Senior at GW, debated for Peninsula for 4 years
Affiliation: Peninsula

Add me to the email chain:

true.julian.anderson@gmail.com

General:
An argument requires a claim, warrant, and evidence to be considered. Partial arguments are not arguments.
Be nice.

Offense defense paradigm.

Tl;dr: I'm a younger, more naive version of this guy -

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6854

Also, Shree Awsare's perspective on debate is something I firmly believe in and subscribe to, and is something I think all debaters should be aware of:

"My ideal debate involves two teams who read well-researched positions, engage in line-by-line refutation of their opponents’ arguments, and demonstrate strategic choice-making and vertical development of arguments. Not all debate is good debate. It is my firm belief that any model of debate (whatever the content) that disincentivizes any of the aforementioned qualities is an inferior product that is simultaneously less rigorous and less enjoyable."

Specific Arguments

Case:

I very much enjoy and privilege good case debating - something that I think is getting rarer to the detriment of the activity. When I see it, you will find it reflected in speaker points, and probably the ballot too. Note: the best case debating doesn't usually require a lot of evidence. Writers on the internet publish a lot of very questionable material that, given a little world knowledge and fast research skills, you should be able to easily dismantle. 1ACs are often constructed very poorly, so take advantage of this.

2As: I get it, I was there too - you have a lot to get through and very little time. Being clear and concise, though, will benefit you a lot more than reading the 17th card on the politics disad.

Counterplans:
My favorite kind of debate. Tricky or smart CPs earn extra points. Backfile CPs like consult NATO that don't require topic knowledge won't earn extra points.

"Sufficiency framing" against affs with linear impacts gets really annoying. Spend time explaining why the counterplan solves most or all of the aff, and why the risk of the DA outweighs the rest of the aff the CP might not solve.

Don't forget to explain why the counterplan solves the specific impacts of the aff (especially if it has a lot of planks), and explain why its a net benefit.
Condo is good. Like most theory, I have a high threshold for going for it in the 2AR (barring dropped theory, CPs that steal the aff, etc)

Default to judge kick.

Disads:

Disads with specific link evidence are great. Disads with mostly just spin are fine. Disads with evidence and spin are fantastic.
Turns case and solves the case are really important on DAs, especially if they are dropped.
Impact comparison wins debates. Please don't say: "magnitude - extinction! timeframe - its happening now! probability: its happening now!"

That's not to diss extinction impacts, I love them, I just have higher standards than the example above for impact calc.

Impacts and uniqueness don't matter so much to me when evaluating the probability of a DA as the link. If the link doesn't exist, the DA doesn't exist. Good debating on this part of the DA is crucial.


Kritiks:
I'm fine with any kritik as long as it indicts the thesis of the aff. If it doesn't, then it will be hard for you to get my ballot. Good links are really important - rehighlight evidence from the 1AC. The negative cannot just prove the world is bad, but that the aff is bad. Similarly, state bad is not a link.

Role of the ballot = roll of the eyes.

Too often, debaters assert that the kritik link exists without ever referencing a single piece of 1AC evidence or explicitly quoting lines from the affirmative. This is lazy debating. Asserting the link and then reexplaining it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the affirmative links to the kritik! (e.g., X evidence says we have a libidinal desire to do Y, therefore the aff also has a libidinal desire to do Y = lazy) You have to provide evidence. If you're extending a kritik, you should explicitly quote the aff, rehighlight aff evidence, or do explanatory work of equivalent evidentiary caliber, or I'll assume evidence for the link doesn't exist, and a simple aff response of "no link, they don't have any evidence, didn't say the aff is a bad idea" with an extended permutation explanation will be enough for me to vote affirmative.

Some may say this is a high burden, but you wouldn't vote for a disad if you didn't have evidence specific to the aff (or at least explained/spun in a way to demonstrate that the evidence does in fact describe the aff!), so it seems to me to be a good standard to filter out kritiks that aren't actually relevant to the debate. If the aff really does link to the kritik, you should be able to prove it.

The affirmative gets to weigh the aff - but needs to defend the assumptions of the 1AC. Its really easy to use framework to prove that the neg should get an alt, it is going to be really hard for you to prove the aff shouldn't get to weigh the consequences of hypothetical implementation.

Topicality:
I am fine with T. You should go for it like you would a CP and a DA, with standards as your offense. The aff needs offense and explanation as to why that turns the neg's standards. A strong argument that impacts out limits will go a long way to getting my ballot. Whatever side you are on you need to paint a picture of what the topic looks like, preferably with caselists, and a quick explanation as to why these cases matter.

Topicality v K affs:

First, you should probably read a plan.

The world is bad is aff ground.
Debate is a game and fairness is the best impact. I've come to think that some amount of debating about the norms of debate is alright, maybe even slightly good. Debaters need to understand and learn why the norms of policy debate are how they are.

What makes policy fundamentally different from other types of debate is 1) its depth of research and 2) its in-round and out-of-round strategic decisionmaking, which derives from the competing role-based obligations of the affirmative and negative. T vs K aff debating, I think, often misses this, and the value of policy debate as a game, and thus a kind of play that has rules, necessitates restrictions that guide the process of our research and hone our strategic thinking. If debaters focused more on how their vision of debate impacted those two fundamental parts of policy debate - on the impact and the internal link level - I think these debates would be a lot more interesting and engaging.

This is both for those who appreciate the movie Ratatouille and for those who are reading innovative and creative arguments:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends."

Winston Churchill '21

University of Texas '25

email: debatejudgedocs@gmail.com

he/him

tl;dr: I'll be down for whatever. Link/perm analysis is better for me than pure FW strat, not currently sufficiently convinced for the need for instrumental defense of the USFG, all of this should be treated as malleable, and do what you do best.

Timeliness = higher speaks.

Prep stops when email is sent.

Questions welcome.

Longer version

Do what you do well: While I mostly read the kritik in HS (Cap, Wilderson, Joy James, Settler Colonialism, Spanos/Heidegger), I prefer good debating over anything else. Make the debate interesting and have fun. Those rounds are always better and usually get better response out of me for both teams. Have a strategy in mind and execute it. Debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

Policy v K: to win these debates, the negative must have a link that is contextual to the aff (either a link to the plan or recite portions of their scholarship) and must be a disadvantage to the aff. Cannot stress enough that the negative NEEDS examples of their link argument whether it has occurred in the past or it's an educated guess of what happens, it just needs to be there. Neg should probably have an alternative that does something to resolve the links or reasons why you don't need the alt in the debate. FW can be a wash most of the time so if you're going for it, explain it in terms of winning the debate, external impacts to scholarship, or why you don't need it at all. The affirmative must have link offense and/or defense and should prioritize this above FW (for me at least) as well as explaining it in context of the permutation/why your args problematize the rest of the negative strategy. Please don't just spew a bunch of nonsense on the framework portion because 9/10 times you get to weigh the plan but I'm often left with no impact to any of your 8 standards post 2AR. Also don't forget about the solvency portion of the aff and weigh it against the K. Very persuaded by aff is DA to K if you do it properly. Floating PIKs legit unless aff says otherwise. Zero percent risk of the K is possible.

K v K: both sides need to differentiate their theory of power and explain that theory in context of the opposing one. The negative needs to pull lines from the 1AC and apply their link analysis to that to sufficiently win the link debate. Make sure you're connecting the dots in terms of the permutation and why the alt or just voting negative can resolve some portion of your offense. Affs should get creative with their link turns and permutations and not be afraid to explain args in a new way than the ones we're used to in debate. Perms should be carded. If they're not, the threshold for 'good' explanation becomes very high. Make sure to answer the theory args on perms as when they're dropped it can pretty much be game over for you. Not super persuaded by 'no perms in a method debate' but still don't drop it. Examples, examples, examples please.

K aff v FW: simply not persuaded by fairness as an external impact. In order to force a more coherent FW strategy, negatives MUST explain their little 3 second quips about 'ssd solves the aff' etc. in order to make this a complete argument. I will not do that work for you. Likewise, both sides must have a defensible model of debate and be able to explain the division of ground, what debates will look like, and the role of the negative. Neither side should sound too defensive. Explain things as internal link turns, take-outs, or disads to the aff or their model. Point out their contradictions or their nonsense. Can't say whether I lean aff or neg on FW record-wise, but if it's not great FW strat vs not great k aff, I will likely end up voting aff. I also happen to think that the aff should go for the impact turn over middle of the road in most instances.

v K aff: go for presumption. Don't be afraid to take the aff up on their claims; I don't dislike negative shenanigans. If they say fairness bad, read a DA in the 2nc idk. Just play around with it.

**note to k affs: please do not just read a variation of a successful K aff from 2-3 years ago. Be original. If I see a 1AC that has a different team's initials/that was clearly stolen (especially if you run it horribly), you will get lower speaks than the other team, even if you win.

Counterplans: must be functionally and textually competitive.

Truth v Tech: I find myself frequently deciding close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates; I find myself much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

Evidence v Spin: Good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept/treat as true a debater’s spin until it is contested by the other team. This is probably the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and perm ev for kritiks.

Speed vs Clarity: Not flowing off the doc but I'll probably peruse the cards read in a given speech during prep. If I don't hear/can't understand the argument, it won't make it to my flow. I'll say 'clear' if I can't understand you for more than 2 seconds.

Permutation/Link Analysis: Permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the perm would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the neg just concedes it outright. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses will not only cost you on my ballot, but the negative should capitalize with strategic cross applications or just group them.

Things that will Earn Speaker points: clarity, confidence, organization, well-placed humor, being nice, and well executed strategies/arguments.

Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, bad jokes/poor timed humor, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand/just reading blocks

Misc: racism good/death good = Loss + <25 if possible. vast swaths = 30. Negs get links to unhighlighted portions of cards. Don't love debates about individual people/acts outside of the round. Mark your own cards and take it upon yourself to send them out later. Everything is up for debate. Joke args are fine unless executed poorly. Still waiting to judge a good baudrillard team...

Current policy debater, kritikal literature

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

GBN '21

UCLA '25

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

jbarberdebate@gmail.com

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

TLDR:

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

2. If I look confused, I probably am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't:

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

take a long time sending out the email chain.

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

Be nice and have fun!

Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Do what you do best, and I will try to leave my predispositions at the door. I have voted for and against every kind of argument. How you debate matters more than what you debate.

I care most about your ability to successfully communicate and defend your arguments by flowing, doing line-by-line, speaking clearly, and thoroughly explaining your arguments throughout the debate. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more.

Argument resolution is the most important part of debating. Making choices, explaining what issues are most important, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, impacts, solvency, etc) are all examples of the kinds of judge instruction that winning rebuttals should focus on.

I value the research skills that debate fosters. I want students to demonstrate their topic knowledge and to utilize their specific research. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

I do not follow along with the speech document and will tell you clear if I can’t understand you. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

The affirmative should present an advocacy that is grounded in topical policy and critical literature. The negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using extreme conditionality, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Note to LD competitors at the FBK tournament - I almost exclusively judge policy, but I've done LD in the past and am quite familiar with the format and traditional argumentation. Most of the below should be pretty applicable, less so the stuff about evidence.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both

Keep me on the chain por favor – ccarrasco244@gmail.com

If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back

general -

- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms

- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it

- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far

———- some more specifics ———-

I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well

Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too

On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.

On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.

Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically

on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible

Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.

Experience- This will be my fourth year coaching at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone involved in policy debate.

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks, please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Overview

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes my intervention at some degree.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Debating off the cuff and "live" in debates is always going to be better than canned, pre-written blocks. Your arguments will be more contextualized to the specific debate, it will be easier to flow because you're going to deliver it more naturally and, in general, it is more persuasive to know the arguments you making are happening in this specific debate instead of some argument factory prior to the debate. This is super important in framework and theory debates that I tend to see a bunch of so thanks in advance for keeping this in mind. I reward the least robotic teams.

5. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years:

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented. Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

-Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

- Yes, terminal defense exists and I will not default to offense-defense. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but going for terminal defense means explaining why you think you're accessing a piece of terminal defense.

Specifics

Case- Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA- DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP- CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K (General)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. If you're a policy team that doesn't traditionally go for the K, I'll be able to see the difference between how you go for the K and teams with a more complete engagement with K lit so, if you are a policy team that doesn't normally flex for the K, please don't go out of your way to try and go for the K just to try and win my ballot. I'll be able to hang with you on the policy front and would rather meet you with where you're best. I've been too close to dropping good policy teams who decided to experiment on the K with me in the back instead of just going for their tried and true.

That being said, my focus the last two years has been thinking through how high-level K debate interacts with high-level policy debate with a focus on the K side of the question. This has meant that I've approached some conclusions about where I think the K is in the right direction and I've equally paused on questions where policy positions have the K beat. I've outlined some of my ideas below to give you a sense of my approach to these questions.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K.

On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative? I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to do with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the research praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

T- Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school but that was ages ago where it was still something teams went full send on. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. Again, portable skills are the most important to me in terms of my predispositions so you will need to do work in round to explain your arguments in this context.

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Local Circuit-Thank you for debating. I really enjoy seeing local circuit debates because it reminds me of a lot of debates that I either was in or have judged growing up in a mixed circuit like Wisconsin. I do have a couple of specific thoughts to help us out adjusting to different expectations.

1.) While I prefer cases that are composed of cards with tags, I'm more than willing to listen to your paraphrased cases. Please make all evidence from your cases available to your opponent and I if anyone were to ask for it. I am always suspicious when someone doesn't want to share the work they've done because of the risk of academic dishonesty. You should want to show off your prep even if it's just showing me your computer after the debate when asked.

2.) Please justify how resolving the debate through your criterions is sufficient to win you the debate- If I value justice and am using proportionality to do so, how does that corner out your opponent's route(s) to the ballot?

National Circuit

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified

tl;dr eh i’m tired and rusty

bc montgomery blair pz is a cheater here's my full paradigm

***LD DEBATE***

I'm very flexible about what types of arguments you can run. I'm okay with kritiks ect. I evaluate arguments as they are presented.

I like a concise discussion of the evidence, not just cards thrown at each other. I find that in many rounds i judge, the discussion of whos value is better becomes irrelevant when the affirmative thesis doesn't even sound that convincing. This happens far too often. That being said when it doesn't, i like a good value debate. But this rarely happens.

Please be civil during cross examination.

I generally think the last aff speech should focus on voting issues.

**POLICY **

general

1. I will call clear if required. If I have to do it more than once I will start docking speaks. the ableism k is legit.

2. please be nice. i like polite debaters.

3. if something bad happens like a computer dying i'm okay with temporarily delaying the round, just be honest.
Theory

I get lost in theory easily. Clear signposting and concise explanations are critical here. That being said I love a good theory round.

Kritiks - love em but i find a lot of them fall short on the alternative. please do not make this mistake

topicality - i dont think affs have to specify their agent.

evidence -

evidence should be meaningful and relevant. you should not read evidence that is only tangentially related to your tag

feel free to ask me any questions

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-I’ve judged like 3 rounds on the water topic. Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

Junior at the University of Texas at Austin '24

I used to debate for Hendrickson

Email chain: david.do.6375@gmail.com

Please Add for CX debates only: hawkcxdebate@gmail.com

Overview

– None of this applies to PF or other formats besides Policy/CX and LD.

– Tech over truth in most cases. I won't evaluate an argument without a warrant, even if it's completely unanswered. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other wholly unethical and derogatory arguments. Additionally, arguments meant to be a meme or joke are inherently garbage. I will give you the lowest speaks for reading any of these arguments.

– I prefer contextualized arguments with specific warrants over anything else. Although I generally prefer high-quality evidence, issues from lack of evidence or poor-quality evidence can be resolved with good argumentation. I do normally read cards, but I leave explanations and comparison of evidence up to debaters. I mostly read cards to give comments/advice on how to better execute/answer a particular argument. I also don't want card docs. If you send a card doc, that email and doc will sadly be ignored and left unread in my inbox.

– Overviews, in general, are unnecessary. I would much rather here a speech that applies explanations of the aff or off-case position to the line-by-line. I often ignore overviews because they re-explain a simple and understandable argument already presented. Overviews are only needed when your opponents have mishandled or misunderstood your argument and to resolve any confusion. Too often this comment is said in the context of Kritiks, but the same is true for 2ACs on case and 2NCs/1NRs on other off-case positions.

– I’m not the best for teams reading Kritikal arguments. I didn’t read a lot of Kritikal arguments in high school, which means that I don’t understand your arguments as well as most judges. If you do want to read a kritik and pref me, then structural kritiks like capitalism, militarism, and security and identity kritiks like anti-blackness, feminism, and queer theory are fine. Post-modern kritiks are really pushing my boundaries. However, you shouldn't over-adapt. I would much prefer you read arguments you're familiar with and are able to clearly articulate over arguments I understand. I will be able to follow along with what you're saying so long as you're properly explaining key components of your argument.

– I don't often vote on 0% risk of anything. Although I have voted on 0% risk of impacts or solvency in the past, this was mostly because aff/neg teams provided insufficient responses, rather the other side being so good at beating an argument into the ground. In a debate where both sides are sufficiently responding to each other's arguments, I default to impact calculus more than anything else.

– "Soft-Left" affs have become increasing popular and common. I don't have an issue with these affs in general, but I do have an issue with 1ACs that have a short 3-4 card advantage with 5-minute-long framing contentions that include pre-empts like "no nuclear war", "[x] DA has [y]% risk", and "[z] thumped their DAs". Teams that read these 1ACs seem to have an aversion to debate. I have read these 1ACs in the past, so I understand the strategic utility of long framing contentions. However, I much prefer listening to 1ACs that have well-developed advantage and solvency contentions. I enjoy sifting through quality evidence that came from the topic literature base rather than evidence I can find in my backfiles.

– Unlike most judges, I flow cross-ex. This doesn't mean I consider cross-ex a speech, rather I am taking notes of cross-ex. You don't need to go into detail about what happened during cross-ex during your speech. I will understand the reference and evaluate your use of cross-ex accordingly.

Topicality

– I generally default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I err towards reasonability when there isn't a coherent case list, a persuasive link to the limits disad, or high-quality evidence defending the interpretation. Reasonability is about the aff's counter-interpretation, not the aff.

– I'm not persuaded by "plan text in a vacuum". Just inserting the resolution into your plan text isn't enough to prove that the aff is topical. You have to prove your mechanism fits under the resolution.

Framework

– Comparative impact calculus matters more than winning in-roads to the other side's offense. I am more likely to vote on "procedural fairness outweighs maximizing revolutionary education" over "switch-side debate solves the aff's offense." Winning turns and access to the other side's offense increases your chance of winning, but they aren't necessary to winning the debate. These arguments are inherently defensive and, alone, are not enough to win the debate.

– Despite the above preference, I rarely vote aff when the 2AR impact turns topical, resolutional debates without a counter-interpretation. I don't find impact turns such as "framework is violent", "topical debate is bad", or "fiat is bad" persuasive. I am more likely to vote aff when there is a clear and coherent counter-interpretation paired with an argument about the skills and/or education gained from that model of debate. Winning some comparative advantage to your model is more convincing than going for an absolute disadvantage to the neg's model of debate. This doesn't mean I won't vote aff when the 2AR is just an impact turn.

– Recently, many negative teams have increasingly gone for clash and education as the impact in the 2NR. I find procedural fairness as a more persuasive impact than clash and education. Members of the debate community approach debate as if it were an academic game, which means the collapse of that game discourages further investment into the activity.

Kritiks

– Like most judges, I prefer case-specific links. Links frame the degree to which the neg gets all of their offense and K tricks on framework, the permutation, and the alternative. The more the link is about the broader structures that the aff engages in, the more likely I am to err aff on perm solvency of the links. I'm a sucker for 1AC quotes/re-highlights as proof of a link.

– Kritiks that push back on the aff's theory of the world require, at least in some part, case defense. Defense to the 1ACs impacts or solvency claims are useful to disprove the necessity of doing the aff. I'm more likely to be convinced that the aff has manufactured their threats and have engaged in militarist propaganda when you've proven the aff wrong about their scenarios. Absent sufficient case defense, extinction outweighs, and I vote aff.

– K tricks are fine. However, I won't give very high speaks if a debate is won or lost on them. I am not a fan of floating PIKs, especially if it's not clear until the 2NR.

Counterplans

– I absolutely love counterplans that come from re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC. Even if your counterplan doesn’t come from their 1AC author, the more case specific it is, the more likely I am to reward you for it.

– Presumption flows towards the least change. I consider most CPs that are not PICs as a larger change than the aff.

– I will judge kick unless told otherwise. If I believe the CP links back to its net benefit or the permutation resolves the links to the net benefit, I will evaluate the net benefit independent of the CP.

Disadvantages

– DAs that rely on poor-evidence can be easily beaten without the 2AC ever reading new evidence against it. I am much more comfortable voting aff on "your uniqueness evidence is horrible" than 1% risk of a poorly carded DA. I am also very sympathetic to the 1AR making new arguments when the block reads new evidence to defend parts the 1NC poorly defended.

Theory

– Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument, except for condo. This is especially true when there isn’t any in-round abuse. Theory arguments that such as counterplans without solvency advocates, vague alts, etc. are reasons to be skeptical of the solvency of the counterplan or alt. They are rarely reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments like PICs bad, floating PIKs bad, agent CPs bad, etc. are reasons to reject the counterplan or alt. These arguments can be reasons to reject the team, but only if the neg severely mishandles the theory debate and the 1AR and 2AR are really good on them. The same is true for theoretically suspect permutations.

– I think the most reasonable number of conditional worlds the neg should have is two. Three or four is pushing it. If the neg only reads advantage counterplans or kritiks specific to the 1ACs plan, then I lean neg on condo even if they counter-interpretation is an infinite number of worlds. So long as those worlds are both textually and functionally (or philosophically) competitive, then I’m good with it. Obviously, new affs also justify infinite conditionality.

– I don't vote on shotty theory arguments like ASPEC, Disclosure Theory, New Affs Bad, etc. unless they are dropped and well-impacted out.

Miscellaneous

– I will always disclose or give feedback after the round is over. Debaters will only improve if they are given proper feedback and the opportunity to ask questions about the round. I want to watch and enjoy good debates, but that can only happen when debaters improve and know how to effectively articulate their arguments.

– For UIL State, the above is not true.

LD

– If the affirmative is going for an RVI, it needs to be the entirety of your last speech and you must prove in-round abuse. I won't reject arguments or the negative otherwise.

PF

– Just because I judge CX doesn't mean I want to watch a CX debate. Debate as if I'm a parent judge with no knowledge about the topic. This means no spreading, theory, or Kritiks. If you debate like it's a CX debate, I will not give you speaks higher than 28.

– Please send cases/evidence through an email chain. My email is above.

I debated for Mukwonago High School from 2011-2014

Debate was my favorite part of high school. This activity is something I truly enjoy, so even if I am not super familiar with the topic, I'm here for the spirit of the sport.

When I'm judging, I am most concerned about what is the most logical. (I was a 2A and one of my favorite phrases was "try or die for the aff") Please don't make me make connections or draw conclusions because certain cards were dropped or you just didn't flow the argument all the way through. I think of myself as defaulting to a "policymaker" paradigm a lot because I like arguments that are logical and consistent.

I will time you and I also hope you're timing yourself because there is nothing like not knowing how much time you've got left in the 1AR.

Things I enjoy (policy):

- Politics DAs(when I was in high school I struggled with these DAs but now they make so much more sense because of how little our government has accomplished in the past 10 years since I started debating)

-Topicality (I think this is a particularly important issue if you are dealing with an unfamiliar aff and can provide examples of which plans would actually work under your interpretation- fair warning, I enjoy the technicality of this argument but I will not vote solely on it) *usually.

