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

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

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

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

4. Some Detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! I listed any specific things I like to see below - lmk if you have any questions :) Add me to the email chain - morayokassim22@usn.org

K vs DA Rounds: I don't care what the neg team runs, because whatever strat will beat the aff is fine haha. I am a policy debater and will definitely be more helpful in judging policy debates b/c of my experience.

- If you're going to run a K, explaining how & using dropped FW as the offense gets you bonus points.

- If you can't explain the K, or any of your links well during cx or in round it's pretty likely I won't vote for you. You've gotta be able to articulate what you're running, so just explain!!

Speech Docs: Just be nice to everyone. Don't leave out ASPEC or any other theory args - if you do deliberately leave it out and try to blow it up in the round, I'm not going to vote on it. Ofc, you can leave out any analytics.

Controversial Args: I'm Black, Muslim, and a woman so try not to say anything too crazy lol. If you run something blatantly racist I won't react well. Definitely watch your language in round because I do not tolerate slurs/racism/sexism/homophobia/general discrimination at all.

Affs: Policy affs>K Affs because of my personal bias in thinking they solve better & more directly. Run what you'd like, but if you run a K-Aff you better do lots of explaining b/c if I don't believe the aff solves or understand how it solves, I can't vote aff.

Line By Line: I love line by line, so incorporate it into all of your speeches for bonus points!! Flow the other team's args, and don't rely on the speech docs 100%

Randos: You & your partner should time your speeches, and make sure to turn your camera on if you're spreading! Everyone else can have cams off :)

Email: noahkim23@usn.org

he/him

2A/1N

For online debates, I can't catch everything if you're going too fast, so be conscious of that.

Usually, I like affirmatives with a bold plan and big solvency, but I am not too biased against smaller, technical affs. For the negative, don't be afraid to spend time on the case debate (of course, while keeping a balance of good off-case positions), especially if you have good offense on the flow.

Be civil with cross-ex, but be decisive, and don't waste the entire time on one question.

Keep track of your own times for cross and prep.

Some other things for novices:

DA - If you run a generic disad, be able to explain the story and don't just rely on carded extensions. Aff should be able to expose the neg if this is the case.

T - Topicality is pretty hard for novices, especially on a packet. I want good comparisons of interps and why yours is better for deciding the debate.

K - Know all the ins and outs of the link story. Also, be sure to say exactly why and how the alt solves.

Theory - I'll probably go for conditionality if you can convince me of negative abuse, which is a lot easier to do if the negative runs 13 off as opposed to if they run 3.

NARROW THE DEBATE DOWN BY THE SECOND REBUTTALS. Even if it feels like you're winning everything, instead of throwing all these different arguments at me, choose your strongest impacts and flesh out the story for me, so I can have a clear picture of who to vote for by the end of the round. Especially as novices, it's good practice to identify which arguments you're winning and effectively extend them.

Debated at Cedar Rapids Washington for four years. IFLs state champion 2021. Wellesley College class of 25. I'm only familiar with policy debate. She/Her/Her's pronouns. My last name is pronounced "Kern". You can call me Elizabeth instead of "judge."

Put me on the email chain: elizabethkolln@gmail.com

You do you. I'm fine with almost anything. Don't be rude/offensive in round. I will not tolerate any behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. If you repeatedly misgender your opponent I will vote you down. Don't read "death good" in front of me.

Coppell 2022- I am not super familiar with this year’s topic yet so please explain water-jargon or acronyms when you use them. :)

Tech > truth.

Time your own prep. Not a bad idea to also time your opponent's prep. Also please format your speech docs so that they're easy to navigate. Try to be clear and coherent, I'll make my decision based on my flow.

Dropped arguments are true but warrants are still important. Don't say the other team dropped an argument that they answered.

tldr-

More familiar with policy, but will vote on Ks/K affs. Will vote on theory. Don’t botch the case debate. If you’re a novice read my novice section please. Be nice in round!!

Novices-

The most impressive thing you can do is debate off your flow and do line-by-line. Also sign-post. This makes my job so much easier. I don’t like messy debates. Also please give a roadmap.

Impact calc is essential. Tell me why it makes sense for me to use your framing model.

Split the block! The 2NC should take 2-3 positions and the 1NR should take 1. This gives you more time for line-by-line and leads to more in-depth debates.

I'm generally going to give y'all pretty high speaks because y'all deserve it.

Cx-

I think cross examination is a speech. That being said, I need arguments you make in cx to show up in your future speeches.

T-

I like T and I will vote on it. It needs to be extended well in the block in order for it to be the 2NR (1NRs on just T are a power move.) If you're going for it make sure it's the only thing in your 2NR. Structure is key, messy T debates aren't fun for anyone.

Fairness is not an impact, but can be a strong internal link. Limits for the pure sake of limits is not compelling. Clash and education are good.

Theory-

I will vote on it. It needs to be a good chunk of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. Don't just read your blocks, apply it to the round.

Dropped theory is a voting issue.

DAs-

I like DA debates. I need impact comparison.

CPs-

CPs are generally good. I like smart CPs that actually solve the aff. Cheaty CPs are probably bad and should have theory read against them. 2 condo is probably fine, 3+ is shadier.

PICs are probably cheating but they can be smart arguments.

Ks-

Most familiar with Ks like cap, security, etc.

I understand most identity Ks but I am not the best judge for those debates.

PoMo is a no go.

The aff should probably be able to weigh their plan in some way, but I can be convinced otherwise. The link is the most important part of the K. If you want judge kick, tell me.

Subbi Namakula, Michael Cho, Jake Sanders, Henry Wright, and Warren Sprouse have all coached me during my debate career. My senior year I was mostly policy-oriented, but I don't really have a preference when it comes to K vs. Policy debate.

Case-

Case turn debates are fun (except spark.) Don't concede the aff's framing. If you read generic impact defense contextualize it to the aff and their internal link chains. Worthwhile impact defense is really all about pulling the logical warrants out of your cards and using them to poke holes in the other team’s internal link chains.

I've read soft-left affs for almost my entire debate career, but extinction impacts are fine too. Have a clear route to solvency. Also explain your internal links.

I'm most familiar with topical affs. I have read some K affs, but I'm not especially well-versed in them. Framework/Cap debates are fine.

Be nice. Have fun.

Jan 2024 Update:

Extend your arguments. Extend your arguments. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS! (THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN WHAT TYPE OF ARGUMENT YOU READ) Some of the debates I've watched this year have me so frustrated cuz you'll just be absolutely crushing in parts of the debate but just not extend other parts needed to make it relevant. For example, I've seen so many teams going for framework this year where the last rebuttals are 5 minutes of standards and voters and just no extension of an interp that resolves them. Or 2ARs that do so much impact calc and impact-turns-the-DA stuff that they never explain how their aff resolves these impacts so I'm left intervening and extending key warrants for you that OR intervening and voting on a presumption argument that the other team doesn't necessarily make. So err on the side of over extending arguments and take advantage of my high threshold and call out other teams bad argument extension to make me feel less interventionist pulling the trigger on it. What does this mean? Arguments extended should have a claim and a warrant that supports that claim. If your argument extension is just name dropping a lot of authors sited in previous speeches, you're gonna have a bad time during my RFD. The key parts of the "story" of the argument need to be explicitly extended in each speech. For example, if you're going for T in the 2NR then the interp, violation, the standard you're going for, and why it's a voter should be present in every neg speech. Whatever advantage the 2AR is going for should include each part of of the 'story' of aff advantage (uniqueness, solvency, internal link, impact) and I should be able to follow that back on my flow from the 1AR and 2AC. If the 2AR is only impact outweighs and doesn't say anything about how the aff solves it, I'm partial to voting neg on a presumption ballot

Ways to get good speaks in front of me:
-Extend your arguments adequately lol - and callout other teams for insufficient extensions
-Framing the round correctly (identifying the most relevant nexus point of the debate, explain why you're winning it, explain why it wins you the round)
-Doc is sent by the time prep ends
-One partner doesn't dominate every CX
-Send pre-written analytics in your doc
-At least pretend to be having fun lol
-Clash! Your blocks are fine but debates are SOOO much more enjoyable to watch when you get off your blocks and contextualize links/args to the round
-Flow. If you respond to args that were in a doc but weren't actually read, it will hurt your speaks
-Utilize powerful CX moments later in the debate
-If you have a performative component to your kritital argument, explain it's function and utilize it as offense. So many times I see some really cool poetry or something in 1ACs but never get told why poetry is cool and it feels like the aff forgets about it after the 2AC. If it's just in the 1AC to look cool, you were probably better off reading ev or making arguments. If it's there for more than that, USE IT!

WaRu Update 2023: I think debaters think I can flow better than I can. Slowing down on pivotal moments of the debate to really crystalize will make you more consistently happy with my RFDs. If you're going top speed for all of the final rebuttals and don't frame my ballot well, things get messy and my RFDs get worse than I'd like.

Krousekevin1@gmail.com

Background:

I participated in debate for 4 years in High School (policy and LD for Olathe East) and 3 years in College Parli (NPDA/NPTE circuit). This is my 6th year assisting Olathe East debate. I've done very little research on this topic (emerging tech) so please don't assume I know your acronyms or the inner workings of core topic args.

