Director of Debate at the University of Texas

brendonbankey@gmail.com - please add me to your email chain

***Nukes Topic - NDT Update***

-Apology not accepted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

-Don't pref me if you spent your NDT prep taking screenshots of your opponents' wikis or social media instead of cutting cards. The ad-homs have continued unabated all season and its pathetic that the community has created a competitive incentive for character attacks. To the coaches, what purpose are you serving convincing young adults that their path to success should include tactics that would be grounds for civil litigation in any other context? Aren't we all supposed to be educators?

-Students who abuse the subject line of the email chain to insinuate that their opponents are members of hate groups are committing harassment and I will vote against them if it occurs in front of me. Touch grass. No-one competing at this tournament is in the klan. Anyone who devotes themselves to winning the Larmon has forfeited their claim to be holier than thou. Get over yourselves.

***Nukes Topic***

General

I would like to see more evidence spin and storytelling. I think impact interaction matters on this topic. Narrate the trip wires that cause your impact to occur. Timeframe/probability matter a lot more to me than magnitude (it all seems pretty bad). I care whether the disad turns the case or vice versa.

Please engage and indict your opponents' evidence. Evidence quality matters. Several of the major topic authors on this topic were also the major topic authors on the 09-10 topic. I will reward debaters who can articulate the distinct warrants and disagreements between the policy wonks. I think this is especially important for kritik debating. Several topic authors are known quantities and fodder for epistemology links.

I think evidence matters when evaluating topicality and counterplan competition. In addition to reading evidence for interps/violations/textual competition, debaters should explain why their definitions should be preferred. I will defer to the negative on T or counterplan competition until the aff counter-defines the words. If the aff covers the definitions, the neg must also explain why its definitions are better for a year's worth of debates. I think "does this definition produce better debates?" is a more important question than "is this the most precise interpretation?".

K Stuff

-The oldies are goodies. Although the content of the nukes policy v k debate has changed over the past forty years, several of the warrants/justifications/conventional thinking continue to be applied on both sides. I am comfortable using old evidence to establish the thesis for a K as long as the 2N is capable at applying the oldies to give a convincing narrative that makes sense in 2023/4. I think framework/impact comparison becomes more convincing when 2Ns can put the aff's claims in context of the evolution in the academic debates that have occurred over the years. The same is true of 2As that can leverage old evidence that answers the K.

-I struggle with the competition for the abolition/nuclearism alts that include all of the plan. If the 2NR includes an alt that includes all of the plan I see myself voting aff even if the link debating is persuasive. I also think links that argue "the aff described the world problematically" are vulnerable to strategic perm debating. I think Ks are more persuasive that indict fiat and question the pedagogical benefit of reinvesting in gaming the ideal nuclear posture.

-This is the 5th topic in 14 years (Nukes 1, War Powers, Exec Authority, Military Presence, Nukes 2) with a viable version of the NFU aff. Affs should have a take in the 2AC (hopefully several) about why it is pedagogically valuable to debate about the nuclear posture.

-I am unlikely to disregard the nukes K because its unfair unless the block or 2NR drop fairness. I am more likely to disregard the K because the alt doesn't solve and the aff convinces me that the links are not unique to the aff.

-Fiat double bind is not a thing. It's never going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.

Debating Non-USFG Affs

-Will vote for T-US but will be bored if the aff claims to lead to disarm. No solvency/presumption + disad seems more viable/entertaining. I think the aff can win that T-US = FG is overlimiting and produces a stale topic.

-I think that competing interpretation debates are fun and will reward teams who invest in the interpretation debating. I don't think the aff's interps have to be the most predictable as long as they can describe what limits the counter-interps impose on the topic and why they provide a desirable division of ground.

-Affs should vet their authors to make sure they don't advocate the TVA. I think "your author says the US should actually do it" requires 1AR pen time. I don't think that the TVA is a counterplan but I do think that the TVA raises a necessary/sufficiency standard for whether shifting the point of stasis away from the resolution is required to solve the Ks of T. I think if the neg wins a TVA is compatible with the 1AC author's claims it substantially deflates the aff's "topic design bad" offense versus T/framework. If the aff introduces Acheson evidence in the 1AC I expect the 2AC/1AR to be able to explain the method comparison between US disarm and Acheson's vision of disarm.