-Counterplans (sometimes it hurts me to vote for essentially a different aff, but if your counterplan addresses solvency deficits better than the aff and is actually catered to the specific aff you're facing, you're going to get my vote. But please please please don't do a PIC- I will be annoyed and triggered.)

Things I enjoy (PF):

-Evidence: quality over quantity and demonstrate an understanding of your evidence; basically, it is important to explain why this piece of evidence is important and why it is better than your opponents. Please also understand where a statistic comes from and the context behind it.

-Weighing is SUPER important in the round. In your final focus, I really like it when debaters tell me where I should be voting and why.

-When extending an argument, please articulate why I should be pulling it through, not just "pull this through, they didn't address it."

-During crossfire, I will listen, but if there is something brought up you want me to pay attention to, you need to mention it during your speech.

-Framework can become a voting issue for me. I have definitely voted on it before, but it has to relate to the arguments.

Please please please give me a road map before you start your speech. I also appreciate sign-posting during your speech.

Thing(s) I am sometimes skeptical of:

-K's (I have trouble grasping the higher level because I think it distracts from what I think the main purpose of the debate is which is passing a policy or not passing a policy based on it's effectiveness and likelihood, for me. BUT I will enjoy a K debate if you actually understand what you're saying and not just reading cards without any analysis.)

Some decorum:

-Please be respectful and courteous people

-On CX please try not to interrupt one another between the question and answer

-Don't steal prep time

-If possible, please have your camera on when you're speaking (I understand if it is not possible)

Eagle High School ’18, UC Berkeley ‘22

markeusterman@gmail.com

General

I will try to be as unbiased as possible. This means that you should read what you are best at. I’ll let you know my preferences, but I can generally be convinced otherwise if you win the argument.

- Put me on the email chain.

- Tech over truth.

- Flashing/Emailing isn’t prep unless it’s unreasonable/I can see you prepping.

- Don’t steal prep.

- Don’t clip.

- Please do line by line.

- Evidence quality is relevant.

- Condense – don’t go for everything.

- 2nr/2ar should sum up the debate and why you won.

Counterplans/Theory

- Read them.

- Follow on is dope.

- Condo is good.

- 2NC counterplans are good.

- 50 states fiat is probably good. (you should have a fed key warrant)

- Pretty much any counterplan can be justified, but some, like CPs that compete on certainty/immediacy, for example, probably need more of a justification when challenged on theory.

- Most theory doesn’t seem like a reason to reject the team – if so, articulate that.

Case debating

- Do it.

- Pretty undervalued.

- 2AC and 1AR overviews don’t need to be huge/repeat themselves.

Disadvantages

- They’re cool.

- Turns case arguments are good.

- Plz do line by line.

- Do impact comparison – how do impacts interact with each other.

- Justify impact calculus. (i.e. why timeframe should come first, etc.)

Topicality/FW

- Do impact comparisons.

- Default to competing interps unless reasonability is won.

- Reasonability is good as an impact threshold argument – how much of T needs to be won.

- Fairness is an impact.

- TVAs should be utilized more. I tend to consider them as a CP and DA (obviously not an offcase position though).

- Switch side debate is solid.

K Affs

- Can read them but need solid explanation/argumentation to beat T.

- Framework isn’t inherently evil.

- Generally, it is more convincing to actually defend your interpretation vs. theirs, rather than just spew DAs that aren’t distinct from each other without understanding the magnitude of your interpretation.

Ks

- Much of the overview could probably be done on the line by line.

- Need contextualization to the affirmative.

- “Root cause” claims don’t necessarily mean the K solves the case. You should explain that.

- I don’t think that arguments should contain things about the other debaters as individuals.

Any questions? Email me.

email- michaeleusterman@gmail.com

put me on the chain

Eagle High '18, UC Berkeley '22

Overview-

I will evaluate anything. Don’t switch your style. However, I have a higher threshold for certain arguments. Here is a little of what I think about debate, but I can be convinced otherwise if you debate well.

- Tech over truth.

- Flashing/Emailing isn’t prep unless it’s unreasonable/I can see you prepping.

- Don’t steal prep.

- Don’t clip.

- Condense in the block and last speeches

Impacts-

Extinction outweighs, and I am persuaded by turns case with big disads. I think it is less useful dumping fifteen framing cards against disads about structural violence coming first, and more useful to answer the impacts to the disad to make it look silly.

Cards-

read them, read more ev please, and read more warrants from that ev

I find that not enough teams read evidence to warrant claims, and evidence will usually be weighed over analytics. This being said, if there is a major logical hole in a disad, a good analytic can be very persuasive (cards help with that too).

CP/ Theory-

Solid way to beat the case, I think they are underutilized by teams.

Generally- Condo good, pics good, 2NC CPs good, states good (find a fed key warrant). CPs that rely on certainty or immediacy like consult etc. generally are unfair. I believe judge kick is legitimate and think most 2nrs should say judge kick (if the 2AR doesn’t say “THEY DIDN’T SAY JUDGE KICK SO VOTE AFF ON PRESUMPTION” or something like that, then I will judge kick). CP theory is reject the arg.

Da

Solid, win them, wins turns case, do impact work, read more cards. Paired with a CP, explain why CP doesn’t link.

K

I have a higher threshold for teams that go for the K. I think a lot of Ks need to be explained in context of the affirmative, and they aren’t (i.e. why turns case? Not just root cause hopefully unless you explain why the alt resolves their impacts). I generally think fiat is good and debate is a competitive activity, so don’t just assert that its not real and expect me to not evaluate the aff anymore. I don’t understand most high theory stuff and it needs to be explained to me as an argument. Floating PIKs are bad and the 1ar pointing that out will basically make it impossible for the 2nr to win.

K/planless affs and framework

Fairness is an impact, and debate is a competitive activity. I have a very high threshold for these types of affs. 1. Must have some sort of reason why doing your aff on the aff in debate is critical, 2. Please do some explanation of why the interpretation that you give on framework is good instead of just reading a list of disads to their interp that are all the same. Neg- Switch side and TVAs are very persuasive to beat aff offense. It’s important that both the 2NR and 2AR collapse heavily to a few solid arguments.

T

Have impact comparisons, read better cards. Read solid, precise T cards. I generally default to competing interps but don’t think it’s an all or nothing approach. If the aff wins a good defense of reasonability, I may view good defense as offense for the aff.

About me:

Bravo ’20 CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

Instructor at LAMDL and coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

Please ask me questions if you are interested in debating at CSULB

NDCA LD Update:

thoughts

• SCOTUS term limits is a cool topic and I will reward creativity with good speaker points
• Specifically for Neg teams- I need the framework interp and floating pik argument in the NC if you do make one, otherwise i'll see your stuff as too late-breaking and it gives leeway for the aff to label a lot of your arguments new. Similarly, it would help for CP/PIKs to have a short theory shell justifying their potentially abusive counterplan in the NC as well.
• most of yall are way too fast and incomprehensible. i am not flowing off the doc so please put some emphasis on the words you say when spreading analytics and taglines. i recommend recording yourself for a speech and testing to see if you can a) understand yourself and b) flow the entirety of whatever you just said. i will not say "clear" during any of your speeches cus i've never seen it change anybody's speaking in round, and i will let yall know if i did not understand what you said in your speech in the rfd (whether thats a clarity issue or substantive one). i consider myself a good flow either way and will try my hardest to get your words down, but your chances at winning and getting higher speaks improve immensely when you stop spreading your tags/analytics at rates that don't allow for pen time.

• pls no tricks or rvi's. i still don't understand the problems people have with t-nebel but i'd rather not hear it so i don't have to find out.

How I prefer to judge

• Your last rebuttal should start off with an overview-type speech identifying parts of the flow that you have won and why that means you should win the entire debate rather than immediately going to the line-by-line
• I heavily decide debates on technical execution, and only insert my truth when there are gaps that require me to intervene. Like all judges, I look for the easiest way out as long as those strategies have a claim, warrant, impact, and framing for why that comes first.
• I'm rarely expressive when judging so don’t try to use my face to decide your 2ar/2nr strat
• I think arguments come in many forms: poems, songs, identity, academic research, political analysis, etc. I've debated every style in policy debate and enjoy them equally
• no judge kick, no insert rehighlighting unless its a word or two

Speaker points guide/ways to boost them

I decide speaker points largely by how good a debater has identified a winning strategy and executed it. 28 - 28.4 = breaking even, 28.5 - 28.8 = debating to clear, 28.9 - 29.2 = elims, 29.3 - 30 = late elims/top speaker

• Recommend a song to listen to while I write my RFD. +0.1 just cus, +0.2 if I like it, +0.3 if it goes to my playlist. It can't be one I already know (3 tries or no song)
• If we are online and you have pets, +0.1 if you show me them
• Sound like you want to be there

How to lose the round/worsen speaks

• No -isms or -phobias or wishing/threatening harm on people in the round.
• If you have out of round issues with your opponents that make you feel uncomfortable to debate them, please let me know and I’ll try my best to get a double bye/pairing reassignment.
• Don’t waste your opponent’s cx time or purposefully be flippant with your answers.

K Affs

Aff

• Affs should clearly explain how they generate solvency for the problem they identify. The best way to visualize this for me is through material examples grounded in aff evidence or explaining why a specific historical example is in line with the affirmative’s advocacy (this one requires really good linkages)
• V. Framework - I prefer the DA+CI combo than just an impact turn.

Neg

• Case - presumption arguments in relation to the ballot don't make sense to me unless the aff says ballot key. More presumption arguments should be made about the aff's solvency claims, spillover arguments, and materiality.
• Framework - Clash is the best impact in front me as long as there are internal links to argument refinement, ethical research, advocacy skills, training ground, and other pedagogical arguments of that nature. Switch Side is also better in front of me than a TVA unless you read a solvency advocate.

K v. K

• The team that provides actual examples for the DA's against the other side's theory of power/advocacy/performance is more likely to win in front of me. These debates are theoretically heavy in nature and I need examples of how this impacts lived experiences.
• "no plan no perm" theory will never make sense to me - K v. K rounds have a lot of critical intersections that may warrant a permutation, but it also means that there are slight differentiations in the theories of power that can result in violence, erasure, etc. for people not thought of. all of this just means if you want me to reject the permutation, win a link

Policy v. K

• In an IR topic, Aff teams win in front of me when they have won that their representations of the world are true and they have an impact that outweighs the Kritik. Unless its a soft left aff, I’d much rather hear heg good style arguments than a permutation.
• Neg teams usually win when they have won a link argument that turns the case. Keeping the alternative or kicking it fine by me, but I’d prefer that you have one that solves the links. If the impacts to the Kritik’s links are unrelated to the impact of the affirmative, I think that requires a much heavier framework push.
• Negative teams should have case defense against the affirmative’s representations, impacts, solvency, etc.

Policy v. Policy

• General - I highly value evidence quality and comparison from both sides and it usually decides my ballot when I judge a policy round.
• T - There’s a slight exception when it comes to T debates though. I’d much rather hear a debate over the quality and debatability of caselists that each side offers rather than stuff like framers intent or precision arguments.
• CP - I’d prefer if teams slow down when debating over counterplan theory.
• DA - please make sure the 1nc is a complete shell or I will be extremely lenient with new 1ar arguments

woo/boo/other Debate Thoughts

woo

• I appreciate good email formatting - Tournament Name - Round - Team (Aff) v. Team (Neg)
• I think I also appreciate good tags more than most, make a claim and provide the warrants in the most succinct manner possible. Policy teams tend to shorten tags to extreme lengths and K teams seem to over explain what their highlighting should be doing for them, a happy medium should be found.
• impact turn debates

boo

• when evidence is highlighted in a way that turns words into acronyms that nobody uses: nuclear war --> "n___w__"
• when teams (its usually policy debaters) shorten tags on the fly for no apparent reason. the tag could be a detailed internal link explanation to solvency and they'll just say "that solves, x author y date". like whyyyy i'm not gonna flow that tag im gonna flow what you said and your speaks will lowered as well as i just won't know what your argument is because i'm not gonna fill in those blanks for you.
• The way some cards are highlighted/cut is icky to look at. Sometimes meaning changes altogether or becomes exaggerated and sometimes evidence is tagged to literally just lie.This is not meant to become a voting issue, but smart call-outs can take out solvency/impacts if enough time is spent on it.

other

• coffee > nasty red bull, monster, any energy drink
• highlight color rankings: yellow > blue > any custom color that is light > purple > green

Jackson Frankwick

Email chain --- jacksonrpv@gmail.com

Please be nice.

Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.

If I judge a fairness bad arguement I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness.

If I can't flow you I will stop paying attention.

I try to make my speaks normally distributed(u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).

Prep ends when email is sent.

Topicality is primarily a question of truth.

Debate is better when debaters are business professional (applies to online debate).

Policy debater at SLC West (2017-2021)

Vassar College '25

Coach for Northwood

She/her

Add me to the chain - madelinegalian@gmail.com

General stuff -

- I'm open to any argument/argumentative style, and don't have any strong predispositions that will influence how I evaluate debates.

- Please call me Madeline, not judge.

- Tech > truth.

- If my camera is off, I'm not ready for your speech to begin. Also please keep your cameras on throughout the debate if you can.

- I was a 2N for all 4 years of highschool and ran policy arguments about 95% of the time. I read a variety of hard right and soft left affs, but can't say I love big framing contentions.

- Also not a fan of super long overviews for K's or framework.

- Organized line by line and clarity will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Fav kind of debate are fun impact turns.

- No death good.

- Most importantly, treat your partner and opponents with respect and have fun! :)

T -

- Probs not the best on the water topic unfortunately, but any interp is winnable if debated well.

- I tend to lean towards competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise.

CP/DA -

- Creative, aff-specific CP/DA strategies are my fav.

- Adv CP and impact turn is so fun.

- Include full perm texts in 2AC for any funky perms.

- Condo is generally good, but condo 2AR's are probs under-utilized. Don't spread crazy fast through your blocks and do LBL on CP theory.

K -

- I am most familiar with cap, settler colonialism, security, and anti-blackness. I'm much less familiar with most other K literature; that doesn't mean that i won't vote on it, just be clear in explaining terms.

- Specific link analysis on both sides is key; links should not be explanations of structural conditions of the world, but unique warrants about why the aff directly makes an ongoing problem worse.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

--------------------------------------------------------------NSDA UPDATE---------------------------------------------------------

Lately, I have not received my flowers from the debate community for my exemplary judging. As a result, I will be starting the All-Pro Panel. All-Pro Panel distinctions will be given to the best judges throughout the debate community. This year, I will be determining the honorees. In the future, we should have more voters in the pool. Now to the good stuff.

It is with great honor I would like to present the 2020 All-Pro Panels.

First Panel

Me (obvi)

Rafael Acosta [REDACTED]

Rob Glass (he lives on tabroom.com)

Second Panel

Obinna Dennar [REDACTED]

George Lee (judging while lowkey tiktok famous)

Rafael Acosta (explained above)

Honorable Mentions (in the future this might be Third Panel)

Chris Castillo (voter fatigue)

Eric Emerson (most sits)

Jason Courville (voter bias)

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

Back in my day, I beat Abby Chapman (one of the best debaters of my generation) three times in a row. I'm serious business, kid.

^^^^^^

Hello debate community,

I am sorry for my unbecoming comments posted above. Debaters should never gloat over victories. The truth is Abby Chapman has always been a sore spot for me. Abby Chapman ended my middle school debate career on a 2-1 decision (Jacob Nail's sat) at the Middle School national tournament. Seriously, I cried for two hours. My young heart was broken and my dreams shattered. Abby, I would like to extend a public apology for my rude comments posted above.

--------

Some rounds I am the best judge at the tournament (rarely) sometimes I am the worst (often). hahahha kiddinngg or am I?

I do judge a lot, so I can usually give an rfd that would bring a tear to the eye of Shakespeare's modern reincarnation. This tear would christen their greatest most profound literature bending-binding-changing work, but I am not too special.

-----

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points.

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

He/Him

alexgberg AT berkeley.edu

UC Berkeley ‘25

Parli Stuff

I was an LD debater with a little bit of Policy and a little bit of Parli sprinkled in. So-- I am pretty receptive to things like K's, plans, T, theory, etc. But, I am also fine with a lowkey, issue focused, traditional debate. Just sign post and explain your impacts and voters, no matter what kind of arguments you run. Weigh your impacts plz :)

Key Points

Please let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the debate safer/more accessible for you. Be excellent to each other and we will have a great round! Feel free to ask me any questions over email, or before/after the round. Absolutely ask me for feedback after the round-- that’s how you learn.

If you have a speech doc, please send it to me. It helps me flow, and when I flow better, I make better decisions. I’m good with speed, but slow down on the taglines and analytics.

Speaking of flow, please try to keep it as clean as possible. I like easy decisions! If you roadmap, signpost, and move through the case in a logical order, it will make the round much easier. Write my ballot for me! Tell me how to decide the round, and why you come out on top.

Ethics are important, y’all. Please don’t clip or have egregious evidence ethics violations.

(Slightly) Less Key Points

I’m okay with whatever you want to run! Really: use what you like, or want to try, not what you think I’ll like. But,

1 - K

2 - LARP, Phil

3 - T, Theory

4 - Trad

I mostly ran one-off K’s and soft-left/K affs in high school-- Satire, Security, and Cap.

My (very changeable) Defaults:

Disclosure is good

I don’t really feel that strongly about these, but warrant your changes appropriately:

Theory - Drop the argument, reasonability, no RVI. Would rather see theory used against actual abuse compared to frivolous theory, but you do you.

Condo is fine (but reading obviously contradictory positions is pretty silly)

Flex prep is fine if everyone is okay with it.

Theory comes before T comes before K comes before everything else

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11.

I am currently the policy debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I err tech over truth. Do your best to stay organized. Your disorganization means I have to fight to stay organized rather than focusing entirely on your argumentation. I’m open to nontraditional arguments and K affs.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - I don't like vague plan texts. US and NATO should do cybersecurity is vague. I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaks if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaks. Slow down a little on theory / T shells or at least signpost your standards. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality - Important for limits but I think T and FW abuse is bad for debate. Don't spread like 8 violations. Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - I understand these can be complex topics but I think we can all recognize when the strat is to make it too confusing for the opponent to follow. I need to be able to understand your alt and what you’re trying to accomplish. You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your alt tag without contextualizing or explaining how you functionally access solvency, you don't understand your alt. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I tend to err neg unless you have a specific advocacy for me to endorse. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. I like perms, but you need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse, but I do think spreading 8 off CPs is that. I think I start being open to condo bad around 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I like fiat theory arguments. Especially with some of these ridiculous CPs on the NATO topic. You fiat 29 bilateral agreements?? Come on. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

Current coach at Kent Denver School, University of Kentucky, and Rutgers University-Newark. Previous competitor in NSDA CX/Policy, NDT/CEDA, and NPTE/NPDA. Experience with British Parliamentary and Worlds Schools/Asian Parliamentary.

> Please include me on email chains - nategraziano@gmail.com <

TL;DR - I like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine. Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

Note to coaches and debaters - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in chronological order of how I resolved them. Because of this I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.

1. Tech > Truth

The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.

I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.

More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.

I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.

2. Theory/Topicality/Framework

Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.

For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.

In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)

Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.

Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.

3. Debate is Story Telling

I'm fond of good overviews. Round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end of the debate, is something I reward both on the flow and in your speaker points. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.

I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.

4. Critical Arguments

I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.

As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent and their argument, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.

I've voted for, against, and judged many debates that include narration, personal experience, and autobiographical accounts.

If you have specific questions or concerns don't hesitate to email me or ask questions prior to the beginning of the round - that includes judges, coaches, and competitors. 

5. Speaker Points

I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will always receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:

- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.

- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.

- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."

I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.8-28.9.

Name: Andrew Halverson

School: Currently, I am not actively coaching, but in recent years I was the Assistant Director of Speech & Debate at Kapaun Mount Carmel High School & Wichita East High School (Wichita, KS). I have moved to work in the real world full-time, but I still keep involved with debate as a Board Member of a local non-profit that promotes debate in the Wichita area - Ad Astra Debate.

Experience: 20+ years. As a competitor, 4 years in high school and 3 years in college @ Fort Hays and Wichita State in the mid-late 90's and early 2000's.

Up to March, I have judged 88 rounds this season - mostly LD and Policy. I only have judged PF at the UK Opener.

**ONLINE DEBATING ADDENDUM - updated 3/4/2022**

In my experience, most tournaments are more than gracious with their prep and tech time leading up the start of a round. Please make sure that all of your tech stuff is sorted before beginning AND that you use pre-round prep for disclosure as well. I'm pretty chill about most things, but these two things are my biggest online debating pet peeves.

ALL Online tournament have pre-round tech time built in. Please be in the room for it. It doesn't take long. If it's something that's no fault of your own that is preventing you from tech time, fair. However, if one of the members of your team isn't in the room during pre-round tech time, it's a 0.5-1 speaker point deduction.

Public Forum Section - Updated as of 3/1/2022

As an FYI, I've coached PFD, but by and large, I'm a Policy and Congress coach. If there is anything that isn't answered in this short section, I advise that you take a look the Policy section of my paradigm or ask questions.

I'm going to assume that I don't know the in and outs of your current topic. Please make sure that you explain concepts that I might not know. I've coached a lot of different debate topics over the years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything.

The typical PF norms for evidence/speech docs sharing are terrible. You must put your evidence/speech docs in the Speech Drop, email chain, or whatever BEFORE your speech starts. Don't do it after your speech or in the chat. Also, don't just put a cite in the chat and tell someone to CTRL+F what they are looking for. This is non-negotiable. Other PFD norms, I'm honestly unfamiliar with. I assume there is disclosure and other things, but I don't know for sure.

I'm probably going to evaluate most debates like I would a Policy debate - without all of the mumbo-jumbo that is usually associated with that activity. In brief, that will probably be an offense/defense paradigm with a heavy dose of policymaking sprinkled in. I like good, smart arguments. Make them and clash with your opponents and you will be at a good place at the end of the day.

Policy/LD Debate Section - Changed as of 6/30/2022

++Since most LD has a policy tilt nowadays, this is a pretty accurate representation on how I would view an LD round. Actual value debate and my thoughts on RVI's, you probably should ask me.

++I do want to add something about the penchant to go for RVI's and other random theory cheap shots in front of me in LD. Just saying something is an RVI or that you get one isn't an argument - it's just describing a thing that you might get access to as an argument. There has to be a reason behind your theory gripe or whatever it is. FYI, usually I have a high threshold for voting on these arguments - unless it's a complete drop (which it won't be the case all of the time). Refer to where I talk about blippy theory debates down below if you want any other insight.

This is the first time in a long time that I have engaged in rewriting my judging paradigm. I thought it was warranted – given that debates and performances will be all done virtually in the immediate future. My last iteration of one of these might have been too long, so I will attempt to be as brief as possible.

Some non-negotiables:

**If you send a PDF as a speech doc, I instantly start docking speaker points. Send a Google doc or nearly anything else but no PDFs.

**I want to be on the email chain (halverson.andrew [at] gmail.com). Don’t send your speech doc after your speech. Do it before (unless there are extra cards read, etc.). There are a few reasons I would like this to happen: a) I'm checking as you are going along if you are clipping; b) since I am reading along, I'm making note of what is said in your evidence to see if it becomes an issue in the debate OR a part of my decision – most tournaments put a heavy premium on quick decisions, so having that to look at before just makes the trains run on-time and that makes the powers that be happy; c) because I'm checking your scholarship, it allows for me to make more specific comments about your evidence and how you are deploying it within a particular debate. If you refuse to email or flash before your speech for me, there will probably be consequences in terms of speaker points and anything else I determine to be relevant - since I'm the ultimate arbiter of my ballot in the debate which I'm judging.