I have no preference on email chain or speechdrop, but it does irritate me when debaters wait until the round is supposed to be started before trying to figure this stuff out.

Speed:

I can keep up for the most part. Some teams in the national circuit are too fast for me but doesn't happen often. If you think you're one of those teams, go like an 8/10. Slow down for interps and nuanced theory blocks. 10 off rounds are not fun to watch but you do you.

Argument preferences:

In high school, I preferred traditional policy debate. In college I read mostly Ks. I studied philosophy but don't assume I know everything about your author or their argument. Something that annoys me in these debates is when teams so caught up in buzzwords that they forget to extend warrants. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual argument. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

I'd rather you debate arguments you enjoy and are comfortable with as opposed to adapting to my preferences. A good debate on my least favorite argument is far more preferable than a bad debate on my favorite argument. I'm open to however you'd like to debate, but you must tell me how to evaluate the round and justify it. Justify your methodology and isolate your offense.

I don't judge kick CPs or Alts, the 2NR should either kick it or go for it. I'm probably not understanding something, but I don't know what "judge kick is the logical extension of condo" means. Condo means you can either go for the advocacy in the 2nr or not. Condo does not mean that the judge will make argumentative selection on your behalf, like judge kicking entails.

K affs- I don't think an affirmative needs to defend the resolution if they can justify their advocacy/methodology appropriately. However I think being in the direction of the resolution makes the debate considerably easier for you. I wish more negs would engage with the substance of the aff or innovated beyond the basic cap/fw/presumption 1nc but I've vote for this plenty too. I have recently been convinced that fairness can be impacted out well, but most time this isn't done so it usually functions as an internal link to education.

I'm of the opinion that one good card can be more effective if utilized and analyzed well than 10 bad/mediocre cards that are just read. At the same time, I think a mediocre card utilized strategically can be more useful than a good card under-analyzed.

Any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

LD Paradigm:

I've coached progressive and traditional LD teams and am happy to judge either. You do you. I don't think these debates need a value/criterion, but the debates I watch that do have them usually don't utilize them well. I'm of the opinion that High School LD time structure is busted. The 1AR is simply not enough time. The NFA-LD circuit in college fixed this with an extra 2 minutes in the 1AR but I haven't judged a ton on this circuit so how that implicates when arguments get deployed or interacts with nuanced theory arguments isn't something I've spent much time thinking about. To make up for this bad time structure in High School LD, smart affs should have prempts in their 1AC to try and avoid reading new cards in the 1AR. Smart negs will diversify neg offense to be able to collapse and exploit 1AR mistakes. Pretty much everything applies from my policy paradigm but Imma say it in bold again because most people ignore it anyways: EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Not just author names, but extend the actual claim and warrant. Often teams get so caught up in line by line or responding to the other team that they don't extend their aff or interp or something else necessary for you to win. This will make me sad and you disappointed in the RFD.

For prefs

- I debated in high school for 3.1 years (the .1 being freshman year) at Iowa City West. Currently a freshman debating at Northwestern (although I just joined the team like two weeks ago so take that for what it's worth). I was/am a 2A.

- Went to GDI sophomores 5 week and Mich 7 week FFPSVV

- Limited water topic knowledge. I've judged one tournament (Iowa Caucus) on the topic and did a little bit of prep/coaching for Iowa City West

- Very policy-leaning. The vast majority of my experience and knowledge base is in policy-style arguments so I may have difficulty understanding high-theory, abstract, niche, or jargon-heavy Ks (except maybe the fem K because I've been reading a lot of feminist critical literature for a class, but I'd still consider it intro-level material). I have a particular distaste for pomo & baudrillard, but regardless I am willing to vote for any K so long as it is well-explained; just know that my threshold for "well-explained" is high. What will help you either win with the K or beat the K is slowing down in the 2ar/2nr, isolating at the top of your speech the key issues that frame my ballot, and explicitly comparing your offense to your opponents offense on those key issues.

For pre-round prep

Add me on the email chain azl.debate@gmail.com

BE NICE TO YOUR OPPONENT AND YOUR PARTNER IN ROUND >:((((((

Send analytics -- we're online and mics suck sometimes. Even if we're in person, its a good practice.

Speed is fine and good as long as it's CLEAR. Do: slow down on tags, slow down on analytics, signpost, stick to road map, short pause btwn each flow so I can get next sheet of paper, and other good speech practices. Know that I flow exclusively on paper and the faster you go the more unreadable my handwriting becomes.

If there is likely to be a K involved in the debate, read last bullet under "for prefs".

Tech > truth. BUT...

1---no isms good arguments/harmful/violent args

2---I only evaluate arguments that meet my criteria: claim + warrant + impact.

Example:

"Not specifying an agent beyond the USFG in the 1AC is a voting issue (claim) for fairness and education (impact) because it allows for 2AC respecification which spikes out of agent-based arguments (warrant)"

Anything less I will simply ignore.

3---For me to weigh an argument in my decision, it MUST be extended in the final speech, even if it's been conceded by the other team. For example, aff still must extend case/impacts in the 2ar even if neg cold concedes case in the 2nr. Dropped arguments are only true if they are extended.

I will only judge kick if neg wins condo/judge kick in the 2nr.

Be bold!!!! I love non-traditional strategies and will entertain silly arguments. I read the Saudi ally prolif DA on the aff. I put no neg fiat in all my 2ac blocks. I ended my high school debate career extending the God procedural in the 1nr (God solves aff impacts or they are happening for greater good). Note that this does NOT mean I think silly arguments are on-the-whole STRATEGIC, just that they can be fun and I am willing to vote on it. Debater discretion is advised.

Blue is objectively the best color for highlighting.

Tag team cx is fine but please try your best to ask/answer your own questions. Will dock points if you do it too much.

Ins & outs are fine.

+ 0.3 speaks if you say gautam sucks at debate BUT you have to pronounce his name right

& If you make me laugh i'll give you more speaks ahaha ;)

In General—

Put me on the email chain-- kathrynlipka16@gmail.com

I debated in high school, briefly in college, and have been coaching with Lawrence Free State & Pembroke Hill off and on for 6+ years.

I don't think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. I default to moral obligation claims. Warranted extensions or it probably isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism -- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock your speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and/or have the most fun doing in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

My speaker point scale (taken from the KellyThompson):

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournament

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - you are in the wrong division or at the wrong tournament in my estimation.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Specific links pls or be really good at storytelling

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well-developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously, I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance is mostly bad. Condo is mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

Experience - B.A. in Women Gender and Sexuality Studies, 1 year of college policy, KU, 4 years of high school, for Barstow. Currently coaching for Barstow for the 2023-2024 season. I am most familiar and equipped to judge debates involving Queer Theory, Necropolitics/Foucault, Settler Colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, and Derrida/Hauntology in terms of both my ability to evaluate technical debate on the flow as well as give productive and pedagogically valuable responses.

Determining Speaks - To me, a good speaker is articulate, persuasive, confident, respectful, and kind. I allocate speaker points based on a debater's skill. However, even if someone is a "good debater" in a skill sense, if they are rude or dismissive to their opponents, their ability as a debater matters much less because they have failed to be a good person. Good speakers should be good people first.

Notes - I have some hearing problems, if you are unclear, I will say "clear." Don't sacrifice speed / the extra off at my behest, just make sure you articulate. Ideal clarity is I should be able to flow without referencing the doc at all.

You are responsible for keeping track of where you mark cards. Please be able to timely send a marked doc / card docs must be marked if you marked cards in the debate.

If reading "extra" cards in a speech that are not in the doc, send them BEFORE you read them rather than after.

Incentivizing Strategies

+.3 for Flow Rebuttals

+.1 for Kicking an Advantage

+.1 for DA/CP/Case 2NR (Novice)

+.1 for K / Case 2NR (Novice)

+.1 for Evidence Comparison (Novice)

-.1 for Unhighlighted Cards - Please take the extra 30 sec of prep to highlight

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Speechdrop.net is strictly superior to email chains for in-round file sharing, but feel free to contact me via Kalen.pop@gmail.com

I've been involved in policy debate since 2012 and a coach since 2018, currently Head Coach at Iowa City Liberty High School. By day, I'm employed as a sentient Politics DA. (Journalist with a major in political science.)

TLDR: I'll vote on anything you can make me understand. I love DA/CP/Case debates, I'm not a bad judge for the Kritik, but I've been told I'm not a great judge for it either. Speed reading is fine in the abstract, but I do hold debaters to a higher standard of clarity than I think many other judges to. Speed-reading through your analytics will guarantee I miss something.

Detailed Paradigm: everything below this line is background on my opinions, NOT a hard and fast rule about how you should debate in front of me. I do everything in my power to be cool about it, check bias at the door, etc.

Speed Reading: is fine. But don't spread analytics, please. 250 WPM on analytical arguments is really pushing it. I know that some judges can flow that fast, but I am not one of them: my handwriting sucks and is capped at like, normal tagline pace. Otherwise, you're free to go as fast as I can comprehend. I'll yell "CLEAR!" if I can't.