Arguments Regarding Community Norms

-I think that teams are entitled to make non-resolutional procedural arguments related to argument style or the content that a ballot should endorse. Teams can present an interpretation and argue why that interpretation should be preferred. If I vote for those strategies my ballot just means that a team did the better arguing for the purpose of that debate.

-Ad-homs are not arguments. I do not flow ad-homs or use them to evaluate debates. I am an employee of the state of Texas and will never cast my ballot to assign positive or negative value to an undergraduate student's character. It is wholly outside of my jurisdiction to judge any individual's conduct outside of the words they say in a debate after the 1AC has started and before the 2AR has ended. If you believe the conduct of a member of the community is so reprehensible that it must come before evaluating arguments that occur in a debate, I strongly encourage you to pursue a resolution with the relevant NDT/CEDA/ADA committee prior to the start of a NDT/CEDA/ADA sanctioned competition. Those decision-making bodies are designed to evaluate complaints in a professional manner that protects the confidentiality of all parties. As a tournament director, I can attest to the usefulness of these decision-making bodies to carefully navigate sensitive issues concerning interpersonal conflicts between members of the community. I do not see any value in offering competitive incentives for tactically deploying reputation-damaging claims as procedurals.

***March 2022***

I am a clash judge set out to pasture. I am generally in a state of judging ennui because debates are often copies of copies of debates I've seen before. With that said, here's some advice:

1) All debate is role playing. You're lying to yourself if you think it's not. Make it entertaining, don't break character, and refrain from lobbing fallacies at your opponent.

2) I generally vote for the team that A) has a clear narrative throughout the debate and B) does the most to complicate their opponent's narrative. Be convincing. "Extinction outweighs" is an incomplete narrative. Talk about internal links more and use them to make more turns the case/da/k arguments.

A) Cross-examination is my favorite part of the debate. Don't waste the opportunity. If you can't defend your narrative in cx don't expect me to let you make up for it in rebuttals.

B) The 2NR and 2AR should collapse the debate to the most important questions. Boo to final rebuttals that race through the speech without communicating to me the ballot you would like me to write in your favor.

3) I hate your 2NR/2AR blocks. I don't want them. Just answer the previous speech instead and identify what the errors are of the previous speech. If you read them anyway don't be obvious. I flow on a laptop and will know/become irritated if you are rereading a block from a previous speech instead of developing arguments in response to opponent's arguments.

4) I like evidence-based arguments. Debate should be academically rigorous. The 2AC and the 2NC should read cards. Well-evidence arguments are important because they connect students' creative ideas to academic communities pursuing similar questions. Connecting arguments to academic literature is also important because no individual has a complete understanding of the world. If your strategy does not rely on evidence I expect you to be excellent at cross-examination.

A) If your style is not evidence-centered, I still expect students to connect important ideas to a clearly identifiable literature base. A failure to connect your arguments to a clear literature base feels to me like an effort to deprive opponents of link ground and implicitly an expectation that the opponent is responsible for refuting the un-published ideas of student debaters. I don't want to decide those debates.

B) I am very much over students referencing the history of cross-examination debate without reference to evidence. The rush for originality dismisses the rich history of academic work documenting the examples often invoked in competition.

C) Caveat: I don't read a ton of evidence to decide debates. The best debaters will deploy the claims/warrants of their evidence convincingly such that I feel like they know what they're talking about. I flow on the computer. If I have to read your cards during the debate to figure out what you're talking about I'm having a bad time.

D) If you introduce and convincingly deploy an evidence-based argument (tangential to the new topic) that I've never seen before I will likely tune in and reward you with higher points.

5) Debates over competing interpretations (definitional argument) is, without question, the most important skill that cross-examination debates provide. Interpretations/counter-interpretations provide instruction to the judge for how to interpret whether the teams have met their burdens. I'm agnostic about the content of your theory arguments but I'm unlikely to vote for them if there is not enough information to explain to your opponent what I am voting for when providing my reasons for decision.