**Send your analytics as much as possible. This platform for debate can sometimes be problematic with technical issues that can or can’t be controlled. I’ve judged some debate where the 2nc is in the middle of giving their speech and then their feed becomes frozen. Of course, we pause the debate until we can resolve the technical issues, but it’s helpful for everyone involved to have a doc to know where the debate stopped so we can pick up at that point once we resume.

**Don’t go super-duper, mega, ultra full speed (unless you are crystal bell clear). Slowing down a bit in this format is more beneficial to you and everyone else involved.

**For all of those Kansas traditional teams, yes to a off-time road map. Don’t make it harder than it needs to be.

**Be nice & have fun. If you don’t be nice, then you probably won’t like how I remedy if you aren’t nice. Racist and sexist language/behavior will not be tolerated. Debate is supposed to be a space where we get to get to test ideas in a safe environment.

**Stealing prep time. Don’t do it. After you send out the doc, you should have an idea of a speech order and be getting set to speak. Don't be super unorganized and take another 2-3 minutes to just stand up there getting stuff together. I don't mind taking a bit to get yourself together, but I find that debaters are abusing that now. When I judge by myself, I'm usually laid back about using the restroom, but I strongly suggest that you consider the other people in a paneled debate - not doing things like stopping prep and then going to the bathroom before you start to speak. I get emergencies, but this practice is really shady. Bottom-line: if you're stealing prep, I'll call you on it out loud and start the timer.

**Disclosure is something I can't stand when it's done wrong. If proper disclosure doesn't happen before a round, I'm way more likely to vote on a disclosure argument in this setting. If you have questions about my views on disclosure, please ask them before the debate occurs - so you know where you stand. Otherwise, I can easily vote on a disclosure argument. This whole “gotcha” thing with arguments that you have already read is so dumb.

**New in the 2nc is bad. What I mean by that is whole new DA's read - old school style - in the 2nc does not foster good debate OR only read off-case in the 1nc and then decide to read all new case arguments in the 2nc. I'm willing to listen to theory arguments on the matter (and have probably become way more AFF leaning on the theory justification of why new in the 2nc is bad), BUT they have to be impacted out. However, that's not the best answer to a NEG attempting this strategy. The best answer is for the 1ar to quickly straight turn whatever that argument is and then move on. Debaters that straight turn will be rewarded. Debaters that do new in the 2nc will either lose because of a theory argument or have their speaks tanked by me.

Now that’s out of the way, here are some insights on how I evaluate debates:

**What kind of argument and general preferences do I have? I will listen to everything and anything from either side of the debate. You can be a critical team or a straight-up team. It doesn’t matter to me. An argument is an argument. Answering arguments with good arguments is probably a good idea, if the competitive aspect of policy debate is important to you at all. If you need some examples: Wipeout? Sure, did it myself. Affirmatives without a plan? Did that too. Spark? You bet. Specific links are great, obviously. Of course, I prefer offense over defense too. I don’t believe that tabula rasa exists, but I do try to not have preconceived notions about arguments. Yet we all know this isn’t possible. If I ultimately have to do so, I will default to policymaker to make my decision easier for me.

**Don't debate off a script. Yes, blocks are nice. I like when debaters have blocks. They make answering arguments easier. HOWEVER, if you just read off your script going for whatever argument, I'm not going to be happy. Typically, this style of debate involves some clash and large portions of just being unresponsive to the other team's claims. More than likely, you are reading some prepared oration at a million miles per hour and expect me to write down every word. Guess what? I can't. In fact, there is not a judge in the world that can accomplish that feat. So use blocks, but be responsive to what's going on in the debate.

**Blippy theory debates really irk me. To paraphrase Mike Harris: if you are going as fast as possible on a theory debate at the end of a page and then start the next page with more theory, I'm going to inevitably miss some of it. Whether I flow on paper or on my computer, it takes a second for me to switch pages and get to the place you want me to be on the flow. Slow down a little bit when you want to go for theory - especially if you think it can be a round-winner. I promise you it'll be worth it for you in the end.

**I’m a decent flow, but I wouldn’t go completely crazy. That being said, I’m one of those critics (and I was the same way as a debater) that will attempt to write down almost everything you say as long as you make a valiant attempt to be clear. Super long overviews that aren't flowable make no sense to me. In other words, make what you say translate into what you want me to write down. I will not say or yell if you aren’t clear. You probably can figure it out – from my non-verbals – if you aren’t clear and if I’m not getting it. I will not say/yell "clear" and the debate will most definitely be impacted adversely for you. If I don’t “get it,” it’s probably your job to articulate/explain it to me.

**I want to make this abundantly clear. I won't do work for you unless the debate is completely messed up and I have to do some things to clean up the debate and write a ballot. So, if you drop a Perm, but have answers elsewhere that would answer it, unless you have made that cross-application I won't apply that for you. The debater answering said Perm needs to make the cross-application/answer(s) on their own.

Contact me if you have any questions. Hope this finds you well and healthy - have a great season!!

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

Judges for: Sonoma Academy, Meadows, Montgomery Bell

UCLA '23

Experience: Participated in 4 years of national circuit policy debate, cleared at most tournaments. Currently not participating in college debate due to the lack of infrastructure at UCLA.

Add me to the email chain: gibran.fridi@gmail.com

post DAMUS update: CROSS EX IS NOT PREP. If I see any more teams taking most if not all of cross-ex as prep, I will be deducting one full speaker point per 10 seconds of cross ex taken as prep.

Email Chain Format: [Tournament Name Round # : Aff Name vs Neg Name]

Speed is fine, but clarity over speed! If I don't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. Also please disclose on the wiki. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate more accessible for you. Emailing me or talking to me before the round totally works.

TLDR

Do what you do best. Trying to adapt to me as a judge is a waste of time. I will vote for any argument you run as long as you do it well.

Arguments are claims, warrants, and impacts -- means that "dropped" arguments are true only if you explain why they matter and the reasons they're true. I need more explanation than just "they dropped the DA- we win!"

Tech>Truth

Topicality

I'm down to see a good T debate! I think T is vastly underused by 2Ns. If your 1N is a killer T debater, use it to your advantage. Most affs to some extent are untopical, so make them stop cheating. Have a good interp/counter interp and give me some good clash on the standards debate. I don't defer to reasonability or competing interps, so I will be convinced by both.

Theory

I've gone for condo twice in my four years of doing debate, and it's still one of my favorite rounds. That being said, if condo is a legit strat for you it should be a big part of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. I will vote on condo, but there has to be in round abuse. If they read states and neolib, I will not be very convinced to vote on condo. And I definitely believe that neg should definitely have condo to test the aff. Other theory args aren't as convincing to me unless the other team completely drops it. That's the only time I might vote on it.

DA

Probably my favorite debate argument. I love a good CP/DA neg start. You do you here.

CP

A good advantage CP with a sick DA can be a killer neg strat. But have some good evidence on how and why the CP solves. Usually, 1AC evidence can be used as solvency advocates for ADV CPs. Also, the CP better be competitive, cause then I have no reason to vote for it.

K

Yes, most K's are cool and I will definitely still vote on the K even though I'm most familiar with policy arguments. I think Ks are very interesting and probably produce the most real-world change. But if you don't understand your K and can't explain it to your opponents, I will have a VERY hard time voting for it. Have some good links that you can explain. Also, the alt better solve or at least do something. If you can't explain what the alt does and what voting neg does, then please don't read that K. There's nothing more embarrassing than watching a K team not know what they are talking about in cross-ex. What K lit I know well (Cap, Set Col, Gnoseology, Security, Orientalism, Foucault). If you read any authors that start with a B (Bifo, Baudrillard, Battile etc, just don't pref me lol). Bad K debates are worse than bad policy debates.

Policy Affs

Do what you do best. Have solvency advocates, win the case solves something.

K Affs

Used to err neg on these debates, but as I judge more and more rounds, I feel differently now lol. I don't really have a preference anymore and yes I will vote for K affs. I am more experienced with policy but recently I have really enjoyed K aff rounds. Same rules apply as the K above.

Case

Destroy them on case. Nothing makes the 1AR harder than amazing case debate in the block.

Speaks

Don't steal prep. Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless it becomes an issue in the round. If you're very unclear, I will dock your speaks. Please don't clip. That's the last thing I want to deal with. You will lose the round, get a 0 and I will have to have a conversation with your coach. Also please don't make sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. comments. You will lose the round and get a 0. Don't be mean to the other team.

Hello debaters,

Welcome to the wonderful world of debate! I debated three years for Kelly high school (2006-09) in Chicago. I currently coach 3 high schools in San Jose.

I believe debate should be fun and a space where high school debaters have a platform to discuss the ideas of the resolution.

I usually vote based off an offense/defense paradigm.

Impact Calculus are always a win in my book!

I welcome all arguments and styles of debate if impacted, well explained and not ignorant and/or discriminatory in nature.

I am NOT a fan of tag team cross-x I like evaluating everyone individually.

I like overviews that give me a clear picture of what the debate comes down to. Why your arguments outweigh that of your opponents.

slucia.hernandez2@gmail.com if you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me.

I love good clean road maps, sign posting, line-by-line and an emphasis on tags. 

Good luck in your debate careers!

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Recently retired from the debate world but I am back for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

Experience:

* 4 years high school policy (national circuit & lay debate) at Pembroke Hill; 1 year college policy at UC Berkeley

* 2 years assistant coaching at Harker; 1-time lab leader at both the CNDI & SCUFI; ~5 years judging

Preferences:

Reflecting back on almost 15 years since I began with the activity, I feel like the strongest benefits of competitive debate are the development of research, persuasion, and advocacy skills.

I've both judged and participated in a wide variety of K & Policy debates, across the spectrum. No matter what kind of argument you want to make, you should run what you are best prepared to excel in.

Dropped arguments aside, and especially in the rebuttals, I've found that depth is more important than breadth. Often the difference between a close round and a decisive victory for one side is having a well-developed impact calculus and clear explanation of why your position is stronger, relying on detailed, comparative analysis.

When deciding on a strategy or which arguments to focus on, I place a high value on truth - gauged by the strength of your evidence and analysis. The truer your position is, the better positioned you will be to magnify or compensate for technical strengths or weaknesses.

The best debaters (29+ speaker points) are able to excel all of the above, while maintaining that delicate balance between "playing the game" at the highest level and exhibiting some awareness of the "bigger picture" of how these issues and your analysis are significant and ideally still make sense outside of the conventions of debate as well.

T/Framework:

The key in any framework or topicality debate, on either side, is to go beyond the buzzwords and really engage in comparative analysis on the central questions at stake.

What are the implications of allowing, or not allowing, a certain kind of argument? Or: prioritizing, or not prioritizing, a certain kind of impact?

Focus as much as you can on these core questions and the relevant impact calculus. Usually, I find that it is the internal links which are the weakest and most in need of development (i.e., why a particular approach to, for example, 'policymaking' or 'discourse' is important and does or doesn't access your impacts)(or: why an argument has or hasn't triggered a certain thresh-hold of limits/predictability that justifies including or excluding it in the debate).

Dis/advantages:

Internal links and impact calculus are generally the most important, and most neglected, aspects of these debates. I really think that the best arguments can be made here if you are able to take a step back and ask yourself whether your position as a whole truly makes sense and is plausible, even outside the conventions of debate. Is the position you are taking - as a whole - one that is really supported in the literature, or by a reasonable analysis? One rock-solid scenario with an air-tight link-chain and a real, serious, warranted impact will beat ten scraped-together scenarios with tenuous link-chains and implausible impacts any day in my book.

Policy v. K:

On either side of the debate, it's really important that you know what you are talking about. Failing to engage with the specifics of your opponents' arguments is the quickest way to lose this kind of debate. Defending the truth of your position and the value of your approach to the relevant issues is the baseline from which you can best defend or refute the validity of any kind of critical theory.

I have read a lot of critical literature and empirical political history, and place a high value on both practical concerns and philosophical depth. The best debaters should be able to take advantage of this on either end of the spectrum.

Speed and Evidence:

Clarity is VERY important, especially if you want good speaker points. Often there can be benefit found in slowing down a little - more time is generally lost to inefficient, irrelevant or repetitive rhetoric than a lack of raw speed.

If your evidence doesn't have strong warrants in it, it is vital that you are supplying additional analysis in your own speeches. The best evidence always goes beyond making basic assertions that are rhetorically specific enough to capitalize on in a round, and instead presents warranted arguments which you can summarize, lean on, or extrapolate and apply to defend the truth of your position.

Chaminade 21.

Michigan 25 (Hormozdiari-Sposito).

azirae7@gmail.com

If both teams agree to present stock pitches instead of giving speeches, I will comply, max speaks, and gain significant respect for you. If not, please send perm texts.

Do your thing. I am not here to limit you. I love debate and did it all four years in high school and a little in college. I ran a K aff on the national circuit in high school as a little background. But that doesn’t really matter. It is up to y’all on what you want the debate to be about. So please debate however you feel you will do best. I want to see debaters debating about what they know not what they think I would like.

On a side note go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. It’s the UDL I am from. Also I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Everything you have thought to be true about me, is true and also false. Proceed accordingly. Let the cards fall where they may. 

I am a philosopher, a student, a teacher, a nomad, and above all I believe in facilitating life changing educational discourse. Debate is an always evolving process, changing amongst itself, scratching its way towards its own repressed fallibility. Debate is a sport and to expedite the words of J Cole, its dead. What vestige of debate are you attempting to salvage? What year of nostalgia really gets you going? For me its the future of debate. It's unintended telos is ever reaching past our own limited conditional beliefs about what scholarship belongs here and will continue to do so for many years to come. 

Topicality - I pose this question.. Is not the whole resolution up for debate? Play ball. 

Framework - This model of debate has played telephone with some ideologically dogmatic people. Therefore, if it becomes a debate about whether whole lexicons of scholarships should be sacrificed to preserve the integrity of a game that doesn't exist, then how sway? 

Disadvantages- Heading, Claim, Warrant, Impact, Turns, Net Benefits etc. 

CP- Functionally and Textually competitive counterplans exist. Use them please! 

K - Read some of the base literature before embarking on this journey. Will make the leap less destabilizing. 

Theory - New Game: Prove the abuse. Ready, Set, Go. 

Speaks:
28.7 - 28.8 = Really really really really good! 

28.9 - 29.2 = Really really really good! 

29.3 - 29.5 = Really really good! 

29.6 - 29.9 = Really good! 

30.0 = Break the simulation. 

I listen, I care, I am a really objective judge. Stop at the mirror and ask yourself, isn't this activity unfolding for you in every way it should? Always. Push yourself, but have fun. Read and ask questions. Be open to every and any thought but not without proper discernment. Always be prepared to defend your ideological commitments. Be confident. It alone will win you more debates than you can ever imagine. 

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.

New Note - I'm totally uninterested in adjudicating arguments that endorse self harm. I won't auto-vote against you but if someone you're debating asks me to stop the debate I will. If I end up voting for you, you will not like your points.

Things like wipeout/spark/other impact turns or like "death k" are a little different than this category for me and you can still read those types of hypothetical impact turns as they don't feel the same as [self harm good].

In person thing - its easier to flow your speeches if you face towards me when you give them - giving speeches with your back to me is :c

I am a coach at the University of Texas-Austin, Liberal Arts and Sciences Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

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

While there are some exceptions, most debaters I've judged the last few years are pretty unclear, so its likely I will miss some arguments. Zoom has magnified this issue for me (not necessarily the debaters fault). Final rebuttals offer you a space to retrace the part(s) of the debate you think are most relevant to the decision. This both makes it much more likely I will understand your argument and will likely improve your speaker points.

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

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

Another new thing - my favorite debates are ones where the affirmative defends a topical example of the resolution (how you interpret the words in the resolution are up to you, but in this scenario you would defend a change from the status quo and defend the implications of your change w/either a traditionally topical plan or a well thought out and carded counter-interpretation) - the negative then criticizes the representations, justifications, philosophy, ethics, or method of the plan and make arguments about whether I should weigh the plan or prioritize something else first. Obviously you shouldn't try to over-adapt and do this if its not your thing, but well executed policy v K debates with lots of research, examples, and high quality evidence will be rewarded with extremely high points for all four participants.

Framework-

newer - I don't judge many non-framework debates anymore. I tend to vote neg when the neg wins clash is the biggest/most portable impact + explanation for how it improves over the year as a result of their interp and access aff offense via TVA or SSD. I tend to vote AFF when they win an impact turn to the end result of clash alongside robust answers to the NEG ballot can't access that offense args. I think 2NCs that lack an explanation of how 2nd and 3rd level testing occurs under their interp and changes over the year, with examples, lacks credibility when going for only clash matters (you can maybe win the debate on a different terminal impact, but lately I haven't really voted on other ones). Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. You can persuade me to think one way or the other in any given debate and I've learned to love judging these debates because I often learn new things about the activity and its potential.

older - but not un-true

I find myself voting negative a lot on procedural fairness a lot, even though I don't think this is the most persuasive version of T. The reason is that K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Testing arguments become much more persuasive to me when you give specific examples for how those would occur. What neg args would you be able to read against a potential TVA? Why is it good for the 2AC to research those positions, how would you researching answers to their answers be beneficial? A lot of this stuff just gets assumed and I think that a lot of repetitiveness from most framework 2NCs can be substituted for this kind of depth early in the debate. 2NRs sometimes seem to spend so much time on why they access AFF lit base/impacts that they don't end up extending a terminal impact or external offense at all. I think it's difficult to win a debate when you basically go for a CP w/o a net benefit.

Counter-plans-

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

Disads

-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can potentially win that agenda politics disads are not a logical opportunity cost.

-uniqueness controls the direction of the link typically makes the most sense to me, but you can probably convince me otherwise

LD -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF -

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

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

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

Yes, put me on email chains: allenkim.debate@gmail.com

Top-level:

1. Do what you do best... Although my personal debate career was nothing to write home about, I've engaged in a lot of the literature bases the activity has to offer, from reading exclusively Policy Affs at the start of high school to performing Asian identity Affs towards the end of high school/in college and giving lectures on pomo stuff as a coach. At a bare minimum, I will be able to follow a majority of debates.

2. ...but write my ballot for me. Judge intervention is annoying for everyone; the best debaters in my opinion are those that identify the nexus questions of the debate early on and use where they are ahead to tell me how to resolve those points in their favor. That involves smart comparative work, persuasive overviews, incorporation of warrants, etc. that I can use as direct quotes for a RFD.

3. Speed is fine, but in the words of Jarrod Atchison, spreading is the number of ideas, not words, communicated per minute. I will say clear once per speech and then stop flowing if it remains unclear.

4. CX: I'll flow portions I think are important. Tag-team is fine, but monopolization is not. I would prefer that questions about whether your opponent did/did not read a piece of evidence happen during CX/prep, but this practice seems to have been normalized during online debate—which I am begrudgingly okay with.

5. The only particularly strong argumentative preference that I have (other than obvious aversions to strategies involving harassment or personal attacks) is that I will not vote for warming good. I won't immediately DQ you for reading it, but I will not sign my ballot for you on it. My research concerns how to work against climate denialism in the American public, which I find difficult to reconcile with voting for authors like Idso. I'd like to see the debate community phase out this "scholarship" as soon as possible, and I definitely don't want to have to listen to it.

Specifics —

Policy Affs - Great. I love a detailed case debate and will reward teams that engage in one.

T vs. Policy Affs - Love it, but if it's obvious you read your generic T shell solely as an effort to sap time, it loses most of its persuasive value for me. Specific and well explained violations and standards are key; to vote for you, I need to understand why your model of debate is preferable, not just why your interp evidence is better. I find myself about 60-40 partial to competing interpretations.

CPs - Two quirks: first, I prefer when the block elaborates on Solvency deficits to the Aff that the CP resolves instead of just relying on a large internal/external net benefit to make the CP preferable. I believe it's strategic to do so because if the Aff wins a low risk of the net benefit, the desirability of the CP vis-à-vis the plan gets thrown into flux—paired with the reality that most good 2ACs will include analytical reasons why the CP doesn't solve the Aff. Second, I think that CPs that could result in the implementation of the plan (i.e. consult, delay, process) are probably abusive, which makes me more conducive to theory arguments against them. These biases are far from absolute, but you should be aware of them.

Given no other instruction, I will not judge kick the CP.

DAs - I dig grandiloquent OVs with smart, in-depth sequencing/turns case arguments that decisively win that the DA outweighs the case (and vice versa). The link story and the internal link chain are the most important for me; the more specific your link evidence, the better. Zero risk is possible.

I'd love if more Aff teams were bold enough to link/impact turn DAs, it certainly makes for more interesting debates than four minute UQ walls.

Ks - The best 2NCs/blocks I have seen here typically involve 1) extensive contextualization of the links to the 1AC or the Aff speech acts, and 2) more generally, a high degree of organization that strategically chooses specific areas of the debate to extend/answer certain arguments. On the first: while evidence quality obviously matters a lot in terms of the analysis you can do, I'm also a big fan of references to/direct quotes from Affirmative speeches and CX to analytically develop the link debate. On the second: I think many speeches on the kritik get overwhelmed by the intensive burdens of both explaining their own positions and answering the 2AC and end up putting everything everywhere. In contrast, well-structured speeches that do things like explaining the links under the perm or putting the alt explanation before the line-by-line to 2AC alt fails arguments provide a great deal of clarity to my adjudication of the page.

The two points above also demonstrate that I am not the best judge for particularly long overviews. In most scenarios, having substance on the line-by-line where I can directly identify where you want each argument to be considered is much better for me than putting it all at the top and expecting me to apply it on the flow for you.

Lit base wise, I'm less experienced with "high theory" arguments (e.g. Baudrillard), so pref me accordingly. The Leland teams I've worked with have mainly gone for cap/setcol/race-based Ks, so that's where my personal familiarity lies as well.

K Affs - Ambivalence is a good word to describe my thoughts here. I think that debate is a game with pedagogical benefits and epistemological consequences, and that Affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution/provide a reasonable window for Negative engagement. What that means or where the bright-lines are, I'm not entirely sure. Subjects of the resolution and even debate itself may have insidious underpinnings, but I need to understand what voting for the advocacy/performance (if applicable) does about the state of those issues. As a judge, I find myself asking more questions than before about what my ballot actually does; providing the answers through ROB analysis and explanations of the Aff's theory will serve you well.

FW - Both 2NRs and 2ARs are most likely to win my ballot if they collapse to 1-2 pieces of offense that subsume/turn what the other 2nd rebuttal goes for and are ahead on a risk of defense. For example, a 2NR could win a strong risk of a limits DA to the Aff's counter-interpretation with a well-articulated predictability push that it's a priori to any educational/discursive benefits of the 1AC, paired with a sufficient switch-side debate solves component to reduce the gravity of exclusion-based offense. A 2AR could win large impact turns to the subject formation of the 1NC's interpretation of debate that implicate the desirability of fairness/skills, followed by an articulation of the types of Neg ground that would be available under their interpretation that resolves residual fairness offense. There are many different ways in which this type of 2NR/2AR can materialize, and I believe I'm an equally good judge for fairness/skills/movements—so do what you're best at!

I place very high importance on the 2AC counter-interpretation. This stems from a belief that framework is ultimately a clash between two models of debate, and the counter-interpretation is the first point in these debates where I'm given explicit constructions and comparisons of them. Negatives should capitalize on poorly worded counter-interpretations, using their language to create compelling limits/predictability offense and articulating reasons why they link to the Aff's own offense. Affirmatives should aggressively defend the debatability of the counter-interpretation, outlining a clear role of the Negative and being transparent about the types of Affs that they would exclude to push back against predictability.