Policy stuff: Yeah of course I'll vote on disads and counterplans and case arguments and topicality. Are there people who don't?

CP theory: Listen, I'll vote on it, but I won't like it. I strongly advise that theory-loving 2As give warranted voters in the speech, and that 1ARs do actual line-by-line rather than pre-written monologues.

Kritiks: are pretty rad, whether they're read as part of a 12-off 1NC or a 1-off, no case strat. I want to be clear, though: I REALLY NEED to understand what you're saying to vote for you with confidence. I find a lot of very talented K debaters just assume that I know what "biopolitical assemblages of ontological Being" or whatever means. I do not.

K affs: are fine. I myself usually stuck to policy stuff when I debated, but I'll hear it out. You should probably have a good reason not to be topical, though. Some people have told me I'm a bad judge for K affs, others have told me I was the most insightful judge at the tournament. (More have told me I was a bad judge for it though, for what it's worth.)

Other debate formats:

PF: PF is traditionally about being persuasive, whereas policy is about being right. If you can do both I'll be impressed and probably give you a 30. Otherwise, I feel like I have a more or less firm grasp on your activity, but I certainly don't have all of its norms memorized.

LD: I have no idea how your activity works and at this point I'm too afraid to ask. Whoever successfully teaches me LD debate will get an automatic 30. Please dumb your Ks down for me, I'm a policy hack.

Congress: Listen, I did one congress round in high school and left it with 0 understanding of how it's supposed to work. If I'm in the back of your room, it means tabroom made a mistake. Because of my background in policy debate, I imagine I'll be biased in favor of better arguments rather than better decorum.

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

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

debate style tier list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

Please put me on the email chain - sp.debate123@gmail.com

Preferred pronouns he/him

Barstow 19 — (debated for four years)

Kansas 23 – (I am a junior at KU and debated my freshman year.)

The highlights

1. Debate what you know best - Demonstrate that knowledge with comparative work on the line by line.

2. Judge instruction – The more the better. The last two rebuttals should consolidate arguments and begin with identifying the nexus question of the debate. Explain why you are ahead there and let that frame the rest of your rebuttal.

3. Topic notes – I have taken a class on Environmental Law but other than that I have very little knowledge of this year’s HS topic. Although it is likely I will have some background info for arguments on this topic, don’t assume I will be familiar with the technical terms housed in any Aff or Neg strategy.

AFF

1. Policy—Towards the end of my career, I started reading more policy args. Cards and smart analytics should be a 50/50 balance. In a policy Aff vs k debate, there is a tendency to card dump in the 2AC and then go for whatever conceded card comes out of the block. I understand this is strategic and often works. But in an ideal debate, it should be the opposite, with considerably more analytics.

2. K Aff’s – I have read a wide range of K Aff’s, mostly relating to critical Asian scholarship. I don’t think there is a cookie-cutter structure to an Aff or to answering arguments like FW. I am all here for the creative Aff strats but draw the line at you must have a topic link. I find that K teams often have a very good understanding of their Aff but struggle with recontextualizing the theory into a diverse and technical set of arguments. Rely less on your blocks and trust in your ability to debate the line by line.

NEG

1. FW— I have no problem voting for fairness and other standards. I am not asking for you to reinvent the wheel, but please reframe your arguments to the language of the Aff. For example, modify your education block to explain why the loss of education is uniquely worse for the Aff’s discussion. Just to be safe, don’t throw away case in the 2nr and at least extend some form of defense or presumption argument.
2. K’s— I will most likely be familiar or have run whatever K, you read in front of me. Less is more in these rounds. More arguments do not equate to a better block. It just results in a more spread-out speech with less time on the line by line. Alt’s need to solve either the links or the Aff.
3. Policy – I am by all means capable of judging a policy v policy debate but please bring your level of analysis down. Again, I will take analytics over a ton of cards any day.

MISC

1. Theory – I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments. But if you think it’s the path to victory, I am all for it. Just know that the more ridiculous, the more time you are going to have to spend on the argument.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails. I honestly prefer speechdrop, but email is ok if that's your norm or what your coach prefers. My least favorite option is the file share.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2022-23 topic marks my 27th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

Update - 1/20 - a note about prepping your speech before you speak

My expectation is that you send out a doc BEFORE you speak that includes the evidence AND analytics that you intend to read in the speech if they are typed up. They should also be in the order that you are going to speak them. It is an accessibility issue. If you type them up in the round, that's one thing - but if they are your blocks (or your team blocks) they should be sent. This includes AT A MINIMUM the text of perms, the texts of counterplans, the text of interpretations of why you reject a team, etc. Also, if you choose to just randomly jump around in a document please know that it will dramatically impact your speaks. Nobody is as good at flowing in online debates as we are in person, having the doc and reading it in order helps improve the activity.

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

Please show up to the room to establish email chains/ speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, do tech checks, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after pairings have been released (read at least 20 minutes prior assuming pairings come out 30 minutes prior to round). The 1ac should start when the pairing says unless there is a tournament related reason. Once you get to the room and do tech check, feel free to use the rest of the time to prep, etc. If it's an in person tournament, please show up when the pairings get released, set up an email chain or speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, and then go prep - just come back to the room before the round is supposed to start. If you can't get to the room for some reason, it is your responsibility to email me and the other team to let us know.

Please know that if you don't do this, it will negatively effect your speaker points by .5. Choosing to show up late makes tournaments run behind and gives unfair advantages to teams with multiple coaches (I have to be here to judge and coach my team - if you choose to be late, I assume it's because you're getting extra coaching which gives you an unfair advantage over teams whose coaches are judging).

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- I know that the last couple of topics don't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

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, new, or international 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 three 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 or on a previous day and 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. 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 before the round.

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.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 4/7/23)

COVID and other diseases are still real. If I'm feeling at all under the weather, I will wear a mask. I ask you to do the same. All other things being equal, you are free to debate with or without a mask. However, if you are asked to wear a mask by an opponent or judge who is also wearing a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give. This is a safety issue.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

My name is pronounced loo-CHI-uh. They/ them

Email chains > speech drop. lucia.scott at barstowschool.org

Previous debating: K-State (2013-2016), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2009-2013)

Coaching: Barstow (2018-Present), Baylor (2017-2018), Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2013-2017)

Meta things

Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. If I think you should clear, I'll give you at least a 29. 27.9 cap on speaks if any of your docs are PDFs. Like, stop. Just stop.

I have almost certainly voted on everything I say I don't like in my paradigm at some point. At the end of the day, my goal is to intervene as little as possible. Might I be grumpy if I have to judge a 10 off debate with Deleuze, a Gregorian calendar procedural, an anarchy counterplan, and whatever that omnipotent AI that's going to kill us all is called? Yes. So grumpy. Will I vote on these arguments if you win the debate? Also yes. Will it affect your speaks? No. Grumpy adults shouldn't get to determine what debaters do.

I appreciate scrappy debate. If you like to use tricks to win, fine by me. If you think an argument is silly, it shouldn't be too hard to beat.

What I don't appreciate is cowardly debate. I don't love watching rounds where the core strat seems to be defending nothing. Debate is about arguments and controversy. Embrace it. It's awesome.

Tech over truth, but the less true an argument is, the less tech you need to beat it. This is particularly true of 1NC strats the just shove a bunch of garbage non-arguments in to try to freak out the 2A.

My threshold for explanation on un-answered arguments is incredibly low. I don't think the 2A should have to spend time explaining the internal links of an advantage that has one impact d card on it, or the 2N should have to spend time explaining a dropped alt. You do, however, need to tell me what the IMPLICATION of those dropped or mostly dropped arguments is in order for me to know how to evaluate them and how they interact with other flows.

Quality over quantity; what constitutes quality is, of course, up for debate.

Questions are not arguments. I see way too many 2NRs/2ARs that say, "What does the alt/aff even do?" instead of just explaining why it wouldn't do anything.

I read cards to make sure you aren't clipping, but what they actually say doesn't factor into my decision unless there's some contestation by the debaters about the content of the evidence. Don't let a team get away with reading garbage cards that don't say anything; I'm not going to make that argument for you.

Procedurals/ Theory

I get grumpy about arbitrary interps of theoretical arguments (conditionality, ROB's, really anything). This means I do think "conditionality bad" is a better interp than "they get three conditional advocacies." Relax, I don't actually think conditionality is bad, but I also don't think there's really a difference between three vs four or four vs five or five vs six conditional advocacies.

With the exception of conditionality, I default to theoretical objections are reasons to reject the argument or reasons that justify you also doing some theoretically illegit thing, like "perm do the counterplan." This includes perf con; I don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team, I just think it's a reason they don't get links off 2AC/1AR answers to the contradictory position in question. Pef con is distinct from an actual double turn; double turns are not theory arguments y'all.

For topicality, you need impacts. You're saying this team should lose the debate. That's a pretty steep punishment. You need to win more than just a violation here. What affs would be allowed under their interp that you shouldn't have to prepare for? What off case positions do you lose access to? Why does that matter?