6) There is some recent grumbling from my fellow old-heads about neg conditionality and judge kick getting out of control. I cosign those concerns. If the aff breathes a claim and warrant about judge kick in each speech starting in the 2AC I will disregard it. 2N's are entitled to their hustle but shouldn't expect my sympathy if the 1AR answers judge kick and the 2AR extends it. For the aff to win on conditionality the 1AR has to be airtight covering the 2NC/1NR.

***Old Paradigm***

Square up. Friday night lights. Fight night. Any given Sunday. Start your engines and may the best debater win.

My bias is that debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision. My bias is that I will only flow one speaker in each rebuttal unless it is clearly and compellingly established in the constructives why I should flow both speakers in the same speech.

For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate.

I think about permutations in a very precise way. I do not think it's the only way to think about them but I am unlikely to be persuaded to think otherwise. I think that a plan specifies a desired outcome. There are a set number of means to achieve the desired outcome. I also think that a counterplan or alternative specifies a desired outcome with a set number of means to achieve that outcome. A permutation asserts that it is theoretically possible for there to be a means of action that satisfies both the outcome of the plan and the counterplan or alternative. A permutation could be expressed as where the set numbers of the aff's and the neg's strategies overlap. Permutations are defense. Rarely do they "solve all their offense." It would behoove affs to know what offense they are "no linking" with the perm and what offense the perm does not resolve. This discussion should ideally begin in the 2AC and it must take place in the 1AR.

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition that justifies such a perm AND 2) an explanation for where the aff and the cp/alt overlap

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose, just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

***Older Paradigm (Still True)***

I judge debates based on execution. My decisions rarely come down to just 2NR v 2AR. They are strongly influenced by how ideas develop in CX, the block, and the 1AR.

The best rebuttals will isolate a unique impact and explain why their opponent's impact is either less important or impossible to resolve. The most persuasive rebuttals, to me, are those that explain how I should evaluate the debate given the available information. This is especially true in debates about debate where neither side agrees on a normative method for evaluation.

I can't stress how irritated I am by students that make sweeping claims about argument styles that they don't usually engage in. Debate is hard and everyone puts in an incredible amount of work. Oftentimes, people don't get credit for their effort. That stinks. That does not mean, however, that other folks' contributions are less valuable than yours because they approach the game differently.

I think there is an important role for philosophical arguments in debate, with caveats. Ks should disprove solvency. I think creatively interpreting the resolution is interesting. Affirmative teams that decide the resolution doesn't matter in advance of the debate and only impact turn their opponent's positions bore me. I would rather affs be deliberately extra-topical than anti-topical. Link arguments should be consistent with framework arguments. The terms used in speeches and tags should reflect the language of the literature base they are meant to represent. Not all Ks of humanism are the same. Not all Ks are Ks of humanism.

I think there is an important role for policy arguments in debate, with caveats. Vague plan writing does not equal strategic plan writing. Impact evidence is often outdated and/or includes multiple alt-causes. I perceive a degree of self-righteousness from debaters that have extensive experience going for T-USFG but have little experience going for T in other situations. I perceive a higher degree of self-righteousness from debaters who preach the merits of research when going for T-USFG while very obviously reading evidence they copy and pasted from other school's open-source documents.

What you should expect of me:

1) I will evaluate the debate and cast a provisional decision about which team did the better debating based on the content of the speeches and the cross-examinations.

2) I will flow your debate in an excel template and save a copy after the debate for scouting purposes.

How I think about debate:

I. The aff's burden is to prove that the 1AC is A) an example of the res and B) a positive departure from the squo. The neg should disprove the 1AC and can win by establishing that the aff is wrong about either A or B. The neg can also win by offering a counter-proposal that competes with and is net beneficial to the 1AC.