Theory - In general, I have a relatively high threshold for rejecting the team; this doesn't mean I won't vote on theory, it just means that I want you to do the work. There should be be ample analysis on how they justify an unnecessarily abusive model of debate with examples/impacted out standards.

I don't have any specific biases either way on condo. I'd strongly prefer if interpretations were not obviously self-serving (e.g. "we get five condo" because you read five conditional off this particular round); while I understand this is at times an inevitability, it's also not the best way to make a first impression for your shell.

Lay - If judging at a California league tournament/a lay tournament of equivalence, I'll do my best to judge debates from a parent judge perspective unless both teams agree to a circuit-style debate.

If you get me on a panel and some of the other judges are parents/inexperienced, PLEASE don’t go full speed with a super complicated "circuit" strategy. It’s important that all the judges are able to engage in the debate and render decisions for themselves based on the arguments presented; if they miss those arguments because you’re going 700 WPM or because they don’t know who this Deleuze person is, you are deliberately excluding them from the debate, which is disrespectful no matter how inexperienced they may be. I’ll still be able to make decisions based off your impact framing and explanations, so cater to the judges who may not understand rather than me.

Last thing: please be respectful of one another. I hate having to watch debates where CX devolves into pettiness and debaters are just being toxic. I will reward good humor and general maturity. Have fun :)

If your name is Hannah Lee and you are reading this, you are amazing, have a nice day

Lane Tech - 2012 - 2013

Iowa City High - 2013 - 2016

University of Northern Iowa - 2016 - 2017

Emporia State 2018 - 2021

Berkeley Prep - 2021 -

-----

2022 Update

TLDR:

-email chain -

BerkeleyPrepDocs@gmail.com

natodocs@googlegroups.com

-Recently retired k-leaning flex debater/resident performative stunt queen for Berkeley Prep Debate

-would much rather judge a really good policy v policy round than a poorly executed k round - BUT - would ultimately prefer to judge a k v k round where both sides have competing and creative strategies that they are both a) deeply invested in and b) have interesting interpretations of. Those are the rounds I always had the most fun in, but to be clear, I have also realized over the years that a policy v policy round has the potential for just as much, if not more and have no problem judging these debates.

-the team executing whatever argument they are most comfortable with at the highest level they can, will always in my eyes have an easier time getting my ballot/receiving higher speaks which means that the the speeches I want to see are those that you are enthused about giving and ultimately, I want you to be excited to be able to do whatever it is that you are best at.

-went for everything from big stick warming affs to f*** debate performance 1AC's, to Black/Native Studies like Warren, Wilderson, Moten, King, Gumbs and Hartman to Queer theory like Butler, Edelman and Trans-Rage to High theory like Nietzsche, Baudy and OOO as well as Procedurals like T/FW/A- and I-Spec, Disads/Case turns like to deterrence, politics and SPARK and of course, multiple different flavors of counterplans. so regardless of what it is you go for I'm down - just don't take this as an excuse to not use judge instruction/concise explanations that makes sense - even if I was a Nietzsche one - trick in high school that doesn't mean I'm going to do the nihilism work for you. All this is to say is that whoever you may be, you should feel comfortable that I have in some way or another had a certain level of experience with your literature base.

Important Note:

Due to recent events its been suggested to me that I add a layer to my philosophy I wasn't sure was necessary, but in an effort to help protect future debaters/debate rounds, as well as myself/fellow judges, here is what I will say -

While I do empathize with the competitive nature of this activity, it should go without saying that if there is violence of any kind, whether that be intentional or not, my role as an educator in this community is to intervene if that situation deems my involvement to be necessary and I want to make it very clear that I have no qualms in doing so. Its important to recognize when we have to put the game aside and understand as a community that we have a responsibility to learn from situations like those and to be better as we move forward. SO just for the sake of clarity, I do not have a desire to stop rounds, in fact - quite the opposite. However, my role as a judge (one that I would hope others embody when judging my own students) is one that adjudicates the round in the most equitable means possible AS WELL AS one that ensures the safety of, to the best of my capacity, each debate round and all of its participants/observers.

Also - Sometimes, and not always, but in the same fashion as countless other judges, I can, at times, be a very reactive/nonverbal judge. Understanding that those kinds of things are a) an inevitable part of this activity b) not always caused by something you did and c) can be incredibly critical in your in round-decision making is crucial and is a fundamental skill that I believe to be vastly important in succeeding within this activity. HOWEVER, that means that whether or not you choose to modify what you are doing based off how I am reacting is, at the end of the day, your decision and your decision alone - recognizing when to do so/when not to is a core facet of competing.

Strike me if you don't like it.

specific feels about certain things:

- have aff specific link explanations regardless of offcase position - that doesnt mean that every card has to be specific to the aff but your explanation of the link should be as specific to the 1AC as you can make possible - extra speaker points to those who can successfully pull lines

- hot take: after all this time in online debate, I will in fact "verbally interject if unable to hear" regardless of whether you make that clear to me before you begin your speech - so as a personal preference don't feel obligated to say that anymore. Id rather you just give me an order and start after getting some signal (verbal or visual) that we're all ready. as an incentive to help try and stop this practice, expect a lil boost in points.

- that being said, "as specific to the 1AC" means you could have a really good link to aff's mechanism. or you could have a great state link. or a link to their impacts. etc. it doesnt matter to me what the link is as long as it is well developed and made specific to what the 1AC is. I dont want to hear the same generic state link as much as the next person but if you make it creative and you use the aff than I dont see a problem.

- affirmatives could be about the topic, or they could not be, its up to you as long as whatever you choose to do you can defend and explain. If you're not about the topic and its a framework debate, I need to know what your model of debate is or why you shouldnt need to defend one etc. if youre reading a performance aff, the performance is just as important if not more than the evidence you are reading - so dont forget to extend the performance throughout the debate and use it to answer the other teams arguments.

- whether its one off or 8 please be aware of the contradictions you will be making in the 1NC and be prepared to defend them or have some sort of plan if called out.

- on that note theory debates are fine and could be fun. im not that opposed to voting on theory arguments of all varieties as long as you spend a sufficient amount of time in the rebuttals to warrant me voting on them. most of the time thats a substantial amount if not the entirety of one or more of your rebuttals.

- perm debates are weird and i dont feel great voting for "do both" without at least an explanation of how that works. "you dont get a perm in method debates" feels wrong mostly because like these are all made up debate things anyways and permutations are good ways to test the competitiveness of ks/cps/cas. that being said, if you have a good justification for why the aff shouldnt get one and they do an insufficient job of answering it, i will obviously vote on "no perms in method debates"

- dropped arguments are probably true arguments, but there are always ways to recover, however, not every argument made in a debate is an actual argument and being able to identify what is and isn't will boost your speaker points

speaks:

how these are determined is inherently arbitrary across the board and let's not pretend I have some kind of rubric for you that perfectly outlines the difference between a 28.5 and a 28.6, or a 29.3 and a 29.4, or that my 29.3 will be the same as some other judges.

I do however think about speaks in terms of a competitive ladder, with sections that require certain innate skills which ended up being fairly consistent with other judges, if not slightly on the higher side of things. Hopefully, this section will more so help give you an idea of how you can improve your speeches for the next time you have me in the back.

-26s: these are few and far between, but if are to get one of these, we've probably already talked about what happened after the round. The key here is probably don't do whatever is that you did, and is most likely related to the stuff I talked about at the top.

-27s: If you're getting something in this range from me, it means you should be focusing on speaking drills (with an emphasis on clarity, and efficiency), as well as developing a deeper/fuller analysis of your arguments that picks apart the detailed warrants within the evidence you are reading.

-28s: Still need to be doing drills, but this time with more of an emphasis on affective delivery, finding a comfortable speed, and endurance. At this point, what I probably need to see more from you is effective decision making as well as judge instruction - in order to move into the 29 range, you should be writing my ballot for me with your final rebuttals in so far as using those speeches to narrow the debate down and effectively execute whatever route that may be by painting a picture of what has happened leading up to this moment

-29s: at this point, you're probably fairly clear and can effectively distinguish between pitches and tones as you go in order to emphasize relevant points. The only drills you should be doing here should be concerned with efficiency and breathing control, and if you are in the low 29's this is most likely a clarity issue and you should probably slow down a bit in order to avoid stumbling and bump your speaks up to high 29's. Higher 29's are most likely those who are making the correct decisions at most if not all stages of the debate, and successfully execute the final speeches in ways that prioritize judge instruction, and clearly lay the ballot out for me throughout the speech.

-30s: I actually don't have a problem giving these out, because I think my bar for a "perfect" speech can be subjective in so far as 30's for me can definitely make mistakes, but in the end you had a spectacular debate where you gave it everything you could and then some. I try not to give these out often though because of the risk it could possibly mess with your seeding/breaking, so if you do get one of these, thanks - I had a wonderful experience judging you.

-0.0 - 0.9 - this section is similar for every category in that it is dependent on things like argument extension and packaging, handling flows/the line by line, cross ex, link debating, etc. however, a team that is in the 29 range will have a higher bar to meet for those sort of minutia parts of your speech than those in the 28 or 27. That's because as you improve in delivery you should also be improving in execution, which means that in my eyes, a debater who may be in the 27 range the first time I see them, but is now speaking in the 28 range will have a higher bar than they did before in order to get into the high 28s.

She/Her

Hey yall!! I'm lila, and I have been involved with debate for around 10 years (with 7 years of HS + collegiate competition). I competed in LD for all 4 years of highschool, qualifying to and debating at the TOC my senior year, and competed in NPDA for 3 years in college - the lovely Jessica Jung and I won NPDA nationals in 2019. Have been coaching CX, LD, and Parli for the 6 years to varying degrees. Currently, coaching for both EVHS (Parli and LD) and MVLA (LD)!!

Email Chain: For both LD and Policy I would like to be on an email chain, email is "lilalavender454@gmail.com." If you have any questions or revolutionary criticisms of my paradigm, I would love for you to email me as well!! ^^ To keep my paradigm as short as possible, I have also omitted my thoughts on how I evaluate specific positions (i.e Ks, theory, ADV/DAs, etc). So if you have any questions about that, feel free to email me or find me before prep/the round/etc!!

Quick Pref Sheet:

1 - K

2/3 - LARP

3/4 - Theory (I am good at evaluating theory and went for it all the time when I was competing, vacuous debate just makes me mad).

4/5 - Phil

10 - Tricks (ill just never vote on this).

Paradigm - Short:

• Tech > truth.
• Go as fast as you want, i'll be able to flow it.
• I judge every debate format in the same way: on the flow and based on (in one way or another) which team or debater wins offense that outweighs their opponents.
• I will never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. For example: capitalism good, neoliberalism good, imperialist war good, fascism good, bourgeois (like US) nationalism, normalizing Israel or Zionism, US white fascist policing good, etc.
• Barring the above, read whatever you want and i'll vote on it if you win it!!

HS Parli Update - 10/3/22

Given events that happened during the 2022 Stephen Stewart finals, I now have a very specific threshold for voting on Speed Bad theory. That threshold being that unless you have disclosed to your opponents that you have an audio-processing disability and/or show me your flows (your lack of ability to flow the arguments being spread), I will not vote on Speed Bad theory. The way this will function on the technical level is that if that threshold is not met, or another threshold which objectively not subjectively proves engagement was not possible (because of speed), I will grant the other team a we-meet on the interp - regardless of what happens on the flow. To be clear, this is not because I don't think that there are legitimate justifications of Speed Bad theory or that teams don't abuse speed in reactionary ways, there are and they do. But rather, it's because this interp has and continues to be used in an actively counterrevolutionary way. I.e., to advance monopoly capitalist and thus imperialist propaganda, and justify blatant male chauvinist harassment. This does not apply to novices.

Paradigm - Long:

Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I have realized as a result of this, I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when i'm judging - as thats both impossible and opportunism. If you have had me as a judge before, this explicit decision of mine does not change how you understand I evaluate rounds, with one specific exception: I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. Meaning, arguments/positions which defend the bourgeoisie's class dictatorship (monopoly capitalism and thus imperialism), from a right-wing political form. I.e., the politics, ideology, and practice of the right-wing of the bourgeoisie.

Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc. In the context of a debate round, by default this will function through 'drop the argument.' I.e., if you read an advantage or DA that represents the right-wing of the bourgeoisie, I won't evaluate that advantage or DA. If your whole 1AC or 1NC strategy is rightest capitalist-imperialist in nature, I won't evaluate your whole 1AC or 1NC. This only becomes 'drop the debater' if you violently and egregiously defend counterrevolution.

For example, if the arc of your argument is about how Afghanistan can never be self-reliant and is inherently 'full of terrorists' (thus requiring US imperialist rule), you will lose regardless of what happens on the flow. The brightline for what I described above is liberalism. Or in other words, I will still evaluate 'soft left' positions/arguments - those which represent the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie. To be clear, this is not because liberalism is any less counterrevolutionary or less of a weapon of monopoly capitalism than rightism is. Nor is this the modern revisionist nonsense which posits that there is a 'peaceful' wing of the bourgeoisie and thus imperialism.

Rather, it's because it's a practical necessity given debate's class basis. In one way or another, given debate's bourgeois class basis and function as imperialist propaganda, the vast majority of 1ACs/1NCs are liberal in some form; this includes the vast majority of Ks. Thus, if I were to extend this paradigm to correctly also cease evaluating liberal arguments/positions, it would mean either it would be impossible for me to evaluate 99% of rounds or there would be a even higher chance of me getting struck out of the pool. Which in the practical sense is not a decision I can make, because as a result of US monopoly capitalist exploitation, I rely in-part on judging to eat and survive bourgeois class warfare otherwise.

So within that context, as much as I can, I will use my power as a judge to propagate the Maoist line and remove as much of the most explicit reactionary arguments/positions as possible. As Aly put it, "some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary." I know that there are going to some individuals who are greatly upset by this paradigm. For the vast majority of you, thats fine, the class antagonism is clear. For the rest of you, whose concerns may be genuine, consider the following.

Every single judge exerts a paradigm that, to differing degrees, will not evaluate particular arguments/positions. Most judges do not explicitly state or justify what that entails, and many judges do explicitly as well - in both positive and negative ways. For example, many judges (correctly) will not vote for openly racist/cissexist/misogynistic/nationally oppressive arguments; it goes without saying, but I won't ever vote for and will drop you for these arguments as well. Or in another way, (incorrectly) debate conservatives refuse to vote for Ks all the time.

The only reason this specific paradigm will seem especially concerning, is because of the bourgeois class nature of debate and thus its' ideological function in service of imperialism. One which is inherently in contradiction to proletarian revolution and human emancipation, and thus antagonistic to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This is demonstrated well by the contradiction that most judges correctly will vote down debaters for being openly racist, yet will vote for positions which endorse the butchering of colonized and nationally oppressed People by US imperialist wars; something ive been guilty of in the past. As always, if you have any questions or good-faith criticisms of anything I mentioned within my paradigm, please don't hesitate to email me - I will always get back to you as soon as I can!! :))

Proletarians of all countries, unite!!

Misc Thoughts:

• Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/ Note: don't use this as an opportunistic excuse to not defend or have a line on New Afrikan national liberation, as thats gross and chauvinist.
• I am a transgender woman who has a deeper voice, please take that into account. It's exhausting to see judges and debaters who are unable to resolve this contradiction, either attribute my RFD to men on the panel, or treat me like a man as a result of my voice.
• Cap debaters need to stop reading modern revisionism or 'left' opportunism guising itself as 'Marxism,' and truly grasp what Marxism is. This is a good place to start study wise: https://michaelharrison.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-Collected-Works-of-The-Communist-Party-of-Peru-Volume-2-1988-1990.pdf
• It's a real shame that as a result of bourgeois feminism, be that white feminism or cissexist feminism, debaters have abandoned advancing the necessity of women's liberation. The proletarian line on feminism needs to be brought to debate, here is a good place to start study wise: https://foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/S02-Philosophical-Trends-in-the-Feminist-Movement-9th-Printing.pdf
• For Parli Only - I will NEVER vote for an argument that says "reading Ks is only for rich schools and only rich debaters read Ks." There is a reason why this argument is read 99% of the time by schools and debaters flush with capital, it's because it's a bourgeois lie and distortion of debate history. Particularly one which, among many things, enables and was enabled by white chauvinism in debate. There is a good chance I will drop you for making this argument as well, so either don't read it in front of me or better yet strike me.
• While their are certainly contexts in which trigger warnings are legitimately necessary, i.e in graphic descriptions or displays of counterrevolutionary violence (sexual or otherwise), there are also ways in which trigger warnings are weaponized by bourgeois politics for counterrevolution. I.e., how it's used to obscure or mystify ongoing exploitation and thus oppression, or to protect bourgeois sensibilities. Merely discussing the existence of counterrevolutionary violence DOES NOT require a trigger warning, that is absurd and nothing but liberalism. If this occurs in a round that I am judging you in, I am very receptive to revolutionary criticisms of this liberalism. As Black Like Mao puts it "it is important to steel oneself because real life has no trigger warnings. This is not a call to willfully subject oneself to a constant barrage of horrors, because that is a recipe for depression and all kinds of other nasties, but a reminder that this stuff is happening and if you happen to be in the midst of one of these incidents there is no running away or covering one’s eyes."

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is not a voter and going for it will wreck your ethos (and speaks). On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD: I have judged very little lincoln-douglas; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

northwood hs 19 (no longer coaching. coaching northwood ff; debatedrills ld) chain: danielluo.pi@gmail.com

northwestern 23 (ma econ, ba econ + math + some other stuff): not debating.

past: i don't debate in college, but coach policy (and previously ld). when i was debating, i got a few bids in policy and ld, was mostly a double 2 (2n otherwise), and usually read a plan.

0. racism, sexism, queerphobia, ableism, and other arguments which advocate violence based on immutable characteristics are bad and will result in an L 0.

1. boilerplate: tech > truth, judge instruct and i'll abandon my predispositions. don't clip. dropped args = true, but implications = up for contestation. evidence quality matters. spin, contextualization, and judge instruction matter much more.

2. "judge type": ideological differences are usually a result of heterogenous academic background filtering the way we read arguments. to be explicit: i work in abstract economic theory and pure mathematics (particularly game theory, mechanism design, information). this implies

a. i think of the world much more through the lens "definition theorem lemma proof." i enjoy specific claims with good warrants that have clear implications for why you should win, and do not enjoy "warrant by n = 1 example."

b. if you ask me to read cards that cite statistics, i will read unhighlighted portions to check statistical significance of the results.

c. i did not go for, nor do i interact with the literature for, "hard-left" critical arguments; you will need to do more work to win my ballot as a consequence of the above. even though i find myself voting for k affs and all types of ks when i do judge them, i have found my predisposition towards preferring axiomatically formal, rigorous argumentation implies winning these arguments is an uphill battle in front of me.

3. what i like:impact turn debates, multiplank process counterplans with smart advantage and uniqueness planks, aggressive 2acs that don't modularize the debate, and well-contextualized politics disads.

4. what i dislike: high theory buzzwords, assuming i have the same references/knowledge as you, a lack of judge instruction, and particularly messy block/1ar organization.

5. condo: conditionality is good. a lot of conditionality is even better.

6. theory: counterplans are arbitrary modifications to the status quo using the actor identified in the resolution to identify the existence of an opportunity cost. any counterplan that meets this definition is a-priori not abusive (i.e. theory is an uphill battle). however, "sketchier" counterplans might justify creative permutations and bolder strategic concessions, both of which will give you higher speaks.

7. ld: i don't anticipate having to judge ld again in the future. if i do and you are reading this trying to pref me, if the word "kant" means anything to you, strike me.stanford 2023 update: the aff gets to read a plan. the neg gets at least some conditionality. these are non-negotiable dispositions and cannot be argued away by judge instruction.

8. speaks: if you care, my speaks have mean 28.45 with standard deviation 0.57. if you know what you're doing, you'll probably get fine speaks.

* if you're any degree of sick, covid or otherwise, wear a mask, my immune system sucks. I care about your safety, I hope you care about mine. I will personally find a mask for you if necessary. *

they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

4 yrs circuit/TOC policy @ BVW '19. Polisci BA UC Berkeley '22. PhD student Johns Hopkins.

did not debate in college. (98) - (118) [45.4% aff, 54.6% neg], sat 4x. juj/coach for college prep.

___

juj preferences

[me] I debated in proximinty to/am influenced primarily by ex-KU debaters and other Kansas diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read big stick heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. K-affs r my gray area, more below. I do not care that much about respectability, but ego posturing/nastiness and confidence/good faith are distinct. non-debate (personal) disputes are not up to the ballot. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I like an easy ballot - have not debated in 3+ years so keep this in mind. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them unless its not close - read: judge instructions necessary. Otherwise, I resolve the impact level first - who solves what, does it even matter, impact framing, etc. I might read a card only if teams have explicitly extended it for the entire debate or given a reason I should read it (misrepresented warrants, shrunken text, etc) other ev work is the debaters' job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful. i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN; I will clear you once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will try to meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech - if you can win in 3 mins, do it. i do not read "inserts", teams are responsible for reading recuts or interpreting visuals/charts. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must say "we want to call an ethics violation" or something to stop the round. if its verified/valid, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] clipping accusations resulting in ballots usually necessitate recording the round, recording rules are contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible.**I am following the 1AC and 1NC - read every word of the card. i can tell when you skip around the middle! seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! I will not stop the round for clipping unless it is egregious/the other team does not care or notice BUT your speaks will reflect it

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] marginal neg bias for limits/ballot not key, do not skimp the line by line. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs should solve something/change the squo. KvK debate is fine when i can keep up, teams do not do well in front of me if they do not strike the balance between technical and substantive debating. need judge instruction more here!

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm kinda familiar with most cap/security/ontology-relevant K's (or at least some of the lit bases). idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, wtv)

[disads] yes. impact turns are awesome. turns case analysis is also awesome. line by line? awesome

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. blips like "sufficiency framing" are meaningless w/o explanation. I don't weigh the CP unless i think there's a risk of the net benefit. remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.

[T] yes. default to competing interps. caselists are helpful in ground debates. SIGNPOSTING is a huge issue here. I tend to miss stuff while flowing so slow down. plus speaks for T debate that goes off the flow. the last good policy T db8 I watched was in 2020. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it!

[theory] me and bff have same opinions on theory blips and condo. condo usually good, but in round abuse matters. Seriously do not expect a good rfd on theory if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. If you are going for it, I want to hear every word.

[speaker points] everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for whatever mentioned above plus disorganization, offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary debates. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

matt mcfadden
matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - please put me on it

---update - 12/5/2021 ---

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Tag team for asking questions

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

- Quantum Physics-based impacts

- Tag team for answering questions

---end of update---

---update - 11/7/2020 ---

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics

---end of update---

---update---

vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate

the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan

the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate

pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good

condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good

go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t

k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff

---end of update---

predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.

there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier

for ld – please spare me the kant.

things that bother me -

tag-team cx: fine for answering, not for asking.

prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.

topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.


theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.


kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.


cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.


da – yes, please.

well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.


impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier


neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

presumption – make this argument.

framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.


k affs – good luck.


aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.

affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.


execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.

zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.

bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.

Debate Experience:

4 years at Greenhill

1 year at USC

Please put me on the email chain. My email is gracekuang3@gmail.com.