I think "lit checks abuse" solves 90% of policy-based limits arguments. Aff teams should also make more arguments about why whatever ground the neg loses isn't ground they should have had in the first place. I think big topics are better than small topics provided those big topics have good neg generics. Politics and the states counterplan are not good neg generics.

Reasonability, to me, means that the neg had a reasonable amount of predictable ground, not that the aff is "reasonably topical," whatever that means. I don't think that means the aff's counter interp has to be "reasonable."

Case Debate

My favorite part of debate. I frankly like to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.

I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.

Big pet peeve of mine is treating the aff like it's just one big page if it isn't. E.g. the 1AC had an advantage and a solvency contention, but the 1N just says "case" in their roadmap. Where on case? If it doesn't matter, you're not doing very good case debate. Same thing with the 2AC order. Why did you make the 1AC more than one page if you're not going to treat the pages as separate???

Your 2AC and 1AR advantage overviews are probably a waste of time in front of me. Overviews should frame, not merely explain.

DA's

This is where "quality over quantity" and "the less true and argument is, the less tech you need to beat it" become really important. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important. Zero risk is a thing. I default to uniqueness determines the direction of the link.

CP's

On balance, I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive. A 2A who's good at theory can win process counterplans just go away with enough work.

I think counterplans should have solvency advocates, especially if you've added seven planks just designed to fiat out of solvency deficits.

I will not kick the counterplan unless the neg makes an actual judge kick argument.

I am willing to vote aff on zero risk of a net benefit even if the counterplan solves 100% of the aff. In that scenario, the counterplan is no longer disproves the aff.

K's

I don't have any preferences about lit bases; I'm not afraid of the big bad Baudrillard.

My threshold for a link is comparatively low. I think reps links are probably good if the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

My threshold for the alt is relatively high. Examples are good. Structural analysis with examples is better. Under no circumstances should the aff let the neg get away with fiating the alt. That's absurd.

Framework strats are also viable in front of me, e.g. I will vote on "any risk the 1AC is a settler project means you vote neg" assuming you are, in fact, winning the framework debate. I can be persuaded not to weigh the aff, but you really have to commit to this strategy.

I think most affs are best off going for extinction outweighs and the state is good; I think you're more likely to win that than a perm or link turn strategy.

The floating pik you didn't catch in the block will lose you the debate.

Aff framework arguments that compare world-views (i.e. "extinction outweighs epistemology") are far more compelling than framework arguments about procedural fairness (i.e. "the K is cheating").

K Affs

I think it's reasonable for K affs to say that all they have to do is prove their method is good; if the method is good, I should vote for the aff. I don't think they need to "spill out" or whatever. I am generally not persuaded by "winning is key to our method" arguments. Probably means you've got a bad method. Similarly, not of fan of consciousness-raising arguments. I don't know why that means I should vote for you.

I think T violations that deal with substantive parts of the resolution are better than violations about the fg. I think affs should be making the argument that any education claims about the fg are non-unique; it's part of the topic every year. I think the neg should make arguments about why policy education on this specific topic is good and explain how the aff bypasses that.

Anything can be an impact if you tell me it's an impact and explain why it outweighs your opponent's impacts. I generally think, for the neg, fairness-based impacts provide the best external offense, and education-based impacts provide the best in-roads to the aff. Both the aff and the neg should be doing some comparative work about how education, fairness, and ethics implicate one another.

On balance, I think impact turn strats are better than counter interp strats for the aff in these debates. I think ethics arguments are the best offense for the aff. Affs can also internal link turn the majority of the neg's standards if they spend the time doing it instead of extending a wreck of random disads that are all basically the same.

I think the TVA and switch side are the best defense to the aff's impacts. I conceptualize TVAs as counterplans (an alternate mechanism to solve the same impacts while avoiding the net benefit, e.g. under limiting). That means I hold a TVA to similar standards; I think it should have to solve all or most of the aff and that the TVA should have a solvency advocate. Half the TVAs I hear aren't topical; not enough aff teams make this argument.

Other things:

New word Ks in the 2AR - okay, so this is tricky. I think if you do this, I think it needs to be the whole 2AR, and I think you should be held to an exceptionally high explanation standard. I think you should have to pre-empt the 3NR the neg doesn't get.

Arguments about micro-aggressions - Fine as long as you explain the implication for this debate/ perhaps the community as a whole. Tell me what you want me to do about it and what that does about the problem. You still have to answer the trivializing arguments, but they are not an auto-loss.

Arguments that compare conditionality to structural privilege - Fine as long as you warrant them. Just saying, "This is the logic of..." isn't enough; tell me why and how the reproduces that logic in debate and what the impact to that is for debaters.

So clipping. If you have somehow misrepresented what you have read/ if there is not a way to tell from the speech doc what was read, you have clipped. If I catch clipping, I will make sure I'm sure (usually during prep time), and then stop the debate. If a debater accuses someone of clipping, the debate stops right then. If the challenger is correct, they win. If they are not correct, they lose. I will give the person who clipped a 0, but everyone else is probably going to get somewhere between a 28.5 and a 29.5 depending on how much of the debate happened.

I've had some recent judging experiences that are moving me toward clarity being a clipping issue. If I can't understand any of the words in your cards, and it seems like this is to get in more cards, that's probably clipping. I've decided this means I'll never stop clearing you no matter how tired I get of it.

Cliff Notes

-yes email chain: gshardadebate@gmail.com

-College freshman. Not doing college debate, but passively involved.

-Did policy debate in high school for 3.5 years from 2017-2020. Went to Mich 7 week twice (CCPW + BFHPRS). Participated in the 2019-20 TOC (Arms Sales). Did not debate in the second half of the 2020-21 season (Criminal Justice Reform).

-Coaching Iowa City West this year in my free time, but not too deeply involved.

-Have judged 5 debates on the Water topic.

-Have judged 5 varsity debates.

-Have judged 14 novice debates.

-You will benefit from going just a tad bit slower than your usual speed this season.

-Keep in mind - I might be inexperienced with the topic/judging, but I am experienced with policy debate.

-More experience with policy stuff than K, but not a hack, and think the division between the two is overstated

-List of generic 2NRs in order from safest to riskiest: Process CP + Politics + Case, Process CP + internal net benefit, Politics + Case, topic K, Impact Turn(s), Topicality.

This is assuming all were equally well prepared and debated - if you either are significantly better prepared or have more practice with one of these, you should probably stick to that.

A specific strategy would be a better bet than any of these.

-That said, I really do find impact turns of all kinds pretty interesting, including spark and death good - but don't read racism, or any other -isms good unless you want negative infinity speaks

-I do not hesitate to vote on "cheapshot" arguments (assuming a complete argument was made, even if blippy).

For example - if the 2AC dropped an ASPEC argument in a T shell and it looked something like:

"Not specifying an agent beyond the USFG in the 1AC is a voting issue (claim) for fairness and education (impact) because it allows for 2AC respecification which spikes out of agent-based arguments (warrant)"

Then I am likely voting neg so long as they 1 - have the same claim, warrant, and impact in the block and the 2NR and 2 - sufficiently respond to "we get new 1AR responses"

A 1NC shell more incomplete than that OR not meeting the above 2 criteria = I will happily vote aff instead.

-Recent high school debaters that I found to be the most persuasive and would give very high speaker points who have videos of them debating online so you can see what I mean: Rafael Pierry (Monta Vista PS), Dhruv Sudesh (Monta Vista PS), Aden Barton (MBA), Giorgio Rabbini (North Broward MR), Nicholas Mancini (North Broward MR), Grace Kessler (Washburn Rural KP).

-I'd prefer if you demonstrated a basic level of respect for everyone present. Not doing this is the only way to get very bad speaks.

-Tech > Truth / my personal beliefs - but I want to write a helpful paradigm, so I've included the section below.

How you can adapt if you're:

1. Aff

a) Policy aff

vs DA

Do impact comparison I guess. Some judges really hate certain DA's like rider or something, but I'm not so rigid about this, so theoretical objections to DA's need a deeper explanation than "the DA is nonintrinsic so it is not intrinsic and non-intrinsicness is a voting issue".

vs CP

I HATE it when the 2AC spews a bunch of made-up solvency deficits that are just not in the evidence. This is one issue where I really care about evidence quality. Limit yourself to a few, good deficits instead of many non-sensical ones because otherwise when the 2NR says "this is not a real deficit" I will be persuaded regardless of your spin.

I have voted aff on the only condo debate I've judged so far, so it is not a bad choice.

Against a process CP (whatever that means), these are your most persuasive arguments for me (best to worst): a carded solvency deficit, perm + model of competition (functional + textual > functional only), offense, a theoretical objection alone (without a perm + model of competition).

vs K

You should have a defense of the aff separate from its fiated consequences to use as offense vs the K in case you don't win the framework interp of weighing the plan vs the alt - otherwise just don't lose framework, win a deficit to the alt, and win impact comparison = I will probably vote aff

vs T

Reasonability is a viable strategy but you need to at least make a race to the bottom/substance crowd out argument. If all the 2AC says is something like "prefer reasonability -- good is good enough", you're probably not going to win it because this doesn't have much of a warrant or an impact (unlike the ASPEC example above).