II. In order to accomplish A, the aff should be able to:

1) provide an interpretation of the resolution

2) explain how the 1AC meets their interpretation of the resolution

3) demonstrate that their vision of the resolution is superior to the neg’s

III. In the event that the aff argues they do not have to abide by the terms of the resolution, the aff should be able to:

1) provide sound reasoning for why the agreed upon point of stasis fails to address the agreed upon controversy area

2) explain the roles of the aff and the neg in their vision of debate

3) demonstrate that their vision of debate is superior to the neg’s

IV. The aff cannot win by simply flipping the burden of proof and indicting the neg’s interpretation of the resolution.* The aff must at all times defend a contestable proposition. If III (see above) occurs, the neg's burden is not to disprove the solvency and harms of the 1AC (B). Rather, all the neg should have to disprove is that abandoning A is necessary to solve/talk about B. If the neg can demonstrate that the original stasis point can accommodate the harms area then the aff has not proven that abandoning the res must occur.

*Exceptions to IV: language Ks, conditionality bad

Things I enjoy:

· When debaters express a nuanced knowledge of the resolution/controversy area

· Good jokes

· Bold choices

· Exposing specious arguments in C-X

· Solvency debates

· Links to the plan

· Supporting claims with high-quality research

· Final rebuttals that begin with a brief explanation of the key issues in the debate and why they have won given the arguments presented in earlier speeches

· When debaters prioritize answering the question, “What should debate look like?”

· Creative permutations—a perm says that there is a possible world in which both the 1AC and the counter-proposal can occur simultaneously, or that the counter-proposal is an example of how the aff’s proposition could be implemented—the aff should describe the permutation in both rebuttals and explicitly argue what elements of the neg’s strategy it mitigates/solves. Asserting the hypothetical validity of a perm and being intentionally vague until the 2AR does not an aff ballot make.

Things I don’t enjoy:

· When debaters compensate for dropping an argument by asserting that it is new

· When embedded clash becomes an excuse for not flowing

· When debaters make straw person characterizations of argument styles they do not personally engage in

· Trained incapacity

· “Death good”/ “death not real”

· Basic strats

· Recycled strats

· Recycled blocks

· K 1NC shells that I can find in my inbox from previous seasons

· “Procedural fairness”

· Teams that don’t take advantage if/when their opponent impact turns fairness

· Affs that don’t defend a substantial departure from the squo

· Affs that don’t specify the terms of the 1AC/backtrack on the terms of the 1AC for the purpose of permuting the neg’s counter-proposal

· Bad internal links

· C-X belligerence

· Hyperbolic impacts

· Counter-perms (honestly, it’s been 10 years and I still don’t get it)

· Asserting “perm do the counter-proposal” when it’s shamelessly severance

· When great CX moments don’t make it into the speeches

· Failing to capitalize on 2AC/block choices and settling for coin flip decisions

· “Point me to a line in the card where it says…” OR “I just ctrl F’ed that word in the document and it isn’t there”

Experience: 2 years college policy, 5 years parli, 5 years NFA-LD, I've been coaching a combination of HS policy, CEDA/NDT, NFA-LD and Parli for 9 years.

Email for the chain: bowersd@moval.edu

Online Debate: A couple of things I think are important before starting. Please make sure that your computer is plugged in before starting, your mic is muted while the other person is speaking. Also, there will be tech problems throughout the year, please be cool about it. If there is a disconnect during a speech time will stop and the speaker will be responsible for picking up where they left off when they reconnect.

General: I very much believe that I am here for you, so whatever style of debate you enjoy doing you should do that. I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot.

I'll talk about some things here to maybe clear some questions you may have but genuinely whatever you want to do. If you have questions please feel free to ask.

Impact framing: Sans an alternative I think that death is the worst impact in the debate, but I'm very willing and happy to listen to other impact framing arguments.

Theory: I think that absent another framing mechanism I would evaluate T via competing interps, that being said I'm open to whatever method you want in terms of evaluating the argument. I think that my threshold for voting on T is low IE it's just another argument that if you win I will vote on. I don't have a preference on whether or not condo is good or bad. Most if not all questions like that can be resolved in round. I do not need proven abuse to vote on Topicality.

CP: Awesome, fun, I don't think I've met a counterplan I wasn't in some way a fan of from a strategic standpoint. That being said I think that overly complicated texts need to be explained. If I don't know what the counterplan does or how it functionally solves the aff it is harder to win me.

