Include me in the email chain: dwbomberger@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him/His

In round you can call me Daniel, Judge etc. I don't really care.

Proudly have not sat yet (knock on wood).

I debated for 4 years at Interlake and am currently a sophomore at Emory University. I am comfortable with speed but have never been the best with flowing so if you are going to spread analytics I would recommend either A) slowing down to like 50% of your speed or B) send the analytics in the speech doc.

I'm happy to flow off the doc if you are genuinely too fast for me. I will not flow off the doc if you are unclear.

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. in round you will receive an L and the lowest speaks I can give.

Don't clip. I may be bad at flowing but I'm not that bad. You will be caught and will similarly receive an L and the lowest speaks possible.

All arguments need a claim, warrant and impact. If I feel I cannot explain the claim warrant and impact back to your opponent in my rfd, I will not vote on it. This means I would appreciate some handholding in really dense debates.

I really appreciate judge instruction. Your 2AR/2NR should be writing my ballot. If you don't tell me what do to it is likely I will have to think a lot and possibly end up doing something you aren't happy with. So if you give me judge instruction it's a win-win.

Have fun! Debate is a game and if you don't enjoy the arguments you're reading, you're doing it wrong.

In terms of arguments, I'll try my best to fairly evaluate any argument presented to me. As a debater I mostly read Ks (Setcol, Wynter, Racial Cap, Deleuze) and probably enjoy these the debates the most but also know bad K debate when I see it. Affs definitely don't need a plan to be legit but also probably should be more than an impact turn to T. I also read a lot of topicality, moral philosophy, and policy based positions so I'm comfortable with these debates too. I can't flow fast analytics so dense tricks is likely not what you want to read in front of me (especially if there is no doc) however, I will do my best to evaluate these debates just like any other.

I don't think that the aff and neg have roles that are set in stone. If you can justify why debate should be a certain way then go for it. However, debate is an activity that I have found incredibly valuable and has had profound impacts on the way I view the world. This means that, in broad strokes, I don't think debate should be a monologue and reading/contesting assumptions is a valuable way to learn about the world. Idk what the implications of this are but I felt like writing it.

I am a new parent judge and am still learning about LD. Please be as clear as possible. Thank you

I debated for four years in high school--two years in LD and two years in CX. I moved on to compete for WWU in Parli, while taking on a coaching role for the Bellingham United Debate Team (Sehome, Bellingham, and Squalicum High Schools). I was an assistant coach for four years before taking over the team in 2019 as the head coach.

In terms of arguments, you can run anything you want---I've seen it all, done most of it, you can't scare me! That said, there are a few things to be aware of:

1) I do not have the quickest ear. (I haven't had any problems flowing PF and LD rounds yet, but some CX rounds have been SPEEDY.) However, I understand that you have a lot to say and not a lot of time to say it. Slow down on your tags, pull out your warrants later.

2) You can run K's, but I am not well-versed in some of the new K literature (i.e. theories, philosophies, etc.). This means that you need to have some sort of thesis/overview/underview that explains exactly what this K is trying to accomplish. The structure and argumentation of a K (and subsequent rebuttal arguments) are no issue for me.

3) I look to my flow for my decision. Watch out for dropped arguments. If things are new, I will not evaluate them.

4) Everyone gets the same speaker points (usually around 28). It is my fundamental belief that speaker points tend to be sexist, racist, and ableist, even with the best of intentions. I don't care how you sound, I care about what you say. (That said, if you choose to be rude, disrespectful, or make arguments that fundamentally threaten the identities of those in our community, you will be given the lowest speaker points possible---and you'll probably lose.)

Flay Judge, been active over the past two debate seasons. Nat Qual is my third tournament of the current season.

Economist, with a quantitative research background.

Clear and respectful argumentation is the goal. During the round, you're expected to do your best to communicate, clarify terminology, justify positions with sound argumentation, and support arguments with logic, definitions, facts, evidence, analogies and expert analysis. Winning side will be decided based on the quality of arguments as well as the persuasiveness of delivery style.

pourelise@gmail.com or SpeechDrop. Please share your case doc ahead of time, and time yourselves during the round. No spreading is a must.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

Tabula Rasa: If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Framework arguments do not automatically get flowed on my ballots as a priori unless you outline them as such and explain why they are a priori voters. Additionally, I will not do work for you on the ballot, meaning that if I find an argument you have made convincing but you do not reiterate it or bring it up as a voter I can't vote on it. Finally and most importantly: clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. If I say "clear" or "slow" you MUST abide or lose the round. I ask that you show your opponents the same courtesy.