Soft left affs

You should absolutely invest in framing. Obviously, you need it to win vs an extinction DA. I will likely be persuaded for evaluating consequences so don't go for deontology or something. Critiques of magnitude times probability alone are also insufficient absent a viable alternative (I haven't found most to be persuasive, but still this is better than telling me to ignore consequences). However, simply saying the risk of the neg's existential scenario is exceedingly low to the point it should be disregarded (Think: Infinitarian paralysis, butterfly effect type arguments) is pretty compelling. There is no persuasive way to actually reduce the risk of the DA except making substantive defensive arguments. This doesn't include conjunctive fallacy, but it could include reading evidence that broadly says the risk of extinction is low. Coupling that with regular DA answers will be best, but I don't think it's necessary.

Overall I will make my decision very similar to how Brandon Stras would (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=41283). TLDR = framing-centric.

b) K aff:

vs T

The most persuasive approach for me would be to have a real counter-interp and win the neg's fairness stuff is just fluffy word salad and your model solves real impacts that theirs does not.

vs K

I don't have much judging experience with these debates so basic things like organization and clear line by line will be vital if you don't want me to get lost in the sauce. I would evaluate these pretty similar to a plan vs CP+DA debate where the alt = CP and links = DAs. Impact comparison would matter if you're saying the alt doesn't solve your offense. Explaining how the perm solves each of the links is important.

2. NEG

a) vs Policy Aff

-K

Absent any instruction, I will evaluate the plan vs the alternative (i.e. the world if the plan happens vs if the alt happens). If you don’t want me to do that, that's fine, but you absolutely need to make it very clear what you want me to do - ideally in the form of a framework debate. If you win an alternative framework, then mitigate any aff offense that isn't about it's fiated consequences and I will vote neg. If the aff wins plan vs alt, then you need to win your alt solves their impact OR your impact outweighs theirs on face.

-T

I don't "default to precision" or whatever. Ideally, you'd have justification for whether precision/accuracy matters most or debate-ability (aka limits/ground) matter most - And unless you win your interp is better on both fronts, this is what my decision will be based on - but absent any instruction on this I will just evaluate their combined risk of offense to make a decision.

You should have a coherent argument for why reasonability is bad, defense to causing substance crowd out, and impact comparison between the two.

-CP

Be liberal with your use of fiat.

I feel pretty confident evaluating most competition debates.

Answer condo seriously.

-DA

I don't have much to say here. Good for generic stuff. Do not really have a super high bar for ev quality generally here (unless told otherwise).

-Case

I probably have a soft spot for good, in-depth case debating... who doesn't?

-soft left

framing please (see under 1. Aff -> soft left for more details) - I would vote aff in a CP+DA strategy where you lose framing and the CP doesn't solve 100% of case (aka zero deficits) - but I would vote neg if you win framing and a non-zero risk of the DA even without any mitigation of aff offense

b) vs K Aff

-T

I'm not a fairness hack so don't be deterred from a skills impact. Overall, I don't have a strong preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter

1 - requires you to explain fairness well (I've seen debates where I'd be underwhelmed by the neg here, although never judged one myself)

2 - win a much higher level of defense to aff arguments

Lastly, if the aff is reading a plan and a counter-interp then you really should invest in winning a violation instead of just asserting one in the block

-K

This can be a strategic choice - Just don't make it super messy in the block please - I'd prefer you have a few clear links/pieces of offense instead of a bunch of shoddily extended arguments/streams of consciousness

Misc

I tried to write a paradigm following advice from https://the3nr.com/2011/09/02/judge-philosophy-guidelines/

arriqs@gmail.com

Pronouns = they/them.

Framework is not always policing, but it can be weaponized. Focus on framing central ideas and offense. I am not a super technical judge.

High School

Speed is fine, but go only as fast as you can handle. Conditionality is generally okay. Everyone in the debate should be timing.

Explain Ks through history and current events. Examples are the easiest way to make a complex concept simple enough to evaluate in the short span of time we have.

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I debate for the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. For example, I have voted that adopting medicare for all is not Social Security. I have not, however, heard a compelling reason aff's can't deficit spend. I'm not immovable on either issue, but your debating should be as aff-specific as possible.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Usually, I like affirmatives with a bold plan and big solvency, but I am not too biased against smaller, technical affs. For the negative, don't be afraid to spend time on the case debate (of course, while keeping a balance of good off-case positions), especially if you have good offense on the flow.

Be civil with cross-ex, but be decisive, and don't waste the entire time on one question.

Keep track of your own times for cross and prep.

Some other things for novices:

DA - If you run a generic disad, be able to explain the story and don't just rely on carded extensions. Aff should be able to expose the neg if this is the case.

Theory - I'll probably go for conditionality if you can convince me of negative abuse, which is a lot easier to do if the negative runs 13 off as opposed to if they run 3.

NARROW THE DEBATE DOWN BY THE SECOND REBUTTALS. Even if it feels like you're winning everything, instead of throwing all these different arguments at me, choose your strongest impacts and flesh out the story for me, so I can have a clear picture of who to vote for by the end of the round. Especially as novices, it's good practice to identify which arguments you're winning and effectively extend them.

FRED STERNHAGEN Concordia College; 36 years coaching; Spring 2018

For e-mail chains: Fred.Sternhagen@gmail.com

This First Section is the Quick Overview

Things I’ll Try to Do

1. I have no approved list of positions. My commitment is to listen to the debate that the debaters produce.

2. I try to preference decisions made in the last rebuttals. I think developing critical thinking is a (perhaps the) biggest benefit of the activity. Making choices is very important to critical thinking. So, I will try to hold you responsible for the choices you make in the last two rebuttals. If you don't talk about it in the 2NR or the 2NR, I'm going to try to not think about it. To me, this seems to emphasize and reward critical thinking by the debaters.

3. I will try to privilege decision calculus developed by the debaters. Even if I think the way you compare and weigh issues is pretty silly, I’ll try to use that decision calculus if the other team doesn’t present an alternative. If you don't do that comparative work (and few debaters do) I'll need to do the decision calculus work. You might not like the way I do it--but someone needs to do those comparisons.

Personal Proclivities

1. People tell me I’m quite easy to read non-verbally. I certainly try to be. I try to give you a lot of response. So, if you pay attention, that should help you.

2. I can get irritated by people who seem to presume that they are so much smarter than their partner that they need to do all the cross ex answers. Now, I'd really prefer a complete and/or accurate cross ex answer to an answer that will mess up the debate. So, if you need to answer to accomplish that, please do so. However, please think carefully about whether you are presuming your partner is not competent enough to give the answer. Do you really want to say that?

GENERAL ADVICE: 1) I don’t want to read a lot of evidence after the round. While I do have concerns about preserving orality, my bigger concern is that judges often construct arguments that the debaters did not. If I have to read a bunch of stuff to figure out what you are saying—that’s a problem for you. 3) I will not read speech documents during the round. This is a consequence of my concern for judges constructing arguments (what we used to call "judge intervention") 4) Portions of many speeches are unintelligible to me. Frankly, I think that is true for many people and that a lot of people fake understanding. I think the major reason debaters swap their speeches back and forth is that without that—you wouldn’t know what is going on. Maybe not, maybe it is only me. In any case, you would be well served when debating in front of me to be much more concerned about being understandable. 5) I like clear claims. I REALLY like clear claims. If your tags are over nine words long, you should not presume that I can flow that. I’ll pick 6 to 9ish words as a rendition of your claim. It is very much in your self-interest to influence what I perceive to be your claim. 6) Clear precise signposting is likely to be very helpful to you. I like arguments to line up. 7) Following transitions between arguments can be difficult for me. My higher pitch hearing is not very good. Grunting “next” might not let me know you have moved to another argument. 8) I think most contemporary debaters are simply horrid at refutation. Repeating what was said earlier is not an extension. Reading more evidence is not refutation. Tell me HOW you win an argument.

CRITIAL ARGUMENTS: 1) The philosophical issues seem important to me. 2) Still, a lot of critique positions strike me as just silly or, even more likely, some kind of incoherent philo-psycho-babble. I think you would be well served to think about what separates a critique from other kinds of arguments. Just reading some cards that mention a philosophical concept does not mean that the position functions as a different kind of argument. 3) My desire for the educational functioning of the activity still controls the situation and IF you were able to convince me that critique positions are particularly bad for our game, I'd want to get rid of them. However, you need to remember that I don't start with the assumptions that critiques are bad. You need to explain and illustrate why that would be so. More specifically, appeals that seem to merely call for a rejection of weird stuff are not likely to be persuasive with me. There’s still a lot of 1969 under my thinning hair….. 4) While the Concordia debaters have been far “left” of center for some time—that was never my plan. It just kind of happened. I’ve never told debaters what positions they may or may not work on. I’ve just sort of been taken along for the ride. 5) Mutual preference judging means I’ve heard way more critical than traditional debates for some time. You should remember that if you are running traditional positions. I’ll probably enjoy hearing them—but I’ll be less practiced with them than a lot of judges. Be careful about assuming I’ll fill in gaps for you.