K: I don't have a preference for any type of alternative, I will say that it would be easier for me to vote for a K if I understand what the alternative does. I won't vote against a K if I don't understand what the alt does it just definitely makes it an easier ballot for you.

Debate is a community, and I expect debaters to be cordial and polite to one another in round.

Debate is an activity based on persuasion, logic, and clear communication. As such, I am open to all hearing all forms of arguments in a debate, but arguments promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. will not do well on my ballot. Debate in the style you prefer and with the best strategy—over-adapting to judge preferences usually ends poorly.

I am a flow judge that prefers line-by-line argumentation. But if you do not go line-by-line, signposting is essential. Use language within the cases to signpost where you are in the flow.

Arguments:

Arguments should be well-researched and supported through logical links and evidence. Arguments that have the most weight in the round are the ones that have a clear claim, warrant, impact and data. Link stories are important and should be clearly identified.

Focus on impacts. Terminal impacts are important and get most of the focus, but low scale impacts are important too. Impact calc provides justification for why your arguments are important and outweigh your opponents. If you want to prove that your side is net beneficial, engage in comparable impac calc throughout the round and especially in your voters.

Arguments do not always have to have evidence, but the highest quality arguments usually have evidence. If you have evidence, but no analytical extension it defeats the purpose. Having too many cards is better than no cards. If you fabricate evidence, it is an ethical issue and voting issue on my ballot.

If an argument is dropped explain why that should impact my ballot. I’ll flow it through.

Clash:

Provide interpretations and counter interpretations. If you do not counter the interpretation provided, it is assumed you agree.

Clash with the opponent’s case and evidence is essential. Provide clash on the framework at the top of the flow and throughout the opponent’s case. It is a great strategy to counter the interpretation of the opponent’s evidence/card and explain why it is misinterpreted or turn it to your side.

Extend and cross-apply arguments. Go line by line and explain the clash and why your side is winning. Avoid shallow rebuttals.

Speed:

I am fine with spreading as long as you are clear. If you go too fast and do not clearly tag arguments making it difficult to follow your speech, I will not put it on the flow. Speed is only effective if it is also clear (enunciate, signpost, etc.). This is a dialogic activity and a solid debate is only as good as the clarity of the arguments presented.

Updated: 03/12/2024

Add me to the chain:cbpelayo94@gmail.com

I go by 'Ellie' (she/her) now, for those of y'all that knew me by a different name.

Experience

Currently doing hired work and doing grad school at the University of Utah; formerly, coached NPDA at UoUtah; policy at CSU Fullerton; & IEs at Honor Academy. Nowadays I mostly judge rounds, do some assistant coaching for my friends, and watch policy streams because no one really leaves debate (lol).

I've been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, but my experience leans heavily towards NPDA parli, LD (cali/toc/nfa), policy, & IEs. Started competing in 2012:

- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)

- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)

- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)

- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)

I was a 2A/1N & did exclusively kritikal/performative -- we did a lot of fem IR, academy, decolonial brown fem, futurisms, sci-fi, & cyborgs. But debate is what you make it; all I ask for is clear links, FW, and advocacies. How you choose to run it is totally up to y'all!

Truth > Tech

Kritiks

Love Ks. I am still 'traditional' in wanting some kind of FW, links, advocacy/alt, and impacts. But that doesn't mean that it has to be strictly organized in that way (i.e., performance k's). But at the end of the day, I do want to know what your K does: what the intervention is, what the bad words are, etc. I found it helpful once to consider theK alt like a CP: the moment the alt appears, your neg presumption disappears (pls don't make me listen to condo plssss). I also love in-round links -- I think they're excellent offense in the development of theory throughout the round. Links are uniqueness to the K. Performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you.

Other things:

- I believe that FW, not T, is used to answer K. Running T against the K is just insulting, and I'm not big on the nonengagement w/ advocacies that approach debate non-normatively. Tomato tomato.

- Providing trigger/content warnings to your K is good (when they're needed).

- Answering a T run against the K with more theory is so, so wonderful. Almost as wonderful as "mini" DAs to oppressive theory. I've noticed the rise of some pretty trash theory as of late, and I wish there was more metacommentary that claps back against that.