I went for' policy' arguments in high school. In terms of categories of negative arguments (i.e. k,cp,da,etc.), I have no overlying ideologies or overt preference to what categories of negative arguments you must make.

However, there are debates that i've noticed that i personally enjoy judging and are interesting to me, and debates that i've noticed i do not enjoy judging and are not interesting to me. so if you are at all interested in my enjoyment:

examples of debates i have enjoyed judging: counterplans and disads, occasionally security, psychoanalysis one time

examples of debates i did not enjoy judging: baudrillard, death good, identity arguments, no fiat/fiat bad

if you plan to do anything from the latter category, please spend more time explaining your arguments because im not as smart as you!

The rest of this paradigm is mostly biases I've noticed about myself when I judge.

Condo - its good. Unless condo is dropped, not really worth going for if I'm judging you. Generally I err neg on theory - states cps, process cps, international fiat and pics/word pics are all okay with me. Private actor fiat, floating piks and multi-actor fiat are the exceptions where I err aff on theory.

judge kick - i won't kick the counterplan for you if you don't tell me to in the 2nr. if you tell me to kick it and/or read it conditionally i will. if you are aff and want me to not kick the counterplan, you should start that debate in the 1ar at the very least. ***if the aff reads and does not extend condo after the block, or at least a reason why conditionality being good does not necessitate that judge kick is also good, i will not be persuaded by judge kick bad in the 2ar.

Offense/defense - I think you can mitigate the risk of something to the point where it is inconsequential in my decision.

Framework/Topicality - I generally think of fairness as an internal link not a terminal impact but could be persuaded otherwise.

tag teaming in cx - its annoying to me but you do you

k affs – you shouldn't pref me. i don't like and don't often vote for these types of affirmatives.

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

Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021

I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take acronyms or topic-specific laws for granted in your speech.

Be nice.

I prefer that you read a plan.

Infinite condo is better than no condo.

If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.

I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.

I'm not great for high theory.

email: dylanmichalak2003@gmail.com

CHSSA: I did slow, stock-issues debating in front of parents for the vast majority of my high school debate career. I think this style of debate is incredibly fun and valuable. Set burdens for what you and the other team need to win, take advantage of cross-ex, and have succinct explanations which tie together all of your arguments. Disregard everything below this paragraph and treat me like I was my dad.

From Tyler's paradigm: "I would prefer that debaters keep their cameras on the whole debate. Online debate is depressing enough without staring at empty black boxes the entire time. However, I won’t enforce this or penalize you for choosing to keep it off."

TLDR: Answer the arguments in the order presented.

Background

1. Bellarmine '21.

2. Georgetown '25.

3. Assistant Debate Coach at Bellarmine.

The Basics

1. I have no preferences about the arguments you read. My senior year, Adarsh and I defended affirmatives that administered the death penalty to super-intelligent AI, established criminal justice for future space colonies, and endorsed “viral tactics of resistance through hacking digital infrastructure” that produced “counterapparatuses’ of knowledge” which destroyed “data that furthers the state’s necropolitical functions.” We spun the most contrived link for the elections DA against affirmatives that modified obscure cyber statutes but also went for the Baudrillard K in our TOC bubble round. Despite that, my heart lies with well-researched positions. My favorite memories in debate are getting into the mechanics of the China appeasement debate and combing through IR journals to cut updates. In short, read the arguments you wish to read and I’ll accommodate you.

2. At the end of the debate, I ask myself what the two or three nexus questions are and use whatever frameworks the final rebuttals have left me with to answer them. It would behoove you to begin your rebuttals with what you think these important issues are and why I’ll resolve them in your favor. This includes impact calculus, but also goes beyond it. Did the 1AR drop case arguments that were applicable to both advantages? Did the 2NR get to the revisionism debate with 15 seconds remaining? The best rebuttals are reflexive; don’t tell me why you’re winning, tell me why you have already won.

3. Add suryamidha2003 [at] gmail [dot] com to the email chain, format the subject as “Year -- Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team,” send every card in a Word document (not in the body of the email), and always compile a card document (unless the 2AR is just a theoretical objection).

Stylistic Concerns

1. Number everything. "One, two, three" is preferable to "first, second, third." If your gripe with numbering is that it "interrupts the flow of your speech," you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice.

2. Speed should never come at the expense of clarity.

FW

1. I’ve mostly been on the negative side of this debate.

2. Fairness being/not being an impact begs the question of what an impact is. Fairness, skills, self-questioning and the gamut of negative framework impacts all seem important, but so are other values. The way to my ballot is impact comparison. Choose your 1NC standards wisely and explain why they outweigh the Aff’s framework offense through discussions of their relative importance and the ability of framework to access them.

3. I have no preference for either the skills-based or fairness-based framework strategies. Be cautious that defending standards like movement-building opens you up to Aff impact turns since you’ve granted them debate has value outside of the ballot.

4. Hyperbolic claims about limits can be easily overcome by a well-developed explanation of functional limits.

CP’s

1. Perm texts must be sent in the 2AC.

2. Textual and functional competition seem like good standards to hold CP’s too. Defending positional competition will require a robust definition of what an Aff “position” is.

3. Speak to the normative implications of definitions in addition to reading cards. Forcing Affs to be immediate would justify “do the Aff after our politics scenario” while certainty would allow for “end arms sales to Taiwan, but only if China gives us a dollar.”

4. The “mandates vs effects” articulation of competition has made more sense to me than “yes for DA’s, but not for CP’s.” Mandates are what the plan text defends. Effects are how they would likely be implemented. The mandate of the plan can be ambiguous about immediacy, but the effects could likely be immediate. All of this defends on the Aff winning how the plan would be interpreted (and, more importantly, who gets to interpret it). Negs are best served by complaining about plan shape-shifting and explaining why immediacy and certainty are necessary for DA links.

5. Recognize when it’s strategic to couple/separate the competition and theory debate. That being said, I don’t know about “competition justifies theory.” The CP “China should not go to war with the US” is competitive, but seems theoretically suspect in every direction.

6. Creative permutations have a special place in my heart.

7. For process CP’s, the unprecedented nature of the CP is often what grants the Neg an internal net benefit, but Affs should be ready to generate smart solvency deficits based on those same claims.

8. No one goes for perm shields anymore. It breaks my heart. Think about the political implications if every one of the 50 states (including conservative ones) for the first time in US history unanimously affirmed a certain policy option. There are both sides to this debate but 2N’s seem terrible at answering intuitive presses.

Theory

1. I would love to watch a well-developed theory debate, but block-reliance has ruined everything. If you plan to read your standards straight down and not explain anything comparatively, you’re better off going for a substantive strategy in front of me.

2. Arguments about conditionality are most persuasive when couched in a descriptive claim about the current topic. Is the neg so hosed that they need to throw CP’s at the wall to catch up? Or, is there sufficient literature for in-depth debates? The ability to read DA’s to CP planks is meaningful to me. If the negative can introduce dozens of policy options (some of which would definitively cause a civil war) and choose to go for any combination of them at whim, the affirmative policy literally needs be the 11th commandment to generate a substantive deficit.

3. Other than conditionality and a few other theoretical objections, I’d rather you turn your poor standards into good substantive arguments. For example, the lack of a solvency advocate seems like less of a reason they shouldn’t get the CP and more of a reason why your uncarded solvency deficits should be given an enormous amount of weight. Plan vagueness begs the question of what is “vague.” A much better strategy is reading solvency cards that interpret the plan differently or punishing them for including words in the plan they aren’t ready to defend.

4. Theoretical objections are rarely “dropped.” Either the block made new arguments extending it or you had cross-applicable offense from other flows.

T

1. This is probably the position where I diverge the most from other judges. I suspect I have a higher threshold for what constitutes a negative interpretation and does not immediately lose to “we meet” given some Aff pushback. For example, take the T-Criminal Justice is not Criminal Law piece of evidence that won dozens of debates (including a TOC elim). It reads “Criminal justice, interdisciplinary academic study of the police, criminal courts, correctional institutions (e.g., prisons), and juvenile justice agencies, as well as of the agents who operate within these institutions. Criminal justice is distinct from criminal law…” What? How is this an interp? Just because something is NOT something else does not mean that it cannot be a part of that thing. Texas is NOT the US, but it is part of the US. In fact, this interpretation of the card belies all logic because it defines criminal justice as an “interdisciplinary academic study.” That limits out NOTHING. To be clear, if you have well-researched negative evidence with an intent to exclude, go for it. But, I’m very willing to vote on we meet against poorly written interpretations that do not definitively establish a violation.

2. Affs lose these debates when they’re too defensive. Isolate one or two core pieces of offense (Aff ground, predictability, etc.) and develop them at the top of the 1AR and 2AR.

3. Reasonability is always about the interps and never about the Aff.

4. If the affirmative advances an argument about reading the "plan text in a vacuum," the negative should propose an alternate model of either understanding the plan text or the affirmative's policy.

K’s

1. Technical framework debating will matter more to me than most judges. What it means to “weigh the aff versus the K” is far from a settled controversy and interesting to think about. I’d appreciate guidance on how to resolve offense from both sides.

2. That being said, I’m continually confused by how the Neg’s links interact with their own framework interpretation. For example, if you have said scholarship is the only thing that matters, but then have read links to the effects of the plan, it feels like you’re asking me to evaluate all the bad parts of the Aff and none of the good parts. There are many ways to overcome this: make your framework a sequencing question, narrow the scope of the links, or (my preference) significantly reduce the risk of the case.

3. I think Affs lose these debates most often when they don’t recognize Neg pivots (kicking the alternative, going all in on framework, etc.).

DA’s

1. Often contrived (more a fault of the topic than debaters), but I have very little remorse for new 1AR’s when the 2AC fails to make substantive arguments.

2. Turns case arguments need to be carded if not immediately intuitive.

3. I’d rather you just explain why the parts of the DA you’re winning matter contextually rather than throwing out “link controls the direction of uniqueness” or vice-versa.

4. Evidence comparison is important to me. I will not sift through the card document after the debate digging for a warrant. I expect the final rebuttals to provide the author name and the warrant for most of the cards they are citing in their analysis.

Impact Turns

1. No argument is too presumptively incoherent to answer. If you are correct about how inane an argument is, you are better served by completely obliterating it rather than complaining about its pedagogical value.

2. Risk calculus matters a lot to me. For example, the reason why SPARK seems inane outside the context of debate is because we’re gambling with the survival of the human race. We would have to be incredibly confident that future technologies would actually end civilization for us to roll the die. In debate, a card citing 20 scientists published in a peer-reviewed journal might exceed this threshold. But should it? It almost certainly wouldn’t be enough for us to endorse human extinction in a more legitimate policymaking setting. How confident must we be? Arguments along the lines of “the risk that we are right outweighs the risk that we are wrong” and explaining them contextually is persuasive to me.

3. If a team is going for an impact turn, Aff teams should recognize that they now have the full weight of their internal link. If the Neg is going for DeDev but the internal link to Econ was tech development, Affs should be strategic about explaining how rapid technological progress might be helpful in staving off climate change.

Miscellaneous

1. I learned everything I know from Anirudh Prabhu and Tyler Vergho. Ideologically, I align completely with Adarsh Hiremath. If there’s an issue that’s ambiguous on my paradigm, I would suggest looking through theirs for additional clarity.

2. Rehighlightings can be inserted to demonstrate the other team’s reading of the article was incorrect. They need to be read if they’re introducing new claims.

3. My email response time is always a fault of me and never an annoyance with you.

Debate History: St. Mark's '10/Trinity University '14
Currently the head policy debate coach at Hendrickson HS

Public Forum thoughts

Please for all that is holy - do not try to become a policy debater just because my background is predominantly in policy debate. I have judged and coached PF consistently for over 5 years at this point and recognize its value as an event that is distinct from policy. There is nothing worse than PF debaters who attempt to cosplay as CXers.

Going off of what is stated as above, there is no circumstance in which a lack of disclosure makes a PF round impossible to access/participate in. Therefore, there is no circumstance in which I will decide a PF round on disclosure theory - you only get a month to debate your topic, lets actually debate it please.

In terms of what I actively DO look for, impact calculus actually grounded in evidence and active analysis. I feel like "debater math" is often arbitrary and replaces actual contextual impact analysis.

Please don't skip crossfires or grand cross, these are the moments where clash often occurs - to me it is tantamount to skipping a speech and speaker points will reflect it.

Smart and strategic choices to invest or divest from flows/arguments reflect public forum debaters with great critical thinking skills and knowledge of their case/the topic at hand. Speaker points will be rewarded to those who make smart, necessary, strategic choices instead of collapsing/extending purely for the sake of it.

Policy/CX thoughts

I treat each debate round as an academic exercise in decision making. I leave many questions of framework and impact calculus to the teams debating, however if not otherwise explicitly stated I will default to a policy making framework and utilitarianism, respectively.

T/Framework:
I typically evaluate this from a competing interpretations standpoint and an offense/defense framework but can be persuaded otherwise. When making these kinds of arguments, negative teams typically forget that their interpretation is of how the debate space should operate and thus must defend it as so. Negative teams MUST explain why their interpretation is better for the overall debate space in order to get my ballot. In round abuse arguments are compelling, however, they are nearly impossible to prove and I have a high threshold for voting on them.
I am a fairly firm believer that debate is a game and that structural fairness is an impact. However, this also means that fairness should be utilized as a lens or impact filter for all the other impacts in the framework debate.

Counterplans:
Many of my thoughts in the above section apply to my thoughts on counterplan theory. I feel that 2 conditional advocacies is the most that the negative should run, much to the chagrin of most folks (new affs are an exception). That being said, I won't default certain ways in theory debates. I will be considerably more compelled to deem that a counterplan solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. Specific PICs that have functional impacts on plan implementation are so much better than your generic process counterplan. So, so, so much better.

Kritiks:
Many kritik teams tend to focus more on tricks than substance. The most important portion of this debate for me is the link debate and I expect a clear explanation of why the specific affirmative links. It is the negative's task to explain why the permutation cannot possibly solve back/overcome the links. I will default affirmative in many of these debates. I feel that the best kritik debaters are the ones who are willing to adapt their strategy and link debate to the specific affirmative that they are debating.
Links of omission are functionally spotting the aff a uniqueness overwhelms the link argument to the net benefit to a very vacuous alternative. Please have link specificity.

Disadvantages:
I didn't think I had thoughts on this until recently. There are very good disads and very bad disads. If you are aff against a very bad disad, don't be afraid to point this out! I feel like I am more likely than most to say there is zero risk of a disadvantage when the uniqueness very clearly overwhelms the link or there is zero link specificity.

Speaking:
-Yes email chain: alymithani91@gmail.com. Every time a varsity debater forgets to hit "reply all" on an email chain, a kitten cries and you will lose 0.5 speaker points.
-Do not clip cards! If there is an ethics challenge, I will stop the debate and have the accused debater re-read their speech with either their speech document on my computer or standing over their shoulder. That being said, ethics challenges are serious, if you are making one, then you are willing to lose the debate if you are wrong. Strategic ethics challenges will result in horrific speaker points from me.
-I will call you out if you are blatantly stealing prep and it will hurt your speaker points.
-For paperless teams, I do not run prep time for saving/flashing the speech unless this time starts to become excessive or it becomes evident that prep is being stolen.
-It drives me crazy when debaters are disrespectful to each other. There is no reason why competitiveness needs to turn into aggression. Treat the debate space like a classroom.
-Another pet peeve: debaters who do not seem to legitimately enjoy what they are doing. Debaters who go through the motions are usually the ones that end up with the lowest speaker points from me. Even if you are not keeping up with the technical aspects of the debate, if you remain engaged and committed throughout the debate, I will definitely feel more comfortable with giving you higher speaker points.

Read a topical plan--------------x-----------------------------say anything

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

Usually some risk--------------------------------x----------Zero Risk

Conditionality Good----------------------x--------------------Conditionality Bad

States CP Good-------x------------------------------------States CP Bad

Process CPs--------------x-------------------------------Ew Process CPs

Competing off immediacy/certainty--------------------x------------------------No

Reasonability-------------------------x------------------Competing Interps

Limits---------x-----------------------------------Aff Ground

CP linking less matters-------------------x-----------------------links are yes/no

Read every card--------------------x-----------------------Read no cards

Judge Kick------------x-------------------------------Stuck with the CP

Reject the Team---------------------------x----------------Reject the Arg

CPs need cards-----------------------------------x-------Smart CPs can be cardless

Fiat solves circumvention---------------x---------------------------Trump's President

K links about the plan-----------x--------------------------------K links about a broad worldview

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Currently a senior at UC Berkeley studying Genetics and Plant Biology. As a high schooler I debated for Davis Senior and SUDL, qualifying to the TOC in my senior year. I debated on the China, education, and immigration topics. I've been coaching and judging throughout college and I'm now a coach for SUDL, Folsom, Davis, and do some other coaching here and there.

Please put me on the email chain: amandaniemela8@gmail.com

I would appreciate it if you could include the tournament and the round in the email chain title in whatever way you like ("gonzaga round 6" etc) for organization purposes. Thanks!!

Feel free to contact me for anything before or after the debate.

Everything I have written here are opinions I have developed in my time coaching and debating. I am learning along with you.

***Pls do not read this whole paradigm, your time is more important than that. find what you need to know!

TLDR/prefs:

Update for NATO topic: I've coached this topic since the summer, so my topic knowledge is decent, but I still encourage you to clarify your acronyms. My personal education/work in biotechnology probably makes me a well-informed judge for biotech affs :)

My personal experience as a debater lies mostly in k debate (specifics below) but I have judged and coached the whole spectrum. Regardless of your style, impact calc and framing are going to determine how well you do in front of me. If it matters to you, I seem to mostly get preffed for K v K debates. Other things that might matter for your prefs: I avoid judge intervention. I flow CX. I value good organization. I love creativity but not at the expense of substance. Finally, and most importantly, I appreciate the enormous amount of work many students put into this activity, and I show my respect for that by making a very genuine effort to be the best judge that I can be. I believe that my job as a judge is to leave my personal beliefs and preferences at the door as much as possible--debate is about the debaters!

***Note on online debate: please please please slow down. Feel free to spread cards as fast as you like (while remaining clear) because I can read along with you, but when it comes to your analytics, please slow down slightly so I can get all of your wonderful arguments. MY SPEAKERS ARE BAD! The clarity is bad. My hearing is also bad. Keep in mind that I'm also having to flip between tabs to see you, your cards, and my flow as I type. I know it's not ideal, but it's even less ideal for me to get 50% of your arguments because I can't understand you. I will say clear three times and then I will give up and do my best.

Generally:

Debate is an activity with an incredible amount of potential that probably has the ability to shape our perspectives to at least some small (but meaningful) degree. It definitely shaped me. It means many different things to many different people and I am not here to change that. Please run whatever arguments you want to (with the obvious exclusion of racist/queerphobic/xenophobic/misogynist/ableist args which are an immediate L0). It is my job to do my very best to arbitrate your round, not to decide how you should be operating within that round. That being said, no one is completely unbiased. It is also my job to make sure you're informed of biases and opinions that I might have.

The best way to win in front of me regardless of style is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc important? Compare this importance to your opponent's arguments. What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important? Even the most disastrous debates can often be cleaned up/won/saved through high-level framing. See the bigger picture and explain it to me in your favor for a clear ballot. This is, in my opinion, is the difference between “winning” debates on the meta level rather than “not losing” them on the line by line.

I am very expressive. My face will do a lot of things during the debate. This is not a judgement on you as a debater or person but it's probably a pretty good indication of how I think things are going!

ARGUMENTATION:

Kritiks: If this is the only section of the paradigm that you're looking for, I'm probably a good judge for you. I ran almost exclusively kritikal arguments in my last 2 years of debate and the coaching I do now is largely k oriented.

I am very familiar with: settler colonialism, fem (particularly iterations fem IR and queerfem), puar, other queerness stuff, biopower, cap, security, and chow. These are the Ks I ran during my time in debate but it's by no means a comprehensive list of things I'm a good judge for. It's probably a safe bet that I'm at least somewhat familiar with whatever you're reading, but it's always a good practice to be clear and informative anyways.

Make your literature accessible for everyone in the room (by this, I mean understand if folks haven't read what you have, and avoid trying to obfuscate for a strategic advantage--it usually doesn't help you anyways). Not everyone has equivalent access to the time/resources necessary to invest in critical literature, and their perspectives are still valid. Be respectful. This is especially true for those of you reading pomo.

My experience with and love for Ks doesn't mean I hack for them--if anything, it raises my expectations for what a well-executed K strat looks like. Bad K debates may not be the worst debates but they are still very nasty.

If you're a traditional policy debater wondering how to best respond to Ks in front of me, I discourage you from reading "Ks are cheating" framework since it's typically not very compelling, but I think reading framework overall is a smart move and I can be persuaded by plenty of other interps. I find that the most convincing policy teams answering Ks do a great job of explaining their framework impacts beyond "realism good" or "fairness good" and end up more in "policy education good" or "engaging the state good" territory. Remember that impacts can function on a multitude of levels.

If you're looking to read a K in front of me, know that I am extremely open-minded about how you go for or read this argument. Do you need an alt? Up to you! Performance? By all means. Part of the beauty of kritikal debate is its flexibility. I encourage you to do you in these debates. I will flow performances unless told otherwise, just so I can be sure to remember clearly. Anything can be an argument. I don't particularly care what sort of links you go for so long as you can effectively defend why you're going for them.

I am NOT as familiar with bataille, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, or nietzsche, for example. I didn’t read any of this as a debater. Honestly, I'm just not a pomo hack. This doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments or think they have no place in debate! This simply means more elaboration will probably be necessary. I was frequently exposed to these arguments as a debater and I still deal with this lit now as a coach. If I'm tilting my head at you in confusion, I probably don't know what you're talking about. It may pay for you to slow down and explain vocab/buzzwords. Please never assume I (or your opponents) know all of your lingo.

K Affs: Go wild. I was a 2A reading a kritikal aff throughout almost all of high school and I understand them strategically, practically, and structurally. Again, performance is great. Pessimism is great, optimism is great, anything in between is great. Anything that doesn't fit into these categories is great. Personally I don't care if you talk about the resolution, though I could be convinced otherwise if the neg takes a stance on it. I come into the round with 0 predispositions about the "role" of the aff because I think that doing so would be basically arbitrary. Tell me why what you're doing is important (or not important). Also, good case overviews are a thing. If you have one of these, preferably don't blast through it at a million wpm. There's valuable stuff in there.

K affs probably get a perm, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Neg: engage the case when possible! There are lots of K affs that don't really do anything and have trouble explaining defending their method under close scrutiny. Take some time to just think abt the aff straight up, your questions may also be my questions.

Framework: I understand the importance of framework and used it myself a few times in debate. That being said, be warned that I was a 2A responding to framework in most of my aff rounds. As a small school debater, I understand why it can be necessary, especially if you legitimately have nothing else to run and don't have coaches to prep you out against every aff. Structural fairness/education/subject formation etc impacts make WAY more sense to me than procedural fairness. I also think it can be extremely convincing to turn the aff with portable skills arguments, if you do it right. If you're from a huge school with 10 coaches and your main defense of framework is "we couldn't possibly prepare :(" then you're going to be facing an uphill battle on this argument if your opponent calls this out. Your interpretation should be clearly defined and should probably be more than one "words and phrases" card. TVA usually ends up being extremely key to resolving aff offense. Like I said about aff overviews, neither team should be blasting through your framework blocks so fast that I miss all of your warrants.

If you're responding to framework, you better have a pretty good block for it. Have defense on their standards but offense of your own on their model of debate. I also do not care if you go for a counter interpretation or if you go for just a turn on their model of debate. If you do the latter, you should probably impact that turn out in the context of the aff. Also feel free to do both or whatever else you feel like.