Kinda goes without saying, but overt/explicit bigotry of any kind (classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.) will automatically forfeit my ballot. I don't believe in civility politics (It's not taboo in my book, for instance, to call your opponent out as racist if they say something racist), but I do believe in basic common courtesy and dignity. Treat your opponent respectfully like a human being and we'll have no issues.

I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.

I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.

What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:

If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.

I like to hear a clear argument, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.

I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!

The most important thing to keep in mind is: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.

LD:

I do LD debate currently, I will evaluate any type of argument. I don't care what you run. Honestly run a meme case, i will actually evaluate it. If you run a hella abusive argument and it's clear your opponent doesn't understand the argument then I will drop your speaks.

PF:

I'll evaluate based off the flow, make sure you have impact calculus.

CX:

Hopefully I don't ever have to judge this, but I do LD so take that as you will. I can evaluate most arguments but prefer K> LARP. I know some of the more common K's but just make sure the links and ROB are clear. Speed is fine as long as you enunciate. If you read an identity K make sure you actually idenitifiy with that group, it's weird when you start claiming a group of people are ontologicaly dead when you're not part of that group.

This applies to all events: if you say something racist, homophobic, ableist, etc YOU WILL LOSE.

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Paradigm for PF:

1. I am okay with faster speed, but don’t talk over 300 words per minute for PF
2. Sign Post everything, helps me keep track and maintain a fair ballot
3. Clash and weigh arguments: interact your arguments with your opponents, if both of you drop an argument, and there’s no comparison, it calls for judge intervention and preference, which I don’t want to do.
4. Assume I know nothing about the topic.
5. Be prepared to give cards or provide evidence, I don’t enjoy waiting 20 minutes for a card to be summoned in the middle of prep.
6. Don’t be rude during CX, but that also doesn’t mean you can’t be aggressive. There’s a pretty big difference.
7. If you can be funny or mix in some cultural references I will give higher speaks, but it won’t help in my decision for the round.

Paradigm for LD:

1. Just don't talk super fast, I can deal with some speed

1. Clash and weigh arguments: interact your arguments with your opponents, if both of you drop an argument, and there’s no comparison, it calls for judge intervention and preference, which I don’t want to do.
2. I don't flow CX, but you can bring it up in your speech and it will be flowed

4

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

freetheoryfiles@gmail.com

email chain = 30 speaks

util trutil, extinction first, debate is a game, no rvis on T, paragraph theory > shells, defend the topic, warming > nuke war, limits is probably true for plans and pics on locals

20 minute video fully explaining my paradigm if the above is insufficient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt7bzxurJ1I

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

tl;dr: I am okay with any and all arguments. That said, if you spread unclearly, and I am forced to say clear more than two times, I will drop you. To spread clearly, you must talk at conversational speed while reading tag lines, key pieces of analysis, and internal link elements of warrants. That said, I prefer rounds where everyone has the ability to absorb and evaluate the content of all present arguments, so I would prefer if you dont spread.

Hello there,

My name is Alex Sapadin. I am currently acting as the assistant coach for Mercer Island High School. And previously I acted as the assistant coach for Interlake High School. I have competed in speech and debate at both collegiate and high school levels. For the entirety of my debate career, which has now spanned roughly 13 years, I have specialized in Lincoln-Douglas debate, NPTE parliamentary debate, Extemporaneous speaking, and Impromptu speaking. I have both competed on and coached for national circuit competition. I have won the state title for various events including LD six times, and have gotten deep into out rounds at a series of national competitions.

I say all of the preceding to give you an idea of my experience and general knowledge level with all things regarding speech and debate. There are few argumentative positions that I haven't interacted with or taught at one point or another. So with that said, I invite you to run any position that you wish and have the debate you find most interesting.