- If I hear Fruit theory I swear...pls just don't okay? :') same with tricks, sorry, don't like em.

- Don't like condo. I'll listen to it if I have to, sorry abt my faces.

- In terms of performance, definitely just be on the same page as everyone else. I won't stop a round, but I do reserve rights to respect, say, a point of personal privilege if the round is getting a kind of way.

Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)

This is prob where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered:

- Plans/CPs/Perms: Love em. Do more perms. I also love multiple perms, if you can provide at least some explanation beyond "perm do both...anyway." Solvency burdens shift throughout the debate, and that's good. Theory against plan-plus, plan-minus, etc. are all great.

- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. Y'all do this please. Get them "PICs Bad" blocks out.

- Impact Calc: While I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, solvency, I also like voters w/ specific phrasing that conjures up what your world looks like, esp if you're proposing alternative ways of and futures for doing debate. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. Good round vision is good.

- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language that's recognizable (e.g., non-unique, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will be so happy. Active language and verbs are good. Offense over defense, sure, but terminal defense is underappreciated. This applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.

- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.

- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.

Procedurals (FW/T)

Good FW/Topicality debates are great, but I wanna hear clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violations). I've been jaded with the habit of dismissing kritikal arguments under the presumption of topicality, but I still think there's hope for procedurals! I still expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation, and at least some engagement with the arguments you label non-topical.

- I respect X-T and FX-T. I find that there is great offensive in doing counter-interpretations, counter-standards, & the aforementioned DAs against T

- RVAs make me so sad :( please no RVIs, they're never as good as you think

- Founders intent is so mid

- [Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR.

- Trichot exists! And I love it. Also monochot <3

Speed

My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, spreading can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you okay with spreading?"

This position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:

[Policy/TOC LD] Sure go fast brrrr. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.

[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.

[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow as fast as you speak. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading: find it, navigate it.

Experience: I debated for 4 years for Austintown Fitch High School in Ohio. I was in Lincoln Douglas for 3 years, and Public Forum for 1. I just finished my fifth year of coaching high school LD Debate. I was at John F. Kennedy Catholic HS in Warren, OH for 3 years and am currently at Columbiana HS in Columbiana, OH.

Community Involvement: I am the Administrative Director of Triumph Debate. Triumph Debate is a debate camp for high school LD Debate. We also publish topic briefs based on the NSDA LD resolutions and offer educational resources.

Education: I am a student at Youngstown State University in Youngstown, OH studying Language Arts Education. I love a smart debate!

What kind of judge am I? I am a flow judge. If you cover the flow better than your opponent, there's a good chance that I will give you the win.

Style: As a whole, Ohio is a traditional style state. I have never debated outside of the state of Ohio. As I have no national circuit experience, I can and will vote you down for the following things:

• Use of Ks

• Theory that lacks sufficient explanation

• Spreading!!

• Decorum- be courteous with one another. I want to see an intelligent debate and being rude takes away from that.

Speaker Points:

Under 26: I don’t anticipate having to go this low at a national tournament, but if you do one of the things I listed above, you can expect this. If you seem like you have no idea what you’re talking about and did no prep, you can also expect to score in this range.

26-27: Solid debate, didn’t do anything offensive, exhibited some knowledge of the subject at hand. Could be more prepared. If you have obvious style issues (hard to follow/understand) you could score here.

28-29: Very good job throughout the entirety of the debate.

30: One of the best I have ever seen. Outstanding knowledge and application of philosophy, which case is based upon. Superior command of the room while still treating your opponent like a dignified human being. Clearly stated warrants for your claims that were extended throughout the debate.

Disclosure:

I am a fan of disclosure and will disclose at tournaments that allow the practice.

Competed in: BP, CX, PF

Judged: BP, Civic, CX, LD, PF

Currently an Assistant Coach @ Vanderbilt

email chain: Brandon.M.James@vanderbilt.edu

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

If you see me in the back of the room, then that probably means that I am essentially being paid to listen to you speak and adjudicate a round based on the arguments you’ve made. To me, part of that duty requires keeping an open mind. I’ve run, debated against, and judged a variety of events and argument styles. Absent any behavior that negatively impacts my ability to get paid or my ability to foster an inclusive environment, I don’t particularly care what you run or how you debate.