THEORY ARGUMENTS AND OTHER PROCEDURALS: I’ve never been opposed to these arguments. However, I don’t vote for them much. I think there are two reasons. First, usually there is not much in the way of support/grounds for the claims. When debaters don’t have a card to read—they often don’t know how to support a claim. Secondly, there is usually a need to do more impact comparison. An affirmative decreases ground. Okay, what is the result of that? What bad happens? Is the result enough to outweigh what the affirmative claims as the advantage to their approach?

The rest of this is stuff I’ve distributed for many years. I still think reading it would be helpful—but there isn’t much new from this point on. Some of it is repetative with parts reworked above. The parts are meant to be consistent.

OVERVIEW: My views about what needs to be emphasized in contemporary academic debate have remained stable for several years. The first is PRECISION OF ARGUMENT. It seems to me that debate should train students to more precisely advance and identify claims. It is hard for me to regard sloppily worded claims on the nature of, “case analysis disproves that” as representative of good argumentation. Second is lack of COMPLETENESS. I think speed per se, the words per minute uttered, is rarely an important problem. Rather, utterances become so truncated that they cross below the threshold of what constitutes an argument or delivery makes it very hard for listeners to process--to attend to and remember--the arguments. Third is lack of COHERENCE in the reasons debaters advance. We've heard a lot about the need to “tell a story.” Much research converges on the conclusion that people process information within structures; that for information to be meaningful, it must be connected to other information. My firm belief is that debaters need to spend MUCH more time and effort considering how separate arguments in a debate fit together into a coherent whole. Particularly important is comparison of arguments and evaluation of their relative importance. Winning an argument isn't that hard. Ability to show why the arguments you've won are important to the whole round is the mark of a truly good debater. Instead, debaters usually treat all arguments as equally important. There is little attempt to discuss underlying assumptions or overarching issues. While overviews at the beginning of a rebuttal are better than NO attempt to provide comparisons I often find them of little use because they are left divorced from the "line-by-line." In my view, really effective debating would INTEGRATE comparisons with the specific refutation. That is, the debaters would win the particular arguments and then explain the importance of those positions rather than separating out the "importance" step into a separate overview. Also, I suspect that overviews are often used to advance new arguments so be sure you clearly connect overview arguments to somewhere else on the flow

GENERAL IMPLICATIONS; FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING In an effort to promote precision, completeness and coherence in argument, I have adopted what can be termed a ”non-interventionist” stance, holding that debaters should be given credit for only the arguments they ACTUALLY PRESENT. I attempt to place an obligation upon debaters for not merely presenting ``positions,'' but to create MEANING. To promote decision making by the debaters, I take the role of an “educational gamesperson'”. The “educational” reflects my desire for the outcome of the process. The “games” term reflects my view that the educational end result is best served by allowing argument about any issue. I promise to listen (to the best of my ability) to anything. Since education is my desired end result of the game, educational implication is one fruitful area from which to develop justifications for theoretic practices. It is certainly not the only area from which to develop such justifications. I purposely avoid terming myself “tabula rasa'' since it is hard for me to believe a blank slate possible or even desirable. What does a blank slate tell the tab room if no one develops any decision rules? The predispositions which I knowingly bring into a room fall into these general categories

ARGUMENT PRECONCEPTIONS: Remember that my definition of an argument is ”cognitive” and focuses on meaning. That means I'm actively trying not to intervene and finish titles, explanations, applications,... What you say out loud is the argument made. Even if I could make the argument more effective by altering the claim, it will not be rewritten for you. You should also make your own applications of arguments. If an argument on disad 1 applies to disad 3, you need to tell my why. Even if the link is ``clearly'' the same. You need to tell me that. However, intervention will happen after 2AR. I will make a real effort to catch new arguments in 2AR. A lot new happens in 2AR and it is automatically thrown out. While a smart disco can strike me as a thing of true beauty, it is risky to grant things out in 2AR since that may be perceived as new. Comparisons of positions are pretty safe. In another effort to minimize intervention, I try to call for evidence only if it was missed through my error or if there is a dispute about the nature of the evidence.

COUNTERPLANS: 1) I think a lot of debaters don’t really “get” competition. You need to address the question, “what forces a choice between the two systems.” 2) I am not terribly interested in questions about things like what it means to “advocate a perm.” Focus on the competition question.

TOPICALITY PRECONCEPTIONS; At the start of the round topicality is an absolute voting issue, extratopicality means no accruing advantages. Again, all this can be fruitfully argued.

PERSONAL PREDISPOSITIONS; Don't be obnoxious to anyone. This would never be consciously applied to a decision but it sure will be applied to your points! Playing with the format of the activity should be argued only as a last resort. This view of game playing does not thrill me. It would take a lot of educational benefit to outweigh the impact upon the poor tournament director. When in doubt - ASK!!

A Couple of General Things About My Orientation to Debate

1. I’m a lot less interested in what you debate about than how. You debate. An example. It is true that I often find the subject matter of politics disads, big federalism positions, etc. to be rather boring. However, that does not mean you would be better off not running such positions. This semester I judged a round where the neg did a big, very predictable Bush credibility disad. But I really enjoyed that debate because they did it so well! They were technically clean, had good evidence, were direct in their refutation. The way they debated was much more important to me than what they talked about.

2. Most debaters don’t have a good sense of their own limits in regard to fast delivery. Consequently, they regularly exceed what they can handle. I’m very convinced of that.

a. That does not mean I would like debate to be slower. I know where to find extemp speeches if I wanted to listen to them. It does mean that most debaters would be more effective in front of me if they would be clearer/slower.

b. Articulation is rarely the important variable. Seems to me the problem usually has to do with people moving out of English into some kind of truncated debate-speak that doesn’t make much sense.

I did high school debate at Lawrence Free State (2012-2015). I've been out of debate since then, judging one or two tournaments a year.

I'm happy to listen to anything you want to read with two caveats:

1. This is my first tournament this year, so please define/explain any acronyms you use when you use them so I can keep up with you.

2. When I was a debater I didn't do much in the way or K's or K Affs. Feel free to read one of those, but I will likely need a bit of help getting to understand it. Around 15-30 seconds before or after you introduce the argument to summarize it should be good for me.

Speed can be about an 8/10 or slower, whatever your preference, just don't go faster than you're capable of going.

Feel free to ask any specific questions you have.

Updated Feb 2017

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, tewsie1@gmail.com.

If you are a team that has been judged by me in the past there aren’t many changes. This is mostly an update b/c I haven’t looked at this thing in like 7 years.

I don’t really have strong argumentative preferences. Do what you do best and I will give you my best attempt to understand what you are arguing. Complete arguments have a claim, warrant and impact (reason it matters in the debate). Incomplete arguments rarely make it into my decision.

I flow and I don’t really read speech doc until I need a specific piece of evidence at the end. I value line-by-line refutation and get irritated when arguments don’t line. Overview proliferation is annoying. Most of those args can just be made on the lbl. I also flow on paper so undeclared overviews destroy my flow.

Good impact analysis helps my decision. Spend a little time talking about timeframes and probabilities instead of just magnitude. Often times mag is a tie, so I need something to clarify the extinction v extinction debate, obviously.

I look mad all the time. I’m not actually mad. It has no bearing on how I feel about the debate or you as debaters.  If I am mad at you, you will know it.

Pet Peeves:

Links are links not Disads to XYZ. If you win a link that means the argument competes, it isn’t a DA to anything on its own.

Debaters should handle their own CXs. If they need help that is fine, but they should at least be given the chance to answer questions in their own CX.

You are 18-25 year olds, figure out how email works. Excessive time sending email will result in prep time restarting.

I find it kind of sad that debaters aren’t funny anymore. I reward humor with points. Obviously, you should consider audience and appropriateness but don’t take everything so seriously all the time.

CP/Disads

I don’t really have anything substantive to say here. You can outweigh the aff with a good disad you don’t always have to have a counter-plan but you do have to win case defense. It also helps if you explain the warrants of the case defense in relation to the aff impact claims (instead of just reading cards and letting me sort it out). In DA outweighs the aff rounds, you must have internals between your DA and the case impacts OR some really good defense. You also need to spend a lot of time on internals and TF/Prob differentials.  

Kritiks

I pretty much adjudicate K debates like I do disads, did you prove a link and does the impact outweigh. Also typically in K rounds I will ask myself at the end of the round if I can explain in plain English why I voted on this argument (to the losing team). In other words if you can’t explain a K in simple English it becomes more difficult (not impossible) for me to vote for you. Alternatives don’t have to solve the aff if they solve the K and it outweighs the aff.

Self-serving roles of the ballot are annoying. My ballot typically indicates who did the better debating. Sometimes that better debating means that you convinced your opponents that the ballot means something different, but for real that ballot doesn’t change just b/c you said so. Go ahead and play the game but like all other arguments you are going to have to win this. A simple assertion of a new role is not enough. If you want to change the role of the ballot you are going to have to have a rationale for why your role is good for debate/the round/has some justification that goes beyond “you want to win the round”.