Both teams should have a role of the ballot. Tell me why yours matters in relation to the biggest impacts in the debate!

Policy Affs: there are some very interesting and educational policy affs on this topic. Just like a K aff, you should have a defense of your model of debate when pressed on it. You should probably also be able to defend your subject formation. I think this standard should be universal.

Love a good, well-warranted impact defense debate here from the neg. doesn't usually win on it's own but super helpful for mitigating offense and also just makes me happy.

Topicality: I like T a lot. I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise. Why do limits/ground/fairness/research matter? I am of the mind personally that fairness is less of an independent impact and more of an internal link to education but I will also evaluate fairness as an independent impact in the round if instructed to do so. Also, caselists are underutilized and are important, please have these early in the debate! And stop dropping reasonability yall.

To quote my old partner "I met the heart of the topic and it said yall are wack" --Jack Walsh esquire. pls explain what heart of the topic means. If you keep explaining this argument as vibes alone you are forcing me to judge on vibes alone.

Disadvantages: Do what you do here, DAs are straight forward for the most part. Topic DAs are super important for neg ground but I also really appreciate creative, unique DAs. That being said, quirkiness shouldn't trade off with a good link chain. Contextualize. Not enough teams tell good stories of the disadvantage: block extension is just as key as 2NR. I wanna hear specifics in the impact debates pls, that's where all the fun is usually.

Counterplans: Good solvency advocates can be killer here. Have a good understanding of your mechanism. These debates can be extremely interesting. I don't have any predetermined notions about what kinds of CPs are abusive or not. That's up to you to decide. For the aff: explain the world of the permutation--"perm do both" means nothing without an explanation. Paint a picture, worldbuild.

Theory: I love a good theory debate. By good, I mean really in depth discussion rather than a blippy "floating PICs bad" sentence in the 2AC that gets extended in the 1AR and then becomes 3 minutes of the 2AR. Why is your model of debate important? Why does it matter? How does it implicate this round specifically, and potentially all others? Theory can be really strategic and also pretty true in some instances. I don't come in with any predispositions about any particular theory argument here except probably for RVIs. Don't do that.

Misc: if you get caught cheating and the other team calls you out with proof, expect an autoloss and the lowest speaks possible. Clipping, falsifying cites, texting coaches, etc. If you suspect your opponent is clipping, pls record before you call them out, otherwise its a huge mess

Good luck and have fun prepping!

Saint Vincent de Paul '19

Judge for Sonoma Academy

Hey there, my name is Emma (she/her), feel free to call me whatever in round. (If you can naturally call me Captain I will give you a speaks boost. If it is not natural, I will know) I qualified for the TOC in my sophomore and senior year and broke at most national tournaments during those two years. I have read K Affs for three of my seven years in debate but don't think that it means I am biased toward one type of argument but I am definitely more K-friendly. I am a pretty basic judge, you do you and I will be happy to judge the round fairly. I get that judges might be intimidating, but I'm pretty nice. Feel free to ask me questions, we're all here to have fun. Imagine it is my very tournament on each topic and make sure to flush out acronyms, and weird titles for things.

Please strike me if you read an argument that is - racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything that inherently violates someone as a person or their identity. I work on a three-strike policy, if you say something that I believe comes close to crossing the line, I will tell you in the round, that's strike one. If you continue, I will warn you once more and you have docked your speaks as low as the tournament allows. Strike three, I will drop you and make sure to sit you and your coach down to talk about your actions, I will also look into speaking with the tournament about kicking you out of the tournament. This is not a norm that I am enforcing based on my own biases, it's based on the actions of debaters that have been left unchecked. Due to recent events in high school policy debate, if you come from a well-cemented policy program you will have a higher standard to reach in general.

A note for large squads: I will hold you to a higher standard in general especially about my three-strike policy. I am not a fan of a whole squad reading the same aff but I do understand it can be beneficial for debaters. That being said, read your files before the tournament. The trend of sharing files and never looking over the ones you didn't do is killing debate. So please, read your files.

Please put me on the email chain - epage.debate@gmail.com and feel free to email me any questions and let me know if I can help make the round more accessible.

TLDR

I am willing to hear anything. Please don’t change what you’re strat just because I like a K more than a DA. If it’s a debate where we can all learn I will be super happy to judge it.

DA’s – they’re good, contextualize the link, make sure I know the story by the end of the round

CP’s – they’re also pretty cool, if you’re the affirmative I am happy to hear that the CP is abusive for XYZ reasons, make sure I have a story by the end of the round and some kind of net benefit. Perms need clear contextualization by the 1AR or I won't vote on it. I.E tell me exactly how it functions in this round.

K’s – I love a good K debate but this doesn’t mean you should read a K you don’t understand, same goes for the link debate here. Please explain the K like I am a policy judge, not only does it give you practice for your future rounds, I can then help you write your blocks for that K. Plus it never hurts to make sure that I truly understand the K regardless of if I have read it before.

T – I love a good T-Debate, please actually have voting issues. I will gladly vote for it.

Long Version

DisAd

- I don't mind them. Make sure you have researched and understand the DA well

- Turns case and case solves are different arguments

- Quality analytical reasoning and counter-examples can undermine most DAs. Combining logical analytics with your evidence or faults in their evidence boosts the credibility of analytical indicts.

Counterplan

- I will not accept a perm in passing, it needs to be flushed out entirely by the 1AR. Otherwise, I can't vote for it no matter how much it's winning

- I love reasons as to why the CP is abusive from the Aff but I need a good reason as to why.

- Ensure that you flush out the link and really contextualize it to the Aff in this round.

Topicality

- T is good

- make sure you don't forget to answer it in its entirety

- Affs should explain how reasonability impacts how I should decide the debate. Often, Affs win that reasonability is good but do not explain how that buffers/raises the threshold for Neg offense

Kritik

- I love a good Kritik debate, I have read - Psychoanalysis, Death, Preciado, Bifo, Info/Persuasion, Set Col, Cap, and many more

- if you don't understand the K, don't read it

- I prefer if your K is contextualized to the topic and better yet to the Aff

- you need a strong link and the entire K needs to be explained

- please limit your overview to 45 seconds

Non-Traditional Affirmatives

- I love it

- make sure your aff turns FW

- please make sure you can explain why you're topical or not and own it

Weird Pet Peeves

- please disclose on the wiki

- I cannot handle people who are rude or mean in CX for the sake of being mean

- extinction is not a tagline

Be nice, and have fun! Break a leg

Updated for NATO Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my sixth year as the Assistant Director at Damien, and my first year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot is awarded to who debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you? My ideological predispositions on framework are negative, but I will try my hardest to vote for whoever defends their model of debate better. I do actually end up voting aff about half the time. Be aware that I will hold planless affs to the same standard I would hold a neg alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will hack out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are neat, but are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well if you are on the side with the true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically and evaluate warrants. Cards are only as good as their highlighted warrants. You are better off with fewer well-highlighted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation you wish to request of the other team that has potential competitive implications (content, speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

* Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (most domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important; I would much rather hear a well-articulated limited vision of the topic than either Ks with state or omission links or Frankenstein process CPs that result in the aff. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is topical in a truth sense. I am also the rare judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial is not subsets) because I think there needs to be a mechanism to check small affs, so long as the neg debates it well.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However I also treat them as internal links to the original violation and standards. The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

* Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must actually debate and win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round but why neg ground loss under the aff's model inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

* Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you unless you have done actual line-by-line refutation and you have formed a coherent abuse story that is solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

-- Condo is good (but should probably have limitations to check perf cons and skew).

-- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness and non-abuse whereas the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

-- The aff is not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) just because they do not specify. The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

-- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

-- CX is binding.

-- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

-- OSPEC is never a voter (exception to a team fiating something contradictory to their ev or contradictions between different authors).

-- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

-- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

-- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

-- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms)... but a specific instance of behavior outside the room/round that is not verifiable is not relevant.

-- Condo doesn't automatically allow severance of the discourse/rhetoric attached to the offcase (it's one thing to test the aff from multiple perspectives, it's another to run hege impacts when you have a K with a reps links and the alt is to reject bad scholarship). You can win severance of your reps, but you must actually justify it. It is not a default entitlement from condo.

-- ASPEC is checked by cross and the neg should ask. If the aff does not answer, the neg can subsequently win the round by proving moving target or link spikes. If the aff does answer and doesn't spike, then ASPEC is dead.

* Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, it's a mutual mid round or you did your prefs wrong.

A kritik must be presented in an comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alternative). The link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt (or lack thereof) then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt is some actual action which solves back for the implications of the kritik, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process of the alt should be explained and contrasted with the plan. Links of omission are super uncompelling in front of me. I am usually unpersuaded by perm answers that are just re-explanations of links without re-contextualization to why those links implicate perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism probably shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan.

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to consider the merit in challenging kritik ideology head on rather than labeling your discourse as a link. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relate to your aff or the neg's impacts.

* Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of the net benefit the neg must win is inversely proportional to how good the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do as an extension of condo. I believe that superior solvency for the aff case alone can be a sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. aff has no competition arguments).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Process CPs: I do not think intentionally vague plan texts should give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan, so I am super unfriendly to Perm Do the CP. I expect aff teams to know their case well enough to welcome a debate against the neg on implementation. Conversely, the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of their counterplans. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will readily reject a counterplan if the neg's attempt to convert between these processes produces a structural defect. Process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic are not competitive, and I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test germaneness.

* Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not if you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force it. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

Peninsula ’21, email chain -- darinp312@gmail.com

“Debate is a research game. Demonstrate topic knowledge, and you'll earn high speaker points. Isolate one or two questions to hinge the debate on, and you'll have an easier path to victory.”

Affirmative teams should topically defend a plan text and the negative should say the plan does something bad or is not topical.

I do not believe most structuralist ontology arguments are serious intellectual positions.

I am inclined to believe that infinite conditionality is good.

The best debates are over a few central points of disagreement where there is lots of high-quality evidence presented by both sides.

At the end of the round, please compile a card doc of all evidence you believe will be relevant to my decision.

If I can't flow you, I will stop paying attention.

Updated 11/12/22* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer and debate it out. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency but does not necessary dictate my ballot: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. I encourage debaters to frame the round for themselves and explain why I should prefer one model/impact/world over the other. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other, then that can be a very big framing issue for me.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very important to get my ballot - cards are great, but even more so I like thorough link scenarios including perception links. Also external impacts may help me weigh the disad more easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if you're exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: Very useful and strategic procedural argument - I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays - I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect - they lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD: I will most likely view the debate in a very policy-centric lens. (This does not mean you have to change your value-value criterion structure, you do you)

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate - don't be toxic. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

UPDATED FOR THE GLENBROOKS

***brief***
uclabdb8@gmail.com
- head coach at the university of chicago laboratory schools
- 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 - on the NATO topic I have judged 4 K aff vs FW rounds, voting for the K aff 1/4 times.
- 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. 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

**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.

**experience**
coaching at uclab for several years. i will probably have >50 rounds by the end of the season. i occasionally coach and judge local PF and camp (harvard). i am a former policy debater from maine east, (north shore, wayne tang gharana) with some college debating at iowa and i translated debates to med school. i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. this means i haven't spent my summers deeply reading into the topic aside camp files. it also means 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.

**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. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack. nowadays, the these debates tend to get messy. so 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/or(?) creativity.

**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.

on traditional theory args, whatever happened to presumption debates? 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. 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
- 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.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-now

sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)
For policy - Please also add coppellcp@gmail.com to the email chain

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.

Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.

K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.

UCLA '24

tajsmyname@gmail.com

I debated policy for four years at Lovejoy High School, in Lucas, Texas.

General Things

- Pretty much nothing you can say will offend me. If an argument is awful, you should be able to easily beat it.

- I much prefer a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but you do you.

- Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

- Tech > Truth

- I have limited topic knowledge so don't assume I know much about all topic-related jargon/acronyms.

- Try to mark your own cards.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Email: a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

top level

Have fun. Be nice.

*NATO topic*

Don't assume that I understand jargon.

tech>truth

i really don’t have many hard predispositions. Just do what you do.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

I'm fine if you read a plan or if you don't.

If you don't, do impact turn framework standards and go for offensive arguments

Fairness is definitely an independent impact and a good one.

K: Kritiks are great assuming specific link work and explanation of how those links interact with the impacts of the aff.

Given even debating, I will weigh the aff.

K debate is case debate. The aff's epistemology/knowledge production/whatever is only flawed insofar as you have proved that the aff scenarios are flawed. Framework shouldn't be your only interaction with the affirmative case

CP's are fun, but I would much rather adjudicate these debates based on substance rather than theory

DA's: Specific Link Analysis good.

Aff teams can do more in actually debating the specific internal link chain

T is probably underutilized. Fun to judge assuming teams are not spreading T blocks in the rebuttals/are explaining their offense with specific examples.

Collin Smith -- collin.smith8941@gmail.com

Most of my argumentation has been on the K side of things in debate. My research interests, however, are very broad, and I do not really care what form your arguments take. As a judge, I value specificity, evidence comparison, and in-depth explanation. I generally decide debates by identifying key points of offense and sifting through the evaluative mechanisms set up by either team to discern whose impact matters more, and how I should conceive of solvency.

Affs – do what you want, read a plan or not, talk about the topic or not – I don’t care. Aff’s with plans – don’t assume I know your acronyms (I judged at a camp, but I have not done a lot of topic research), and I do not think your impact or k framing contention helps. Affs without plans – be sure to explain your method early in the debate and use impact/solvency examples or have an explanation of why traditional notions of solvency don't apply.

Framework – I will vote for it, I will vote against it. I think neg teams win these debates when they win clash/debate-ability as an internal link turn to aff and some type of procedural impact, but I see the utility in switch-side or topic education arguments in some contexts. Neg’s also need to win a framework comes first/case doesn’t matter argument. I think the aff is set to win these debates when they win an impact they can solve, an impact turn to the neg’s interp, and apply that disad to the 2nr’s arguments. I do not think a counter-interpretation is necessary, though often it is quite useful.

Kritiks – here for it, do it well.

DA – I think uniqueness is more likely to overwhelm the link than for the link to determine the direction of the uniqueness.

Theory - It is hard for me to vote on condo bad without explicit examples of in-round abuse, but I can definitely be persuaded as to why other theory arguments are reasons for me to reject an argument or give the other team some type of flexibility.

Tech v Truth – If an argument is conceded, it is probably true but needs to be explained again in your next speech. I think the best 2NRs and 2ARs tell the judge what the most important aspect of the debate is and why, then win that issue. These framing questions tend to implicate how I evaluate technical concessions, or at lease to what extent I should care about them with regards to broader framing questions.

LD - St. Marks 2021 update - All the above applies here. I do not judge a lot of LD but I do have a little experience judging and debating here. I'm not too up to date on specific argumentative or theoretical trends in LD. I know time-constraints make in-depth explanation of dense concepts difficult, so I am a bit less concerned with explanation and care more about your ability to apply and contextualize your arguments of choice. Super specific theory arguments and AC theory preempts are not too persuasive to me, but I am willing to listen to anything.

Ferris & UM

sposito@umich.edu

This paradigm contains plagiarism but is mostly original.

Tech over everything. Debate is a game and so competition has a privileged status among other reasons to participate. That said, feel free to make arguments about how we should treat debate differently. After about 200 debates, my voting record has me as right leaning in clash debates. (I no longer have a massive neg bias.)

Evaluating debates:

I will do my best to be technical. I’ll flow and decide the debate through an offense/defense paradigm. I'm extremely unlikely to abandon the conventions of technical debating (concessions are true, new arguments are illegitimate, and so on). That said, I am willing to give generous berth to sweeping judge instruction arguments, provided they have a clear algorithm and at least some normative defense. This goes for flagging arguments as new, voting issues, whether or not I should read evidence, how strict I should be in evaluating a claim, etc. I am not invested in how any particular debate goes down and when I read other paradigms emoting about how some practice or another is unacceptable, I get weirded out. I would enjoy a debate where teams stipulate unusual things for the sake of novelty.

Technical debate is procedural and therefore content-agnostic. Any qualification to "tech over truth" is a violation of that maxim, because either the facet in question is a part of the flow, in which case it is not actually a caveat, or it is not, in which case voting on it is indefensible IMO. (Evidence quality is not intrinsically part of the debate if I can't hear the internals of the card, but spin is.) That is an idealization: I am not the best flow (which I know takes the ethos out of my aggressiveness about 'tech over truth,' but it is our unfortunate reality), although I try hard. But my aspiration is technical judging, and ideally error will be uncorrelated. Some arguments are better than others (and so will tend to win when given equal treatment, hence all that follows), but that is different from giving myself leeway to vote or not on things that flatter my whims. This principle is most relevant for arguments that are disreputable or inconvenient--I always find it funny (deflating) when a paradigm asserts something like "the sole determinant of my ballot is the tech"--immediately followed by priggish obstinance to some of the only cases where whether or not a judge is technical actually matters.

Related: I will never be proud that I don't understand an argument. There are right and wrong decisions in varsity debates, and judges can & do fail to deliver the right ones. Elite debaters often have a better understanding of the round than their judges. This is a regrettable but inevitable part of the game. There might be times when I vote for the wrong team b/c I failed to understand, but that's something that I will be embarrassed about (I will not smugly report to you that you "failed to explain," let alone "persuade," although in fairness it is true that sometimes a debater's idea of what happened is too optimistic). And I will always develop at least a working interpretation of what an argument is--I sincerely will try my best.

It is not always possible to recover from an error (i.e., dropping a crucial argument), assuming your opponent does everything serviceably after. Of course, if I miss something that's a problem, and things that are genuinely garbled/obscure do justify answers once they're made transparent.

The rationalizations that judges use to dismiss arguments they don't like are bad: It cannot be that all arguments require a 'claim and a warrant'-- that results in an infinite regress, because all warrants are themselves claims which need warrants, and deciding which claims are brute and do not need justification is supposed to be the point of the standard. A minimum time investment is also arbitrary, in addition to being purely hypothetical (who is timing the splits of anyone's speech?). I am not going to arbitrarily refuse to vote on cheap shots. 'Complete argument,' although it may supposedly refer to claim and a warrant, usually actually doesn't, because usually even blips have warrants. ("ASPEC they didn't voting issue vagueness is unfair" is clearly a 'complete' argument, though anemic.) These sorts of criteria serve only to give judges more degrees of freedom voting for whom they like, which I view as an existential threat to the activity. Instead: An argument is admissible if I understand it. Often implicit warrants are OK ("rising sea levels will cause instability in coastal regions" is technically just a claim) but sometimes explicit warrants themselves need warrants ("ontology is true because of the three pillars"). That's how communication works, and the innate faculty for language is far more accurate than anything post hoc. This is also my standard for whether or not a cross-application is new. Anyway, unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross-applications, or equally unwarranted arguments.

Recently I've found myself advising losing teams in the post round that they should have gone for extremely bad, dropped blips. An argument being 'bad' ALONE does not mean that I will have a 'high threshold' for voting on it (again, these are weasel words that allow judges to get away w/ voting as is convenient for them, or as they please). Teams still must answer an argument satisfactorily. It is true that practically, 'bad' arguments should be unstrategic b/c they can swiftly be beaten w/ the right arguments, but the other team only benefits if they know the right answers (which they often do, but sometimes do not, especially for arguments w/ a bad reputation). But that's not about thresholds, exactly.... Ineffective arguments do not suddenly become better because I want one argument to win or lose--logically, that is bizarre, and practically, it is a violation of giving each team their due. That said, you should basically never opt to go for some blip/mishandled thing unless you're losing everything else, because they increase variance. If it's not a headshot and the other team complicates it smartly then the round becomes closer to a tossup, which you should only want if the probability that you would win otherwise is really low.

Critical Affs and Framework:

Aff teams should go for impact turns. There are no sacred cows--I am far less likely to agree with aff arguments than the average clash judge, but far more willing to vote for things like "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models of debate" or terminal defense to the topic having any value or for such extreme skepticism that I disregard the case or "fairness is bad" for XYZ etc. Cynical and tricky K teams should reach near-competitive-parity with policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal--but they must be willing to use those tactics. I am unlikely to be 'moved' or to suspend evaluation of some part of the debate by sincerity or pathos. The 2AC should be a shotgun of things that the neg must answer, and ideally have arguments that are hard to prepare for in advance. Most framework 2NCs literally can ignore most 2ACs and still win, because 2NCs are often very refined and the 2AC often as few viable arguments (although they could, and this is my point, haveenough to make it hard for the neg).

The neg should go for fairness. K teams worth their salt should be able to link turn skills arguments I feel like. I put little stock in the concept of education, and even less in the idea that preparation for a tournament causes it. (That might be a moot point though, b/c few teams are willing to be that extreme). Clash is anti-inevitable because of competitive incentives, which is OK. It is not clear to me that participation in debate is better than what students would do with their time otherwise (same with basketball or reading Stephen King), and I think that if K teams pretend not to care immensely about winning, they are lying. Of course, I have no opposition to arguments made in 'bad faith'--I think I might prefer them.

Straight up policy debate does not resemble the activism (e.g.) Lakey and Heller talk about in any meaningful way. Never understood that one.

Most ways that affs try to 'access' fairness don't make sense--most persuasive is a more radical and bold argument about why competition is bad/irrelevant/should be suspended. It really doesn't feel that hard to zero (or impact turn) neg framework standards, or to have some new creative set of tricks. (That's what excites me about these debates). Or trying to win 'no models' or something a priori. Similarly, middle-of-the-road strategies don't make sense to me. Anyway, if the aff chooses to counter-define words (rather than some meta-interpretation), they must counterdefine or meet all of the words the neg has, or they should lose on jurisdiction. (Of course, the neg never extends this argument.)

DAs don't link to these K affs unless the aff catastrophically fails in CX/admits to them. The neg should probably go for T, or some sort of PIC or PIK. If you can win a link (or competition), then by all means, but I'm not gonna pretend an aff that does nothing somehow collapses US hegemony... (Going for a K is higher variance, but also much better than the heg DA. High theory Ks of common K affs I suspect would be devastating, and mostly lose now for ideological rather than substantive reasons, which I likely will not replicate. I mention PICs b/c they're the sort of thing that should clearly win easily--will the K team competently go for for PDCP?)

Critiques on the Neg:

The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is some sort of philosophical competition argument. Critiques make little sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like counterplans. Then, arguments like ‘link non-unique’ or ‘perm: doublebind’ becomes unbeatable. I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation. Because I think about the K in a competition-centric way, I think that the aff should invest more time in framework, earlier, and I don't mind policy teams going aggressively for "no Ks" from the get go. It's usually at the expense of 2AC cards that are irrelevant anyway.

Again, the K should be a vehicle for tricks. I don't like saying that "the aff probably gets the aff," because really that's just an admission of overt ideological blindness, and clearly false when the neg wins a reason why plan focus is bad while the aff murmurs only about predictability. But it is true that the neg has to find some way of dealing with the case, whether it be an aggressive framework interpretation, or philosophical competition and an alt that fiats everything, or some sort of floating PIK, or link reasons why I should assume the aff is false, or reasons why I should vote for a team independent of whether or not they're winning the flow, etc. Traditional case defense alone probably will not work unless you also deal w/ the uniqueness problem for the links.

I was a K debater in HS (high theory, anthro, Buddhism, also the capitalism critique????).