I have one very strict caveat to the above; if you spread unclearly, and I don't understand your argument as a result of a failing in your communication style, I will not flow your argument or extend it throughout the round. I will also likely drop you for failing to communicate your case legibly.

There is an unfortunate "emperors new clothes" situation transpiring in speech and debate as of this present moment. The situation and problem is most prominent in Lincoln Douglas debate. Many debaters try and spread to emulate what they consider the most effective "national circuit" format of debate. Unfortunately, they spread without slowing down to a conversational speed to read significant points of analysis, significant components of a warrant, or most importantly, tag lines. More to the point, many debaters haven't been instructed on how to spread clearly using a series of drills that emphasize enunciation. As a result, most debate rounds involve a serious lack of clarity during the AC and NC. After, both competitors and judge are scrambling to retroactively understand a case throughout the CX and the subsequent rebuttal speeches. This results in poor rounds that are usually decided by what arguments go unaddressed, not which arguments have the best substantive clash.

More unfortunate still the practice of unclear spreading is so regular that most judges take it at face. Afraid that they're the "stupid" one in the room, they don't openly discuss how they could barely understand what was going on in the round. This silence surrounding the act of spreading has allowed practice to perpetuate. Judges are now becoming more confident, and coaches are taking proactive steps to instruct their judges to drop competitors if they dont present their case clearly. I stand amongst the coaches encouraging this practice.

If you feel any resistance to what I'm saying, and if you feel the state of spread in debate is fine, think of it this way; how long does it take you to read, understand, and apply your evidence at the time of constructing your case? For the more academic information in your case I'm sure it took a good chunk of time. The majority of warranted evidence in case is written at an academic level. Even college and professional level audiences need time to sit with academic level information to absorb its significance. Usually one paragraph takes a few minutes, and this is for a practiced and educated audience. So, that said, what is the likelihood that your judge will be able to understand a truncated version of the same academic information, read at two to three times the speed of normal internalization, in roughly 10-25 seconds?

If you spread and are unclear, it stops a judge from being able to sit with and absorb your arguments. We have no way of figuring out if your evidence supports the claims youre making. To fairly judge an argument, to be persuaded by it, I have to have the ability to clearly hear your claim, the support for your claim, and its significance. Without those three components of the argument, I cant tell if the argument is well built and persuasive. And if I cant evaluate an argument, I wont consider it in round.

All of the above said, I will say clear twice to help you gauge my ability to absorb speed. I am also very experienced in all things competitive speech and debate, so I will be quicker on the uptake than most. You will get a fair round with me, granted that you also work to set the precedent for a fair round.

The devils in the details as they say. Without the details present and at play, the devil has its way. Be clear and we will have a fantastic round!

All the best,

Alex

Parent judge

I've been judging for a couple years now and would describe myself as an advanced beginner judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I will not be able to follow well if you spread.

I really appreciate road maps and good sign posting.

Thank you!

hey yall im linh (she/her) and im a senior, ive done (washington) ld since freshman yr.

just as a heads up, i understand that most debaters see debate as a game which is totally fine but that doesnt mean that you get the right to be misogynistic/racist/homophobic/or even plain mean towards your opponent/others. i will 100% drop you if those things happen. and on the flip side, if you ever feel unsafe during a round, email me (plinhtea@gmail.com) and i'll stop the round.

substance:

• weighing is so so so important and if you don't weigh, i will have to intervene to make a decision and no one wants that (if you don't know what weighing is, please ask!)
• progressive arguments are fine (i love kritiks)
• please don't debate about the values. vc debates are fun, amazing, wonderful! value debates not so much.
• dw abt speed, i can flow it -> but if ur opponent is clearly struggling, maybe give them a hand and slow down?
• give me clear voters/reasons to vote for you and explain why those reasons are better than your opponents
• otherwise do whatever you want. if you want to read a sick-ass performance, go for it. if you want to read util and two contentions, go for it.

i give default 29 speaks. if you want that illustrious 30 speaks, you can do one of a couple of things:

• incorporate three good taylor swift or mitski references in your speeches
• show everyone in the round a goofy picture/video of your pet
• give me an album rec and a song off of that album that i can listen to while you prep

really do try to have fun and take care of yourself. i know its stressful out there <3