Topicality:

It is a voter. I usually evaluate on competing interps. I can be persuaded by reasonability however I think that these args are deployed weakly these days. Reasonability is a value claim and as such you need to assert the value (i.e. we are reasonable) and then explain how to evaluate reasonableness (how do I recognize if something is reasonable). The aim of this should be to take the onus off of my moral system of what is reasonable/fair to me and put it more on an objective system for recognizing reasonability in relation to community norms. It helps if you have a vision for debate and can defend it and don’t just treat T/FW as an analytic disad.

Theory

I often struggle with theory debates because people blaze through them with no regard for pen time. If you want to win theory debate you have to have a clear link and impact and explain why the impact should merit the ballot. I won’t read your blocks, if I can’t understand it from the speech and my flow then it doesn’t count. 

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (7th year at FS, 15th year as a head coach, 23rd year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28.5 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

28 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27.5 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. That said, this topic is kinda awful for T debates. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

flow

cowardice will be punished

I strongly dislike offcase positions

every word that is unclear is -1 speaker point

About me: I debated for 4 years at Mill Valley (2014-18) and I am now an assistant coach at Blue Valley West. I'm currently in my first year of OT school if that matters to anyone.

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

Top level:

*Pre-KSHSAA state update:* I have not judged a lot of debates on the water topic, but I would say I am pretty familiar with the core of the topic from coaching.

I will evaluate anything you read to the very best of my ability. I try my best to leave any biases at the door and make a fair decision no matter what. However, my background and most experience is in policy-oriented arguments and therefore I will be best judging those debates.

Tech > truth, but warrants of arguments should still always be extended and explained. Evidence quality is still important to me, but I won't make arguments for you based on the ev that weren't made in the round.

Please tell me how to evaluate arguments in rebuttals so that I am not left to figure it out myself. I always try to intervene as little as possible when making my decisions and only vote on arguments based on what was said in the round. I try not to read evidence when writing my RFD unless it was an extremely important card to the outcome of the round and/or I can't resolve the debate without reading it. If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me that in the 2NR/2AR.

Please be kind. Debate is hard; there's no reason to make it even harder for others.

Kritiks/K affs/FW

I don't have a lot of background knowledge in critical literature and therefore I will require more explanation of these arguments than some other judges. If I can't reasonably explain an argument myself or explain to a team in an RFD, I won't vote for it. This does not mean that I need to have a super high understanding of the literature or argument, but that you spent enough time on it in the debate for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Literature I am more familiar with: security, neolib/cap, set col. Assume that I am unfamiliar with anything else. Please slow down on tags and analytics (especially important things like perms) and don't use buzzwords. Good line-by-line and impact comparison is very important to me in making my decision. Long overviews are not a good idea.

Ks on the neg: Explain clearly what the alt does and how it solves for the impacts you're claiming. I often find myself confused as to what I am voting for at the end of the round, so a robust explanation of the alternative will help you immensely. I don't think that links of omission are links and links that are very specific to the plan are most persuasive. I will let the affirmative weigh the case unless I'm given a convincing reason not to do so.

Framework vs. K affs:

I think that affirmatives should probably defend a plan, and if not, they should be grounded in the resolution in some way. I am usually pretty persuaded by the TVA if it's done well, so the aff needs to explain why the TVA can't access the same impacts as they can. Neg teams need actually engage the aff and do impact explanation and comparison vs. reading blocks without ever contextualizing it to the aff.

I am increasingly starting to think that fairness isn't a terminal impact but rather an internal link, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think a lot of neg teams don't really explain why these impacts matter, they just say 'key to fairness,' 'key to clash,' etc. but miss the explanation of the implications of those impacts.

I am not a good judge for a K v. K debate.

Counterplans

The more aff-specific, the better. I will reward you/give more leeway on creative counterplans and ones with recut 1AC ev. They need to be competitive and should probably have a solvency advocate - if it doesn't have one I'll have a much lower threshold for voting aff on solvency deficits. I default to judge kick unless I am told otherwise.

Even though I think condo is generally good, I think it's definitely underutilized by aff teams, especially when neg teams read 3+ advocacies, kick planks, etc. I would say I generally lean neg-ish on most counterplan theory arguments if debated equally.

Topicality

I am not a fan of T on the water topic. I get sometimes it's the most strategic option, but just know it might be more of an uphill battle with me than other arguments would be.

Make the flow clean, explain your impacts, and be clear on what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. Case lists are a good idea on both sides.

I default to competing interps. I'm generally not a big fan of reasonability and think it's usually a waste of time unless you give convincing reasons as to why I should vote on it.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Good luck and have fun!

Debated 4 years of policy debate at Iowa City High school
Debated 3 years at the University of Iowa (BS Economics)
University of Chicago (Master of Public Policy)
Drake University (Doctor of Education started 2022)

Contact: wright.henry15@gmail.com

I find debates the most interesting when debaters bring new things to the table or have a strong and innovative way to explain their argument. Someone who understands and can apply their links from the cap K or spending DA to the aff specificity is more rewarding than someone struggling to answer basic questions about a more topic-specific argument. With that in mind, if you have spent the time to construct a specific strat please please read it.

Before taking everything I say to heart, Tim Alderete told me something that changed my perspective on reading judge philosophies. He said something to the effect of “Judges ALWAYS lie. No one ever wants to say they are a bad judge or predisposed to certain arguments. It is your job as debaters to sift through that.” So if you want the truth don't ask me what I like ask people who know me.

1) I find that debate is a game and whoever plays it better wins. I really enjoy good line-by-line debate but what is often lost is for what ends are your arguments being made. Please have a framework for me to evaluate everyone's arguments. That should help prevent me from intervening arbitrarily.

2) Speed=amount of arguments clearly articulated per second. So make sure you articulate the argument and not just a claim. Moreover, if I can't understand you then I can't flow you and I can't evaluate what you said as an argument.

3) I think that a discussion of the resolution is important. That can be in many forms but the aff should include an advocacy that affirms the resolutional statement.

I want you to enjoy this activity so please ask me for help if you want it.

David Zin

Debate Coach, Okemos High School

debate at okemosk12.net

Quick version: If you want to run it, justify it and win it and I'll go for it. I tend to think the resolution is the focus (rather than the plan), but have yet to see a high school round where that was a point with which anybody took issue or advantage. I like succinct tags, but there should be an explanation/warrant or evidence after them. I do pine for the days when debaters would at least say something like "next" when moving from one argument to another. If you run a critical argument, explain it--don't assume I understand the nuances or jargon of your theory. Similarly, the few critical debaters who have delivered succinct tags on their evidence to me have been well-rewarded. Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I can't flow your 55-70 word tag, and the parts I get might not be the parts you want. I think all four debaters are intelligent beings, so don't be rude to your opponent or your partner, and try not to make c-x a free-for-all, or an opportunity for you to mow over your partner. I like the final rebuttals to compare and evaluate, not just say "we beat on time-frame and magnitude"--give me some explanation, and don't assume you are winning everything on the flow. Anything else, just ask.

The longer version: I'm a dinosaur. I debated in college more than 30 years ago. I coached at Michigan State University for 5 years. I'm old enough I might have coached or debated your parents. I got back into debate because I wanted my children to learn debate.

That history is relevant because I am potentially neither as fast a flow as I used to be (rest assured, you needn't pretend the round is after-dinner speaking) and for years I did not kept pace with many of the argumentative developments that occurred. I know and understand a number of K's, but if you make the assumption I am intimately familiar with some aspect of of your K (especially if it is high theory or particularly esoteric), you may not like the results you get. Go for the idea/theme not the author (always more effective than simply saying Baudrillard or Zizek or Hartman or Sexton). If you like to use the word "subjectivity" a lot on your K argumentation, you might explain what you mean. Same thing for policy and K debaters alike when they like to argue "violence".

Default Perspective:

Having discussed my inadequacies as a judge, here is my default position for judging rounds: Absent other argumentation, I view the focus of the round as the resolution. The resolution may implicitly shrink to the affirmative if that is the only representation discussed. If I sign the ballot affirmative, I am generally voting to accept the resolution, and if the affirmative is the only representation, then it is as embodied by the affirmative. However, I like the debaters to essentially have free rein--making me somewhat tabula rosa. So if you prefer a more resolution focus rather than plan focus, I'm there. I also like cases that have essential content and theory elements (stock issues), but if one is missing or bad, the negative needs to bring it up and win it to win. I do generally view my role as a policy maker, in that I am trying to evaluate the merits of a policy that will be applied to the real world--but that evaluation is being done in a format that has strong gamelike aspects and strong "cognitive laboratory" aspects. A policymaker perspective does not preclude examining critical/epistemological questions...but ultimately when I do so, I feel it's still through some sort of policy making perspective (educational policy, social policy, or "am I thinking about this correctly" when considering my view on the policy question: if my epistemology is a geocentric universe and the plan wants to send a mission to Mars, do I have the right knowledge system to guarantee the rocket arrives in the right place). I will accept counter-intuitive arguments (e.g. extinction is good) and vote on them--although you will have to justify/win such an approach if it is challenged and in many cases there is a bit of a natural bias against such arguments.

I say "absent other argumentation" because if you want me to use another process, I all ears. I'm pretty open-minded about arguments (even counter-intuitive ones), so if you want to run something, either theoretical or substantive, justify it, argue it, and if you win it, I'll vote for it.