Links to the plan do not make sense to me and are impact turned by the aff winning aff outweighs. Links are either something that establishes philosophical competition for an alt that fiats everything, or they are a minimum bar that the neg must clear as it relates to their framework argument. The CLOSER a link is to a DA, the WORSE it is, because it will never be unique. If you are evaluating whether or not an action is good or bad, both its negative (the neg's stuff) and the positive (the aff's advantages) consequences count, which means that you have to win something on extinction o/w. The K needs to be about stuff other than the plan. That is, the aff will basically certainly win if they get the case and the perm.

Aff: If the plan prevents extinction, that's all that needs to be said. Long case overviews against an uncontested extinction impact are unnecessary and therefore a poor use of time. If they don't have anything against the case, I don't even really think you need to go there, at some point on the K you will mention that XOW.

Topicality:

I judge topicality like any other position---offense/defense and competing interpretations. Reasonability is winnable but requires substantial time investment. Reasonability is just the argument that the neg needs to win more offense than the aff does because permitting the neg to win with low margins incentivizes teams to go for T at a higher rate than is desirable (because T is ""substance" "crowdout""). Personally, I don't think T is a worse debate to be had, so the neg should be perfectly willing to impact turn that (the?) reason why reasonability would be a desirable standard.... Which particular plan is presented is not relevant (e.g., is it a popular aff). Unless someone makes a robust argument about why I shouldn't be comparing models of debate, things like "we're predictable/core of the topic" are irrelevant and start at zero. Reasonability itself isn't even an argument that we shouldn't use models of debate, just that we should be stricter before resolving in favor of a usurping model. Lastly:

I don't regard my decision as norm-setting, and it matters little what the 'community consensus' on an interpretation is--both teams must simply be able to articulate why an interpretation is good or not. (I think I am an outlier here?)

I find that it is far easier to win a big limits DA than to win that 'predictability' outweighs it. At the high level, predictable limits should win, but I am usually not impressed by the execution of that argument. It's simply easier to win a big limits DA than explaining why predictable limits outweigh. This is true in other areas too, but debaters seem to overestimate how bad it is to be 'arbitrary.' Interpretations that are best adapted to the idiosyncrasies of debate are hard to find (which makes them few, and therefore predictable) and warrant departure from strict lexical analysis.

Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true. What else would topicality be about, if not the plan? (That is a serious question.) Scare-mongering examples of "[Resolution] by [unrelated mechanism]" lose immediately to counterplanning the unrelated mechanism and reading DAs to the topic as it's been defined. Most critics of PTIV seem not to understand it. The only thing that trumps that is cross-ex. If the aff says in cross-ex "we're the Courts," then clearly I would grant the violation for T-No Courts. The aff should simply say that the most likely implementation is the Courts (or whatever). Relatedly: Normal means is a factual question--if the aff declares that the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg has legitimate grounds to disagree, and win how the plan is, in fact, likeliest to happen.

Theory:

My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious behavior--like counterplanning out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well. New affs justify terrorism. Violations are a reason to reject the argument and not the team--provided they're answered minimally...

...That said, I would be receptive to a team going for theory in a technical way, and that team would likely have decent success in many debates, because theory is often answered haphazardly and badly. And when theory is answered especially poorly, the aff can obviously go for the clean kill if they please. At least, doing so will not result in lower points. But in elite, fast policy debates, I'd be surprised if the aff won very frequently by complaining.

7 condo clearly links more to aff offense than 2. One of the most enigmatic opinions I have heard in all of debate, that people at least report to believe, is that the number doesn't matter. It might not matter that much, but are you kidding me?

I would prefer if we default to inserting ev rather than reading it. Although I have now seen it abused, and it probably is unfair to the aff if it's for 1AC cards....

RVIs: Are dumb but also don't warrant random suspension of the law of tech over truth. Losing to an RVI would represent a catastrophic technical collapse by any competent team. Just answer the blip and move on... if you fail that, my sympathy is expensive...

Counterplans:

Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste that many do for plan inclusive or process counterplans. I won’t think a net benefit is bad just because it’s ‘artificial’ and I don’t think a DA/Case 2NR is necessarily better than a counterplan that steals the aff. The neg should go for the argument that maximizes their chance of victory.

If the aff wins PDCP, then my default is that that's how the aff is being done (I won't say "the aff might be this, but it might not be, so I've decided one way"). I won't judge kick it in that case. It's not clear to me if this is controversial or not.

Similar: Vagueness in their text is good to the extent the neg can get away with it, which will probably be completely--debate is a strategy game played to win. I don't really have a satisfactory test in mind for what's too vague or how to handle this stuff, but I'm not going to go rogue and have an irritating self-righteous reaction...

Textual competition alone is a bad standard, but functional alone may or may not be worse than functional & textual.

Judge kick is truthfully obviously OK, and my default. Of course the aff can start a debate about it, but I doubt competent teams will struggle for the right responses.

DAs:

I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it affects the substantive magnitude of the impact. The neg should go for the argument that maximizes their chance of victory. Debate is not about scholarship or learning, and so I do not care if your DA represents "innovative" "research" or not.

Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction--"below X% risk, you should treat it as 0, for blah blah blah," or else from something similarly mechanical--expired uniqueness or the wrong legal concept or something. Dropped impact defense I guess, but if it's like "warming is not existential," what am I supposed to do w/ that?

Impact Turns/Misc. arguments:

Impact turns--teams going for them, and teams successfully beating them back--are my favorite. This goes for conventional policy impact turns, up to and including those that become reliant on sci-fi and futurism, and it also goes for arguments that are more philosophical in nature (the value of life, etc.). I have (and cherish) a very old-school sensibility about debate, where I want the most outrageous and counterintuitive positions possible vigorously debated. Arguments that will result in a point tax from a lot of judges I will treat as no different than topic mainstays, if not better (in varsity). In virtue of debate being a voluntary competition centered on disagreement, there ought be a much higher premium placed on composure in the face of unpleasant ideas or the entertainment of strange ones, even relative to school classrooms or other extracurriculars, and an expectation that no argument is above refutation. None. It is the procedure of refutation that insures us against and leaves us vulnerable to bad arguments--nothing more or less would be appropriate.

Unconventional arguments are probably an unusually good strategy in front of me: Groupthink within debate often stops students & judges from actually understanding positions outside of a very narrow worldview, and so being vulnerable to them. Tricks cause discontent often because teams collapse at answering them and then, like villainous financiers, need to be bailed out by the establishment. Clearly, I am not going to bail them out. That said, I will absolutely lavish points on students who can defend the more traditional positions--that is far more impressive and ultimately, bad arguments cry out for refutation.

Debate suffers from pervasive ideological rot, so much so that rounds have at times begun to verge on surreal. People will treat something as obviously stupid or false meanwhile I feel indifferent and vaguely curious; things taken for granted I often find extremely controversial, and so on. Calling an argument conservative does not answer it (except maybe in some K debates where the impact to being "counter-revolutionary" is already floating around). Scoffing at an argument doesn't answer it, is a waste of time, is at odds w/ what debate should be, disappoints me, etc. Hostility at having to answer an argument IMO is usually b/c you can't, or not nearly as well as you think you should be able to. If you're of one persuasion, you might say that the reason people might argue with you on things you consider obvious or foundational is because they're ignorant, or evil, or are merely pretending. I guess I felt that way when I was 16 too. Nowadays I don't find it hard to fathom whatsoever that smart people have very serious and profound disagreements with me. Anyway, that how hard things are to answer is a function of the the knowledge and preparation and skill of debaters, which is what I am here to assess, so, um, no mercy there.

Case:

You don’t need to extend impacts in the 2AC if the 1NC dropped them. Just briefly reference the concession and move on. The same applies to the 1AR, although you should give a quick explanatory sentence that demonstrates you identified the concession and are extending your scenario.

Presumption: Is the procedure for adjudicating a tie. The statement of the plan can be semantically analyzed: "should" refers to there being a reason for action. If the aff is at 0, then there isn't a reason (even if the neg has also failed). Same for why the aff wins if the counterplan is identical to the aff--the government should do the plan in that case (but they shouldn't if there's an opportunity cost.) "Less change" doesn't make sense--there's no reason to assume that change is intrinsically bad, rather than good. This is my default.

What ‘fiat’ means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan. Willing to hear circumvention tricks.

Plan vagueness: Another thing subject to overheated moral panic. Affs should try to get away w/ everything the neg won't successfully call them on. This is basic strategy.

'Ethics'

Stopping a debate will result in either a win or a loss, and if the accusing team fails to produce a PLAUSIBLY MALICIOUS infraction, they lose. So the issue area needs to be something where it's possible to imagine the offending team doing it on purpose, that is, the altered evidence is conceivably an improvement on the original which might confer competitive advantage (missing a paragraph that says something important, fudging dates in situations where that matters, etc.). You don't need to establish that it was purposeful in fact, but trifling concerns (missing a single author, missing ending punctuation, a date being a few years off on a random AT: Nietzsche card) will result in a loss for the accuser. Unless you get to something that you think will clear that standard, the proper remedy is arguing in round (reject the card, etc.) I'm not going to take some affected manner about it unless a team really may've actually cheated, not just miscut a card/been unclear.

I will not unilaterally enforce rules against clipping, but teams proved doing it will lose.

Points & personality:

I like students that care, and care about winning. Kindness is a virtue, it's true, but so is drive, and the nerve to win.

brief update for mshsl state 2023: congratulations on qualifying! a few notes -- i haven't judged debate for around one year, and i haven't been heavily involved in the debate community for a few years. i might need a higher level of explanation for any topic-specific references. all of the below is still true, but i'm less committed to my "notable thoughts, preferences & biases" than i was in 2021. good luck, have fun!

----

add me to the chain: mariestebbings@gmail.com

last updated: 12/19/2021 (additions to misc, fixing typos)

background: minneapolis south ‘19 (toc), light coaching for minneapolis south in ‘19-20. primarily ran kritikal arguments as a 2n/double 2.

online debate: 20% slower please! if my camera is off i’m not there, you can always reach me via email.

tldr: you do you; i will be happiest judging whatever you find exciting/strategic and have spent quality time researching! facilitating a healthy and educational environment* > tech > truth. my voting record in clash debates is pretty even.

how i judge

- flow first. i try to minimize judge intervention as much as possible in my decisions; i won’t write a ballot on an argument that wasn’t made in-round and i try not to impose my opinion on what is true, with the exception of harmful/oppressive arguments.

- arguments need a warrant and impact to be taken into consideration.

- i really love judge instruction. i start creating my decision by identifying the key framing questions of the debate, which means instructing me on what you believe the key issues are, how you believe arguments interact with each other, and engaging in comparative analysis will help you tremendously. small, technical arguments that take out the opposing team’s claims can also factor heavily in my decisions.

- evidence: i read evidence i think is interesting throughout the debate. i won’t incorporate my thoughts on your evidence quality into my rfd unless it’s necessary to resolve an argument, but assuming completely even debating (very rare), i default to the team with the stronger cards. (given the importance of pre-round preparation in advanced policy debate, debaters who spend time finding good evidence should be rewarded.) i think a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable in debates over ev quality and that that intervention is necessary to maintain reasonable debates (ex. you can't blatantly lie about what a card says if the other team points out you're lying).

- *ethical considerations: prioritizing ‘facilitating a healthy and educational environment’ means if someone is being harmful/oppressive in-round i reserve the right to auto L with the lowest speaks possible. however, i prefer to presume ignorance over intentional harm and avoid using the ballot as a punitive instrument. i can’t adjudicate over things that happened outside of the round. if i catch you clipping, i will drop your speaks regardless of whether the other team points it out.

- speaks: ~28.5-6 is average, ~29.2+ is deserving of a speaker award. being clear, knowing your evidence, making strategic decisions, hard-hitting cx questions/answers -> high speaks. obviously not flowing the debate -> low speaks.

notable thoughts, preferences & biases

fwk: i personally believe education and self-actualization are the ‘telos’ of debate, but you can persuade me that procedural fairness is a terminal impact. tvas don’t need to solve the aff but they should be able to solve at least of the aff’s offense on framework. i genuinely don’t have a preference between the aff going for impact turns and/or counter-interps/models.

kritiks: framework is either irrelevant or filters almost all of the offense on the k flow. tech > truth means i won’t create my own arbitrary framework interpretation. the more specific your analysis is to the opposing team’s arguments, the better chance you have of winning. i am more easily persuaded by links that prove the aff is worse than the status quo/2nrs that make heavy framework and epistemology pushes than presumption focused strategies. aff teams could generally improve their link answers, and neg teams could generally improve their alt solvency.

t: i really appreciate model comparisons (caselists, lost/gained neg ground, etc.). please define what reasonability means if you go for it. i don't have a ton of topic knowledge - will need extra explanation for acronyms and topic norms.

cp theory: aff-biased on most cp theory. i default to judge kicking cps if asked.

das: i think zero risk is possible if you’re missing an internal link (or link). specific/quality ev > recent ev (explain why the date matters) > quantity of ev. better for warranted brink arguments than most.

case: i love case debates that dig into the ev and point out logical holes/inconsistencies in the aff’s ev and internal link chains.

theory: please don’t spread at max speed through your theory blocks. i find counter-interps helpful for framing the majority of theory debates. condo is generally good, but i start to lean aff after ~two advocacies.

misc: re-highlighted ev must be read, not inserted. sending exact text for perms, theory interps/violations, and/or framework interps is a good practice. strict on 1ar-2ar consistency, will give some leeway if the 2nr had new arguments/warrants. no new 2ar cross-applications across different flows.

in clearly asymmetrical debates (ex. a team with 5 bids vs a team at their first varsity tournament), taking the time to slow down and 'over-explain' your arguments so all the debaters can engage with the round is a much more persuasive strategy for high speaker points than outspreading and out-jargoning your less experienced opponents.

cx: is binding and i usually flow it.

good luck, have fun! feel free to email me with any questions.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

*I don't look at docs during the debate, if it isn't on my flow, I'm not evaluating it*

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

FOR LD PREFS AT BERKELEY

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters. This also means:

3) Pen time. If you're going to read 10 blippy theory arguments back-to-back or spit out 5 different perms in a row, I'm not going get them all on my flow, you have to give judges time between args to catch it all

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) I'll be honest, if you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you. I'll try my best, but I often find myself behind in these debates and struggling to find an offensive reason to vote for you.

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7 should clear;28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

That being said, if you have me as a judge read below:

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

I believe debate is a unique opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, open-mindedness, and sharpen articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, I believe judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thinking ability as well. Its far more important to me that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any  argument (with the exception of a few clearly, morally outrageous positions i.e. racism good, genocide good, things like that) as long as you can tell me why you win it. It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events. 

I debated policy in high school, and policy and parliamentary in college. I have judged tournaments for the last two years in CX, LD, PF, and Extemp,  and contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools in those areas as well. 

Monta Vista '18, UC Berkeley '22. dsudesh2000@gmail.com -- put me on the chain.

This philosophy reflects my ideological leanings; it is not a set of rules I abide by in every decision. All of them can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team, and I firmly believe tech > truth.

The most important thing for me is argument resolution. In close debates, I generally resolve in favor of rebuttals that have judge instruction, explain the interaction between your arguments and theirs, and efficiently frame the debate in a way that adds up to a ballot. If you don't give me a way to reconcile two competing claims, I'll likely just read evidence to make my own judgment. Some effective examples of this are "even if they win x, we still win because y" and short overviews for individual parts of the line by line (like framing issues for comparing the strength of a link to a link turn).

K Affs and Framework:

K Affs: Develop one or two pieces of central offense that impact turn whatever standard(s) the neg is going for. I tend to vote more frequently for the direct impact turn than the 'CI + link turn neg standards' strategy.

Framework: I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments.

K:

I am well versed in security, cap, and a few other similar K's. Links are best when they prove the plan shouldn't be implemented. I'm skeptical of sweeping claims about the structure of society (provided reasonable pushback by the aff). If equally debated, I am likely to conclude that the affirmative gets to weigh the plan. I tend to vote aff when the aff wins they get to weigh the plan and their impact outweighs the neg's, and I tend to vote neg when the neg wins a framework argument.

Theory:

Infinite conditionality, agent CPs, PICs, conditional planks, 2NC CPs are all good. CPs that rely on certainty or immediacy or the like for competition are illegitimate. I would strongly prefer if you resolve debates substantively than resort to theory.

CPs/DAs/Impact Turns/Case Debate/T:

Smart, analytical case defense or CPs are fine if completely intuitive or factual, but they hold significantly more weight if tied to a piece of evidence.

As far as T goes, I highly value precision when compared to limits and ground. Winning that your interp makes debates slightly more winnable for the neg is unlikely to defeat a precise interpretation that reflects the literature consensus.

Other Things:

When reading evidence, I will only evaluate warrants that are highlighted.

Dropped arguments don't need to be fully explained until the final rebuttals. However, you must point out that they are dropped and give a quick explanatory sentence.

Email: kevinsun127@gmail.com

Debate is a research game. Demonstrate topic knowledge, and you'll earn high speaker points. Isolate one or two questions to hinge the debate on, and you'll have an easier path to victory.

You don't have to read a plan. Just impact turn framework. Don't need an elaborate explanation of your vision of debate.

Fairness is an impact.

Evidence quality matters a little more than in-round strategy. That being said, dropped arguments are true (though it'll be hard to convince me that a 1NC DA shell with 50 words highlighted is a "complete" argument).

Conditionality is good. Unlikely to vote on cheap-shot theory arguments unless dropped.

Topicality usually comes down to evidence quality. If you're decidedly right about the meaning of a word, then you'll probably win. If there's some ambiguity in this, then case-lists help your case better than a generic under/over-limiting block.

Critiques should dispute the reasons to vote affirmative. In other words, not a fan of negative strategies that consist entirely of frivolous pre-requisite questions and framework interpretations. The K should make sense in a world where the plan happens.

Counterplans that compete off of certainty/immediacy are not ideal.

Feel free to post-round.

Send out the 1AC before the speech.

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains and at tournaments; debnil.sur [at] gmail.com otherwise (do not put my personal email on chains). Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: If we are in a primarily lay setting, I'll evaluate the debate as a lay judge unless both teams ask for a fast debate. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer": I am a member of the National Topic Wording Committee (2023-25) and authored the South Asia paper that finished third in the 2023-24 voting. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 55/45 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I know a great deal about cybersecurity and artificial intelligence at a technical level. If you understand what you are saying, this can substantially elevate emerging tech-oriented strategies. If you do not (looking at many affs this year), I will not be happy.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote aff.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal methodfff; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

Topicality:

1. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

2. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

3. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

4. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet."

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Otherwise, it goes aff in the event of an advocacy.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo.

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

About Me

• Director @ Coppell
• Assistant Director @ Mean Green Comet
• Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas
• Please add me to the email chain and/or doc: sykes.tx @ gmail.com

Basics

• This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
• Clarity is important. I'm also working to adjust my speaker points to keep up with inflation.
• I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
• I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I was a flex debater, typically went for more critical (K) arguments, and am happy to evaluate policy arguments.
• I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Theory/Topicality

• I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, but I don't think that should be exclusive of other arguments and approaches.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Defaults/Disads

• If the framework for evaluating the debate involves a disad, be aware that I generally determine the direction of uniqueness before the link, but these arguments together speak to the propensity for risk.
• If forced by lack of comparison to use my own framework I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative advocacy.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

• I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory. Be creative.

Kritiking

• The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
• A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

• You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
• I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

• While my background in policy debate leads me to a more progressive perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional debates as well. You do you.
• I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

• PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
• Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
• Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
• Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
• Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

I was a performance debater so I enjoy performance/critical debates -- but with everything going on in the world I find myself enjoying a good traditional policy debate. Bottomline -- do you! I am here to listen, help, and encourage.

Things I love: overviews, ALT's, framework/framing, ROJ.

Mark my ballot: You do this by telling the best cohesive story of what the world looks like post AFF/NEG.

Also, I enjoy historical examples.

Don't be mean!

HAVE FUN :)

Updated - 11/17/20

Background: I debated in high school at Minneapolis South and in college at the University of Minnesota '17. I've coached policy debate for 6 years, and am currently the Head Coach of Minneapolis South high school.

If you have any questions about my paradigm/rfd/comments, feel free to email me at: tauringtraxler@gmail.com & also use this to put me on email chains, please and thank you.

I will enforce the tournament rules (speech times/prep/winner and loser, etc.), but the content of the round as well as how I evaluate the content is up to the debaters. Judge instruction is important -- my role is to decide who did the better debating, what determines that is up to you.

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

Water Topic Thoughts:

All of this is as of Glenbrooks, and subject to change.

Affs:
1) Extra points if your aff is a big change from the squo - but probably a higher chance of winning if it's not...

T things:
1) Thought T-Cessation was bad at Greenhill - still think it's bad, but haven't seen a good definition and there needs to be a limit to the topic so I'm persuadable on debateability o/w predictability (or anything else you can come up with for why your Neg T-interp sets a good limit)

DAs:
1) Biz Con is a bad DA - sympathetic that there's not good core generics but I'm going to be rolling my eyes during your 2NR

2) Will appreciate creative Ptx DAs

CPs:
1) Nothing really of note on this topic
2) I dislike adv cps with a ton of planks, and con con

Ks:
1) Love 'em, do you

Defaults:
1) Judge kick the alt/cp, unless instructed otherwise
2) Condo is good, but there's a limit (i.e. kicking planks probably bad)
3) 2ar only gets args made in the 1ar, but gets to respond to 2nr spin

Norms:
1) Sending a marked copy does not constitute prep, but requesting a doc where "unread cards are deleted" constitutes prep and will also lower your speaks...just flow the debate

Bellarmine ‘19

Dartmouth ‘23

Email: tvergho@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

Last Updated: January 2022

Topic Knowledge: I have moderate familiarity with the core affs and neg positions on the water topic. I coach for Bellarmine and have judged a few rounds on the topic.

Online Debate:

- I would prefer that debaters keep their cameras on the whole debate. Online debate is depressing enough without staring at empty black boxes the entire time. However, I won’t enforce this or penalize you for choosing to keep it off.

- If my camera is off, assume that I'm away from my computer and don't start speaking.

- If a serious tech problem occurs (a debater cutting out mid-speech being the most likely example), I will attempt to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument I heard.

- Slow down a little. It is almost certainly more difficult to flow you online than in-person, even if you have the best microphone and Internet setup possible.

- Keeping track of prep in the chat is helpful.

Tech over truth – always. Debate how you want. The below paradigm reflects my ideological predispositions, and can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team. I will read evidence after the debate to resolve closely contested issues, so judge instruction is paramount.

An argument isn’t a complete argument – even if dropped – if I can’t explain the claim, warrant, and impact in the RFD. Additional warrants, evidence, or explanation are new and merit new responses accordingly.

I generally take a long time to decide. This usually does not reflect the closeness of the round.

I evaluate rounds in terms of relative risk. In practice, this means that I will almost certainly not care about generic impact calculus or "only our impact causes extinction" framing, absent those arguments being contextualized to the link scenario and overall risk of the DA or advantage. Impacts can be of greater or lesser magnitude, but that only implicates the starting risk of each scenario – a uniqueness take-out is still a uniqueness take-out regardless of whether the rest of the link chain accesses extinction or not. A “no link” argument worth 10% is as much mitigation as a “no impact” argument worth 10%. This also means I care less about impact turns case arguments than the average judge.

TL;DR:

1. I tend to find defenses of resolutional stasis more persuasive than impact turns to topical debate.

2. Impacts to framework based on debate’s form (e.g. fairness, clash, limits) are more effective than impacts based on debate’s content (e.g. topic education, legal engagement).