With that said, to make things easier for all of us, here are some things to keep in mind:

Topic Knowledge: I’m more of a “team judge” than a “team coach”. I likely haven’t done a lot of research on whatever topic you’re speaking about, so I won’t know what each acronym means or instantly recall what each card you read says. Try to explain terms that may not be intuitive, and if you’re extending evidence be clear about what you’re extending.

Kritikal Knowledge: I spent the most involved portion of my debate career running Kritikal Affs/Negs about antiblackness against some combination of framework, a policy advocacy, and a capitalism kritik. This isn’t an invitation to run these arguments or me saying that I am happy with less explanation in these debates, but it is to say that I probably feel at “home” here and understand the terminology. For K’s outside of this domain you shouldn’t assume I’m as familiar with the literature as you are.

Non-Traditional Argumentation: In general, the further you stray from the norms/expectations of the activity you’re participating in, the stronger your justifications for those shifts need to be. I have no problem listening to these arguments, but also have no problem listening to how these arguments may be bad for fairness or education, particularly when the rationale for these arguments being run is weak.

Delivery: You should be going at a speed at which the slowest flower involved in the debate can understand, and a volume at which everyone involved at the debate is comfortable. If I ask you to change how you’re speaking, it won’t impact your speaks unless you seem to continuously refuse.

Specific Issues:

1. I’m a believer in the idea that ridiculous arguments require minimal responses. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on your trolly argument or sneaky trick, but it does mean that the bar for a substantive response is lower here. If you’re stomping on the flow here or need a Hail Mary, feel free to go for it, but if there’s at least decent engagement here please look elsewhere.

2. I have a tendency to vote against teams who fail to actually describe what they defend, even when they may be more technically proficient. Trying to dodge every cross-ex question or refusing to say what you advocate for so you won’t “link” to things is lazy to me and creates bad debates.

3. Do not force me to listen to a definition debate where the two terms are not meaningfully different, or a debate about a trivial distinction/clarification point. A pointless debate somehow becoming a sticking point of the round is probably the pettiest reason I will drop speaker points.

Accommodations: Please let me/the competitors know how we can make this space more accessible, as soon as possible.

RFDs: My RFD style is very conversational. I will walk you through my decision while also highlighting any issues/confusions I had during the debate. I may ask you questions about why certain choices were made in the debate, even if they aren’t directly related to my decision, if I think they could be issues in other rounds. If you have questions you should ask them. If I’m not making sense you should tell me so. You’ve given up an hour or more of your time, so you should leave the room feeling like you know why I voted how I did.

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

Hi! My name is Will Newell, and I'm a judge from Vanderbilt University. I competed in British parli and policy debate in college, and in high school, I competed in public forum. This is a paradigm for PF. My email is william.newell@vanderbilt.edu. Pasting this next section from a friend's paradigm (thanks Brandon!):

1. Speed: Please go at a speed that is reasonable and accessible for everyone participating in the debate. Obviously some people speak at a naturally higher rate than others, but just keep in mind that a public forum should be accessible to the public. If any party involved has concerns about the rate of delivery, or any other accessibility issue, please don't hesitate to bring it up.

2. Evidence: Cite your sources, share your speeches. Tech issues are normal, but try to do this as efficiently as possible.

3. Topic Interpretation: Teams will often develop clever approaches to the topic. I encourage and reward creativity, but make sure your argumentation still falls in line with the spirit of the resolution and with the sides you were told to defend. Trying to narrowly define the topic so that you can get a strategic advantage over the other team usually will not pay off in the end, because judges can tell when you're promoting an unfair interpretation. If you're worried your approach to the topic is too shifty, it probably is.

4. Decorum: I have zero tolerance for prejudice and bigotry of any type. Debate often delves into controversial topics and topics that relate to marginalized groups, but please keep things respectful. I love debaters with personality and a sense of humor, but please make sure you aren't being condescending or dismissive of your opponents.