Weighing Arguments:

The biggest problem I observed when I did judge college rounds, and at the high school level, is that debates about how I should evaluate the round are often incomplete and/or muddled, such as justifying the use of some deontological criteria on utilitarian grounds. While such consequentialism is certainly an option in evaluating deontological positions, I struggle to see how I'm not ultimately just deciding a round on some utilitarian risk-based decision calculus like I would ordinarily use. I've had this statement in my philosophy for years and no one seems to understand it: if I reject cap, or the state, or racism, or violations of human rights, or whatever because it leads to extinction/war/whatever, am I really being deontological--or just letting you access extinction via a perspective (using utilitarian consequences to justify your impacts, and some strategy or rhetoric to simply exclude utilitarian impacts that might counter your position). That fine if that's why you want it, but I think it makes "reject every instance" quite difficult, since every instance probably has solvency issues and certainly creates some low internal link probabilities. If you do truly argue something deontologically, having some sort of hierarchy so I can see where the other team's impacts fit would be helpful--especially if they are arguing an deontological position as well. Applying your position might be helpful: think how you would reconcile the classic argument of "you can't have rights if you are dead, yet many have been willing to give their life for rights". Sorting out that statement does an awful lot for you in a deontology vs. utilitarianism round. Why is your argument the case for one or the other?

Given my hypothesis-testing tendencies, conditionality can be fine. However, as indicated above, by default I view the round as a policy-making choice. If you run three conditional counterplans, that's fine but I need to know what they are conditional upon or I don't know what policy I am voting for when I sign the ballot—or if I even need to evaluate them. I prefer, although almost never get it, that conditionality should be based on a substantive argument in the round, preferably a claim the other team made. Related to that, you can probably tell I'm not a fan of judge kick for condo. If you have it in 2NR, my perspective is that is your advocacy option...and if it isn't internally consistent, you may have problems. Similarly, if you are aff and your plan merely restates the resolution but your solvency evidence and position clearly are relying on something more nuanced (and obviously you don't have it in your plan), you make it difficult for me to give you a lot of solvency credibility if the neg is hitting you hard on it (if they aren't, well that's their poor choice and you get to skim by).

Theory and K's:

I can like both theory args, especially T, when the debate unfolds with real analysis, not a ton of 3-5 word tags that people rip through. Theory arguments (including T) can be very rewarding, and often are a place where the best debaters can show their skills. However, debaters often provide poorly developed arguments and the debate often lacks real analysis. I do not like theory arguments that eliminate ground for one side or the other, are patently abusive, or patently time sucks. I like theory arguments but want them treated well. Those who know me are aware I like a good T argument/debate more than most...I'm just complaining that I rarely see a good T debate.

I'm not a fan of K's, but they definitely have a place in debate. I will vote on one (and have voted for them numerous times) if two things happen: 1) I understand it and 2) you win it. That's a relatively low threshold, but if you babble author names, jargon, or have tags longer than most policy teams' plans, you make it much harder for me.

Style Stuff:

As for argument preferences, I'll vote on things that do not meet my criteria, although I dislike being put in the position of having to reconcile two incomprehensible positions. I'll vote on anything you can justify and win. If you want me in a specific paradigm, justify it and win that I should use it. I like a 2ar/2nr that ties up loose ends and evaluates (read: compares)--recognizing that they probably aren't winning everything on the flow.

I don't like to ask for cards after the round, or reviewing the evidence in pocketbox, etc. and will not ask for a card I couldn't understand because you were unintelligible. If there is a debate over what a card really says or signifies, or it seems to contain a nuance highlighted in the round that is worth checking, I may take a look at the evidence.

I traditionally rely on providing nonverbal feedback—if I'm not writing anything, or I'm looking at you with a confused expression, I'm probably not getting what you are saying for one reason or another.

Debate is still a communication activity, even if we rip along at several hundred words a minute. If I missed something in your speech, that is your fault--either because you did not emphasize it adequately in the round or you were unintelligible. If you are a gasper, you'll probably get better points if you slow down a bit. I tend to dislike prompting on content, but keeping your partner on pace is fine. I'd prefer you ask/answer your own c-x questions. I like numbering and organization, even though much has apparently died. At this point, even hearing "next" when going to the next tag would be a breath of fresh air (especially when it isn't being read off of a block). Similarly, I'll reward you if you have clear tags that would fit on a bumper sticker I could read without tailgating. Humor is a highly successful way to improve your speaker points. If you are organized, intelligible and funny, the much-sought-after 30 is something I have given. I haven't given many, but that reflects the debaters I've heard, not some unreasonable predisposition or threshold.

If you have questions about anything not on here, just ask.

Debated at Okemos High School 2016-2020

Debated at KU 2020-2022

Coaching at Blue Valley

sonyaazin@gmail.com

T - fine

FW - fine

DA's - fine

CP's - fine

K's - I love these, so definitely fine; race theory/pomo/gender and or sexual orientation

K-Affs - ^^^^

Theory - fine

not much lit base for K's (or much of any arg) on this topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.

Non-TLDR

Run whatever you want, be clear, signpost and warrant out all arguments you want me to vote on. If it isn't in the 2nr/2ar, I will not vote on it. A dropped argument is a concession but make sure you point it out and EXPLAIN why it matters. I'm familiar with a fair amount of K literature but some of the heavy pomo/race theory stuff should be explained and warranted.

LBL should be a little more in depth and have a lot more warranted analysis than I've seen recently.

TLDR

Args I've run consistently: Cap, Militarism, Set Col, Antimilitarism K-aff, Set Col K-aff, FW/T-USFG

Args I'm familiar with: Fem, Set Col (and it's varients), Afropess (and it's varients), Psycho, Black Psycho, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Death Good.

K stuff

Link: make sure it's something unique to the aff, something that the aff does or supports through direct evidence or analysis. "Aff does _____ with ____ which causes ______" A link doesn't have to be a direct quote but it does have to be a direct mechanism or flaw with the aff/resolution. If you're critiquing the resolution then at least tie your theory into whatever your are dismantling/restructuring. Other than that, I don't have too much of a high threshold for the topicality of the K or the K aff.

Alt/Solvency for K-Aff's: I have a little more leniency with alt's on a K than an alternative/mode of solvency for a K aff because in my opinion, when critiquing an aff, it should honestly be enough to say that the aff's epistemology is flawed, therefor we shouldn't invest any energy into debating about it, and they should lose. If you're critiquing the resolution though, you need to have some concrete way of doing something about what you've critiqued. A lot of K-affs just kind of say the rez sucks and then do quite literally nothing about it. Even in round education can beat a lot of other off case offense, but you have to explain how reading your aff in debate spills out into something that changes our relationship to the rez. Even in a world without fiat, I need to know why the scholarship of the aff is net better than any scholarship the neg would have access to in a debate under different circumstances.

Case and Case v K Stuff

At the end of a round in which I vote aff, I need to be able to coherently describe the mechanism of the aff, the impacts, and how the aff solves the impacts. If the 2ar doesn't have this or spends a minute doing some sloppy LBL with unintelligible spreading on case and then moves on to answering 4 minutes of the K/FW, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I understand that sometimes people feel like they know their case very well and the "premise" of the aff "should" solve the residual offense, but it gets muddled or you get rushed because you're running out of time on the K. So just be mindful. Explain the warrants of the LBL.

T stuff

Do whatever you want, but I don't really believe in voting on T as a reverse voter but under some special circumstances, I can see myself doing so, assuming the Aff can clearly explain a voter and standards that prove they lost ground by having T run on them (for some reason I have a fear of this, don't ask). Slow down a little on standards and block stuff.

FW stuff

If you don't extend your interp throughout each speech then I probs will have a harder time voting for you, so make sure to do so. Other than that though, do whatever the hell you want. Standards and/or Impact turns being gone for should be extrapolated and contextualized to the type of advocacy/education in the round. Read all the disads you want. Make sure to tell me why policy education might be better vs. critical education in the long run for a certain case scenario. Keep FW separate from framing on case but MAKE CONNECTIONS.

CP stuff

I mean if you want. I tend to give condo more weight when there are 3 + conditional advocacies, including the K, so be a bit careful there.

Impact stuff

IMPACT FRAMING!!!!!! 2ar/1ar as well Block/2nr need to be solid about what impacts/offense is/are being gone for in the debate. There's obviously going to be concessions on both sides at the end of the debate but where are they, why do they matter, and what does this mean for other arguments on the flow? 2ar's/2nr's that write the ballot at the top of the rebuttles>>>>>>

Spreading Stuff

Pls enunciate the tags and don't spread through blocks at the rate of a lawnmower on drugs, especially when/if they're not in the doc. I have a sore spot from a round with clipping so I'll probably say clear like 5 times, and if there's still an issue after that I'll mention something at the end of the speech. If it keeps happening, there will probably be more severe consequences.

Speaks

I'll probably give you better speaks if you're slower and have good arguments than if you're fast and make little strategic arguments. If you're fast and make good args, I'll definitely give you the extra speaker points.

The vibes I'd like us all to strive for are ????????????, preferably in that order. ???? does not include derogatory lanague or disrespect. Rock on!