3. The closer a K comes to disproving the desirability of the plan’s enactment, the better.

4. Winning ontology or any other broad theory that purports to describe how the world works will be an uphill battle.

5. If you have to ask whether your CP is competitive, it’s probably not. That being said, if the aff mishandles the competition debate, anything’s fair game.

6. Conditionality is good.

7. Utilitarianism is good. Impact framing oriented along alternative rubrics should focus on critiquing risk assessment, not how I conduct impact calculus.

8. I will default to kicking the CP, including individual planks, unless contested.

9. Zero risk probably isn’t a thing.

10. Author quals are important. I can be convinced to assign certain cards no more weight than a comparable analytic.

--

Framework: In general, my predisposition is that debate is better when affirmatives defend a topical plan. If you read a planless aff, you’re best off preffing me above the judges who will auto-vote neg on framework and below the judges who are truly agnostic. Relative uniqueness and impact comparison will determine a lot of these debates.

My primary bias is that I don’t believe procedural fairness is automatically a terminal impact. Defenses of fairness as an “intrinsic good” typically are explained as “it’s necessary to sustain the game,” which still begs the question of an external justification as to why that game is good.

Aff teams should invest in one or two central impact turns to the negative’s model of debate, rather than overly relying on the counter-interpretation. Neg arguments about arbitrariness are persuasive against aff counter-interpretations that don't re-define words in the topic.

I find an immense amount of irony in policy teams that complain about long K overviews while simultaneously reading 3+ minute pre-written framework overviews of their own.

K’s: I have a passing familiarity with most K's in debate, but no in-depth knowledge of any particular literature base. Aff teams commonly lose these debates by pursuing the defensive “perm/no link” route instead of defending their aff and leveraging salient impact turns. My general skepticism of alternatives to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis means “extinction outweighs” framing is extremely persuasive. If equally debated, I’m likely to conclude the aff gets to weigh their plan and the neg gets some access to discourse-based offense.

I’m skeptical of most metaphysical, ontological, or otherwise totalizing theories that attempt to explain how the world operates. I typically assign an extraordinarily high burden of proof to win these arguments, given reasonable pushback from the other team.

Detailed roadmaps (framework, perm, link debate, etc.) are often helpful in K debates. Long overviews are fine, but should not become a pretense to discard the line-by-line and 2AC structure.

K v K debates: I don’t expect I’ll be judging many of these. Judge instruction is paramount. I can go either way on whether planless affs get a permutation.

Topicality (against policy affs): Between two interpretations of relatively equal quality, I’m a fairly good judge for the neg in topicality debates. Evidence quality matters. Limits are desirable in the abstract; limits for the sake of limits aren’t. If your interpretation is clearly contrived nonsense, you’ll be facing an uphill battle persuading me that your model reasonably establishes contours for aff research.

As Ani puts it: “The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps. Note that reasonability is about the interps, not the aff. It means the aff gets their interp comparison offense plus substance crowdout as bonus offense.”

DA’s: Obviously fine. A well-explained link story and solid spin can go a long way. Absent winning some terminal claim (“the bill already passed,” “this country factually doesn’t exist,” etc.), I’ve yet to see a speech that successfully mitigated something to zero risk. I care far more about link-centered debate than impact calculus divorced from the cumulative risk of the DA. Smart analytical defense is fine, but holds significantly more weight when tied to evidence.

I find long framing contentions unpersuasive usually because they fail to present a coherent alternative model for risk assessment. I classify impact framing into two types: risk assessment (how I evaluate the relative probability of an impact), and impact calculus (how I assess which impact outweighs what). In the abstract, it will difficult to get me to abandon my inclination towards utilitarian cost-benefit impact calculus. However, most critiques of util, when accompanied by meta-level instruction about how I should evaluate the debate, can be persuasively applied to change how I determine whether an impact is "probable" or "large."

I’m more down for the rider DA than most judges. Impact turns are always fun, but maintaining organization on the flow is crucial.

CP’s: Nuanced and in-depth counterplan competition debates are some of my favorite debates to judge. Evenly debated, I tend to err aff on competition questions. If the counterplan could theoretically fiat a possible manifestation of the plan, I view the counterplan as questionably competitive at best. However, many aff teams don't invest the requisite time and refutation in later rebuttals to sufficiently answer neg competition "tricks."

Debated equally, going for a perm > going for theory against largely plan-inclusive counterplans.

Offense-defense applies to the link to the net benefit. If the counterplan links less than either the aff or the perm, in the absence of a solvency deficit that outweighs the residual link differential I’m likely to vote neg because the counterplan is the least risky option. This presumption is by no means immutable if the affirmative invests in an alternative frame for risk evaluation.

I will default to kicking the CP if neither side brings it up. If equally debated, I’ll likely err negative on judge kick as the logical extension of conditionality.

Limited intrinsicness, backed by a non-regressive theoretical interpretation, is a vastly underutilized tool against many neg CP's. A model in which counterplans must be functionally and textually competitive justifies perms that are functionally or textually intrinsic, but not both.

Theory: I’m generally neg-leaning on conditionality and view all aff interpretations based on the number of advocacies as equally arbitrary.

Aff-leaning on consult, delay, con-con, and generic counterplans that compete off immediacy and certainty. I also think multi-actor (not multi-branch) counterplans are illegitimate. Ambivalent on international fiat. Anything other than conditionality is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Neg-leaning on PIC’s, QPQ, multi-plank CP’s, non-enforcement, states, and generic “topic” counterplans like ESR. 2NC CP’s are good in response to new 2AC offense. Agent CP’s are theoretically legitimate but questionably competitive.

That being said, don't drop theory arguments. The line-by-line overdetermines theory debates and I will mercilessly vote against you if you concede well-explained theory arguments backed by reasons rejecting the team is justified.

Speaker Points: I’ll adjust the scale on a per-tournament basis and attempt to remain consistent throughout the tournament.

29.5+ – top speaker.

29.3-29.4 – top 5-10 speaker.

29.1-29.2 – top 20 speaker.

28.8-29.0 – a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; should break.

28.6-28.7 – a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.4-28.5 – a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.0-28.3 – a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

I will type “clear” into the chat once and then verbally say it twice – after that, I will stop flowing.

I won’t actively call out clipping; the other team needs a recording to prove it. I won’t declare an auto-loss if one team alleges a clipping violation and I conclude otherwise. NDCA guidelines apply: “clipping has occurred when a debater represents they have read five words or more that they did not read in any speech.”

The ballot is yours. Speaker points are mine. Ask for 30’s and you just might receive 24’s.

Other Thoughts: With the exception of obvious or deliberate racial or homophobic slurs, in most instances I view rejecting the team as an inappropriate remedy for accidentally misgendering or using potentially problematic language. Obviously this can change for repeat offenses or a refusal to offer an apology.

Numbering arguments is good and will be rewarded with speaker points.

Probably more receptive to new(ish) 1AR arguments than most.

I’m a very expressive judge. If this bothers you, just let me know before the round.

Absent in-round contestation, I'll accept inserted re-highlightings to deter poor evidentiary practices, provided that the re-highlighting actually comes from the card your opponent read in the debate. If it comes three paragraphs later, you actually have to read the part where the author concludes the other way. I will treat this as the equivalent of an evidence indict with added context. You have to actually explain how the re-highlightings implicate the round; don't insert 10 different cards and expect me to sort through the tags later. This only applies if you are indicting the other team's evidence; if you're using the card to advance some extrinsic argument, you need to actually read it.

I will never vote on an argument that relies upon non-falsifiable things that may have occurred outside the round in front of me.

If your computer freezes or crashes in the middle of the speech, don’t worry about it – just pause the timer and wait for it to restart. Similarly, flashing isn’t prep, but if you take forever and are obviously stealing prep I’ll dock your speaks.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions

I debated for UT from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. I studied rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

update for berkeley/tfa '22: respectfully, i am not the girl you want on your LD elims strike card

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. Don't over-adapt, just do what you do best.

as a judge I do my absolute best to intervene as little as possible. this means that whatever you give me to work with is what I have to work with - I cannot make arguments or suss out contradictions for you. my flow is highly detail-oriented and barring any major clarity issues I will get everything down that I possibly can, but at the end of the day I need a reason to vote for you. the better you are at making meaningful distinctions, the happier you will be with the outcome. evidence alone does not constitute an argument, and the quality of your explanation always, always supersedes that of the ev. even if a piece of evidence is generic, your explanation of it shouldn’t be - use your head.

clarity matters, particularly so in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - but that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, esp at the expense of speed, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

theory - if you must

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a significant amt of clash debates, and i usually enjoy them

prep time ends when the doc is attached to the email. please try to be efficient with this time

be nice & have fun

Debated at Wake Forest University (2016-21) and Little Rock Central High School (2012-16)

Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep

- Put me on the email chain: williamsd.j.jr@gmail.com

Please be as clear as possible. I'd rather you slow down than continue stumbling over words and making it painful for all involved.

Be relatively friendly to one another. It's annoying watching a team mock their opponents without reason.

I don't have an argument preference but I am more familiar with K/K affs. However, I was initially trained in "traditional" policy style arguments. So, say whatever just do it well and help me out with policy acronyms/jargon (especially topic specific stuff).

Lastly, it is imperative that you explain to me what voting or not voting aff/neg means. I find it frustrating when I have to construct the big picture at the end of the debate. I expect you to write my ballot for me by a) explaining what offense you are winning or going to win by the end of the speech and 2) contextualizing those arguments to the other team's.

If you have any questions about certain arguments or misc. preferences, please don't hesitate to ask!

UC Berkeley 2021 (go bears)

College - caldebatechain@gmail.com, debatedocs

High School - ktwimsatt at gmail

- Tech over truth. Only exception is death good arguments/spark. Do not read them; I will not vote on them.

- I'm less involved in research on this topic, please err on the side of over-explanation.

- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

- I'm not super convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

- Default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

Have fun!

winchellanthony@gmail.com – add me; also add trojandebateteam@gmail.com | they/them | Updated for Minnesota/Texas 2023

Minnesota/Texas Update: I judged 3 rounds at Wake (all AI affs, all prelims). Judging record is 2-1 aff.

Wake Update: This is my first experience judging college debate. I debated for USC with very limited success. I haven't been very actively involved in debate over the last two years, but I did a lot of research for the AI IPR aff USC has been reading this year. It's been a while since I've judged, so I recommend you go a bit slower than usual and overexplain your arguments. I'm not very good for the K, especially high level K debate. The paradigm I wrote below was written for high schoolers, but my thoughts should translate to college debate just fine.

(Stuff below was last updated for Berkeley 2022)

Online Debate: I have judged and participated in roughly 100 online debates over the course of the pandemic. Things I've found to be useful are going slower than you normally would and sharing analytics if they’re already written out in a speech doc. Also, I feel it's important to note that I flow on paper, so with lag and poor mic quality, it's extra important to give me enough pen time. Lastly, if my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech unless I've said otherwise.

Policy --

Rounds Judged on this Topic: 0. I haven't been very active in judging or coaching this year so I am well behind the curve when it comes to topic knowledge.

About Me: I did policy debate for three years at Green Valley High School in Las Vegas and I’ve been debating at USC and coaching Chaminade College Prep in LA for two years now. I qualled to the TOC my senior year of HS and am currently in my third year of college debate. I am majoring in physics and in astronomy, so please don't assume I know all the intricacies of econ, IR, the law, etc. because it's not something I am actively studying. I'd say I have pretty good intuition about most things though, but it's always better to simplify the arguments you're making in front of me because I don't like to think too hard.

tl;dr: All the below thoughts are in no way set in stone and the way I evaluate a round depends a lot more on what happened in those 2 hours than anything I'll say here; with that in mind, I will vote for any argument as long as I think you are winning it. I'd say I'm pretty tech > truth, but this only goes so far (e.g. if your argument starts off with near-0% risk, even if you technically win the argument, I will only evaluate your argument with the level of risk that your evidence indicates I should). Most importantly, if I don't know how to explain to the other team how they lost to your argument during an RFD, then you're not getting my ballot.

Rhetoric: Debate is a rhetorical activity meaning if I can’t understand you, I won’t vote for you. Speed is fine, but clarity is key. A dropped argument only matters if you extend a claim, warrant, and impact to it. Please be nice to each other, we’re all here to learn and have fun.

K's in General: I am not going to lie, I am not proficient in any K literature whatsoever. So please, assume I have no idea what you’re talking about, explain your author's jargon, develop my understanding of your theory during the round, and tell me the RFD in your 2NR/2AR. However, I really try to not let my lack of knowledge be a determining factor in the decision. If you're going for a K, I tend to try extra hard to flow everything you say and read along with evidence as you are speaking, as well as be extra expressive so you have some indication if I am buying what you're selling.

Framework/K Aff's: I think that an affirmative team should probably read a topical plan, but well-researched and topic specific non-plan affs are generally more interesting to me than bland policy affs. I feel that framework debates turn into two ships passing in the night very quickly, so the more clash you have on either side, the better off you’ll be. Negative teams should try to have specific answers to the aff’s case and cross apply those to framework if they want a greater chance of winning the debate. Skills or fairness, I don't care, just have an impact or prove to me the aff doesn't. Most TVA's are egregiously bad (sometimes, not even topical), so read it on the neg is probably the better 2NR extension to make.

K’s on the Neg: The affirmative should probably get to weigh their plan. Negative teams need to explain their arguments in depth and without jargon. Alternative’s are usually incredibly vague and meaningless to me; please explain them to me like I were a five year old, I promise I won’t find it patronizing. Please provide specific and detailed link, internal link, and impact stories.

Topicality: I was coached by Cade Cottrell, which means that almost every aff I read throughout high school was borderline topical at best. I love creative and innovative affs that are right at the boundary of topical and non-topical, but I’ll still hold the line if the neg proves they have the better interp. I think that the best affirmative argument against any T violation is a combination of arbitrariness and reasonability, but my default is competing interpretations.

CP’s: Read whatever and however many CP’s you want, just make sure you can theoretically justify them if this becomes an issue in round. If you're neg tell me to judge kick, if you’re aff tell me why that’s bad; I’m leaving it up to you to decide if I should allow it or not.

DA’s: I can see myself voting aff even if there aren’t any cards read on a DA if the negative team’s story is entirely incoherent. Turns case and solves case arguments are distinct and need to be answered differently; neg teams should probably have both. Link turns case arguments are more persuasive than impact turns case. The more specific the DA the better, but generic DA’s are fine. Impact calc is generally the most important part of these debates.

Theory: These debates rarely end up being good. I think theory args other than conditionality are probably not a reason to drop the team. 2A’s that terrorize the neg with theory will get higher speaks, but 15 seconds should be sufficient on ridiculously contrived and self-serving theory.

People I Agree With: Cade Cottrell, Samin Kamal, Parker Coon, Jaden Lessnick.

Things to do for Higher Speaks: I believe that the ballot is enough of a reward for the team who did the better debating, so ethos/logos/pathos will be how I evaluate speaker points. In general, you should make jokes about anyone mentioned above, do line by line, be funny, don't be rude, and end speeches/prep early when you are CLEARLY ahead.

Updated February 2023

About me:

I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.

I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

TL;DR version:

I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.

Evidence Standards:

Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/

You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.

Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.

If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.

Prep Time Standards:

Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.

If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.

Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.

-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.

-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.

-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.

-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.

Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.


CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.

DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.

Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

1/20/22

I'm returning to the activity after a few years, so I'll do my best to update this throughout the rest of the season.

If it's helpful to you, I debated for Westminster in Atlanta from 2008-2012 and Northwestern University in Evanston from 2012-2015 and was a pretty straightforward policy debater.

I'm willing to vote on anything provided that it's explained/argued well. I hold no deep attachments to how I debated or the things that I went for. With that being said, I am more well versed in in DA/case or DA/CP style debates. Those are the things I went & prepared for. But again, if you explain your positions clearly and your 2AR/2NR gives me a clear RFD, I am perfectly happy voting for whatever's in front of me.

I'll still getting familiar with this year's topic. Don't let that prevent you from going for whatever you like, but don't assume I'll know different acronyms or be able to fill in sketches of things for you.

Please be clear. I'll tell you once or twice during your speech for the sake of my flow. But after that, it is what it is. And I'll only vote for what's on my flow.

The only substantive note I'll leave you with is this: write my ballot for me. I enjoy final rebuttals that zoom out/understand the bigger picture. And I always want the impacts to arguments to be spelled out. If you feel your winning some impact, tell me why it matters. If they've dropped an argument, spell out why I should care.

As competitors, your main goal is probably winning. As a judge/coach, I enjoy watching y'all grow. Please don't hesitate to talk to me after the debate, & you can always email me at worku.robel@gmail.com with any questions.

Lastly, have fun y'all!

If you are starting an email link of your cards with your opponents, please be sure to include me. My email is iyang@hawaii.edu

As a judge, here is what I am looking for:

1. I do not prefer spreading, but if you do, please make a point to slow down and provide a good paraphrase of your cards - the evidence alone does not mean you win the argument.
2. Be sure to ready to point out your opponent's shortcomings during the round. If they have made a mistake, point it out to me and make an "even if" argument.
3. Prepare to give quality evidence and explain them well - once you have stated it, follow through with it.
4. Support your claims with warrants - when you throw a claim out without a warrant I will disregard it.
5. I appreciate the creative approach and use of theory or other strategies but be sure you have enough time to follow through with it. Often time I see many great unconventional approaches, but the majority of them failed to deliver the full effect.
6. I hear the same cases rounds after rounds. It is by adding detailed and a personalized approach to your case that will impress me. This demonstrates not only you understand the argument but how you creatively interpret it will give you the upper hand. I love a good personalized constructive - a team that can condense down the arguments and provides a well-organized and quality analysis.

I have been a speech and debate tutor for five years, and have a certificate in Public Speaking from the University of Washington. I debated for two years during High School and participated in Public Forum during the first year and Policy during the last. I also have experience in Duo Interpretation and have won the state championship. I weigh the round on validity, reliability, strength, as well as impact and how each team collaborates and works together effectively.

Another attribute that I always find a great debater is to know your topic thoroughly! Many will throw up casual correlations or causations without really understanding what goes into consideration for any of that to happen (ex: loss of funding --> war) - be careful with this.

Kinkaid ’21. Four years of policy debate as the 2a/1n.

I am not debating in college. I am probably very out of practice. I have not judged this year.

Please put me on the email chain if there is one: alison.jzhang@gmail.com

Please ask questions before round if you have them. I’m probably forgetting something.

Sparknotes/before round:

- Do what you do best. I would rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences, that being said please read the following if you feel like it

-Little knowledge about the NATO topic

-You can run anything, but I’m not yet familiar with the super complex policy laws nor am I familiar with esoteric K theory beyond what a usual debater might know so you need to explain well and thoroughly

-Less is more—I’ll evaluate a lot of offcase arguments but I will be sad if i have to use a lot of sheets of paper that get tossed in the block

-Don't spread at full speed. My pen time sucks. Make sure you slow down for tage, authors, and analytics. Clarity > speed. If I don't understand you I cannot and will not flow ur args. I can still understand and hear you when you spread, but you might want to slow down if you’re giving me a lot of ideas really fast.

-I like offense/defense framing. Zero risk is possible but hard to win.

-Conditionality’s fine. 2 is probably a good limit, but I'm open to hearing both sides debate it out.

-Tech>truth, but if I can't explain the argument and its warrants it's not going into my consideration

-I don't take prep for flashing/emailing.

Full thing:

Kritiks (neg):

I understand the generic Ks okay, but you’ll have to spend more time on explanation for Ks like Baudrillard and Virillio. I have a fair understanding of pessimist kritiks, but not enough that I would feel comfortable going for one myself.

I have found that the weakest part of the kritik is usually the alternative. For that reason, I would prefer that you either: A) have a well established, concrete alternative that addresses the links and impacts, or B) forgo the alternative entirely and go for framework as the alternative. The “education comes first” aspect of K framework has always been more attractive to me than “No really we can actually do the revolution trust me bro.” Specifically, I think that arguing that "debate is about education and the processes of research, so framework comes first" is stronger than arguing that any individual round can cause some sort of debate revolution. In response, I think the affirmative should say “Actually the state is pretty cool and so is doing actual policy work.”

Responding to Ks:

In general, I have been more amenable to impact turns on the K than assurances that the K and aff are compatible. That does not mean that the aff should not attempt to permute the K, but it does mean that any links to the affirmative should either be no linked out of or impact turned. You use the state? Great, because the state is good (or at least good to solve your impacts). You use market logic? Awesome, because markets are efficient and good. Soft left affs should use these impact turns to their advantages as reasons why the permutation is a good idea.

A lot of K teams get away with spinning their theses as given. Affirmatives should challenge these theses. Say that capitalism is good. Say that the state policy making is good. Say that anti-blackness, anti-queerness, and other forms of bigotry have gotten better over time. You shouldn’t impact turn racism, but you can certainly say the state has become less racist.

In response to neg K teams attempting to take away the plan with framework, the affirmative should argue that the aff plan's ability to solve is proof that state policymaking is good and therefore the affirmative's framework should be preferred.

Unconventional/kritikal affirmatives:

Running unconventionally topical affirmatives is completely acceptable. You should have a clear interpretation of the topic that defines what the affirmative is allowed to run, drawing a good line and making it clear that you aren’t destroying debate. Articulating why your vision of the topic has clear benefits is a good idea. Running impact turns without a clear counter interpretation is not persuasive to me.

When I say you should be unconventionally topical, I still want you to be topical. Your affirmative should clearly relate to the topic. The closer you are to resolutional action, the more leeway I’ll give you in my head. I am not interested in debate rounds centered around “debate good/bad,” resolutions other than the one given by the NSDA, or affirmatives that are about anything but the topic. For clarity, if your affirmative can be run in any topic by switching out one card, I am unlikely to view it very positively.

See below on what I think makes a good neg framework argument.

Performance:

Sure. Make sure there’s a reason the performance was there. If I’m not hearing about it in every speech you give from there on out, it didn’t need to be there.

Counter plans:

I prefer advantage counter plans and PICs that remove something from the plan. Agent counter plans are only acceptable if the aff or aff evidence defines one branch of the federal government they use. I don’t like word pics unless the result of the word pic is legally distinct legislation (no “The” pics, please).

I don’t default to judge kick, but I will if you tell me.

Disadvantages:

Judging DA and Case 2NRs is difficult when people don’t do impact calculus. Please do impact calculus.

I’m alright with generic politics DAs. I understand that you might not have a specific strategy for every affirmative. But please, try to get specific with the link if you can.

Theory:

Cheap shots make me sad. If you want to go for one, shame me into voting for you because I will likely feel like I shouldn’t. I’ll default to reject the argument.

Topicality:

Predictability/precision standards are probably the most persuasive to me, followed by generic limits and generic ground. Remember to connect them to education (I mostly view fairness as an internal link to education) or I won’t know why to vote for it.

You can win reasonability, but I default to competing interps. Teams should both defend their own interp under an offense defense framework, but also make sure that if the aff wins reasonability that they can still win the round.

For the neg: I'm somewhat receptive to dubious T interps. Feel free to explain why your interpretation of the topic is so obviously true, even if the aff is also probably pretty easy to predict generally. It's about the interpretations, not the aff specifically.

Neg Framework:

I am most amenable to skills based/“State policymaking is really great actually” arguments than I am fairness based arguments.

I also think limits as necessary for effective topic education is a good argument. I like smaller topics.

Speakerpoints:

I haven’t judged enough to say something concrete on this. Clarity, using specific strategies, kindness, and strength of analysis are all likely to increase points for me. I’ll probably be too kind with them. I will also attempt to adapt my speaker point scale to the relative skill level of the tournament. Don't be rude or cocky in round – I will be mad.