5. Time Yourself: I will try my best to time you, but please also time yourselves.

I put a lot of value on clarity and organization; it makes it easier to flow your arguments and ensures that I understand your arguments exactly as you do. Please do not sacrifice clarity or organization for speed or volume of cards.

I think the summary speech is very important in PF. If you're the first speaking team, I will be somewhat more lenient when it comes to extending your case during the summary, since it's your only chance to respond to new arguments made in the second speaking team's rebuttal. But that does not mean you can drop arguments against your case. It just means that I don't expect you to re-explain an argument you explained once before, and if you refer to it in abbreviated terms or shorthand, that's ok.

Weigh your impacts against those of your opponent in the final focus. Tip for teams who are speaking first: Weighing is especially important, because you may have a hard time answering all of your opponent's positions. Outweighing them is a good option, in that case.

Hi folks - my pronouns are She/Her and you can call me Hunter.

I got my undergraduate degree in communication from California State University, Fresno, and I'm currently finishing my MA in communication studies at California State University, Northridge, where I worked as a teaching associate and helped coach forensics from Fall 2020 to Spring 2022.

I debated open policy for Fresno State and was a K debater. Although my partner and I primarily ran fem theory arguments, I'm familiar with both critical and policy arguments and will vote for either. I have experience coaching and judging LD in Fall 2020/Spring 2021 as well as IPDA Fall 2020/Spring 2021 and CPFL Fall 2021/Spring 2022/Fall 2022/Spring 2023 for CSUN and will be coaching CPFL and judging for Fresno City starting in Fall of 2023.

In general, signposting during speeches should be clear (especially via a digital platform). I trust that you all can manage your own speech + prep time. I do flow the rounds + CX regardless of whether it's IPDA debate, policy debate, public forum, etc.

Also, I tend to have a pretty straight face during the round and will likely be looking at my flow sheet on my laptop and not at the monitor where my cam is if things occur virtually. Don't take my facial expressions (or lack thereof) as any indication of my thoughts on the round. I'm just focused on flowing your arguments. The same goes for in-person rounds.

Some additional important info:

I think how you treat one another in round is important. There's a difference between confidence in your arguments and being disrespectful to another competitor. That being said, just be respectful to each other. Policy debate (and debate in general -- LD, IPDA, PoFo/CPFL, etc.) is stressful enough as is; no one needs to add to that stress by being rude, disrespectful, etc. Also, I won't tolerate anything discriminatory. What you say + how you say it matters.

My email is huntsans03@gmail.com and I would prefer to be on the email chain. Also, please use an email chain and not speech drop.

Public Forum Paradigm:

Please send your speech docs to me and the other team. It makes flowing easier via a digital platform and evidence exchange is good practice (it's also encouraged in the CPFL Policies and Procedures under section 3.4 Evidence Exchange Expectations).

Speed of Delivery: I do not think public forum debaters should be spreading like policy. You can speak quickly or with a sense of urgency, but I think part of the emphasis of public forum is its accessibility for a variety of experience levels. As such, the rate of delivery can be quick but should allow the judge(s)/audience members to follow along without extensive debate experience.

Timing: You should time yourself. I'd encourage you to time all the speeches, truthfully. It'll help the round stay on track (and the tournament as a whole) if we're efficient with our time together in round.

Evidence: You should cite your evidence adequately and clearly according to the CPFL Policies and Procedures Evidence Norms and Evidence Exchange Expectations (available here: https://www.collegepublicforum.org/procedures). I would prefer a bit more than the author name and year of publication (perhaps a quick statement of author credentials), but I know time is short so at the very least have name/year. Please, please, please cite your evidence. I'm all for analytic arguments, but they should not make up the bulk of your speech time in the constructive and/or rebuttal speeches. Incorporate evidence and cite it throughout the round. During the summary and final focus, cross-apply earlier evidence to your arguments ("[insert argument]. This is supported by [recap earlier evidence].")

Argument + Style: Style is important, but I weigh the quality and content of the argument over style. Additionally, no new arguments in the final focus, and, personally, I don't think new arguments should really be introduced in the summary unless they are a direct response to a rebuttal claim and include evidence.

Flowing: I think you should be flowing. Not only will it help you to keep track of your arguments in round and your ability to answer your opponents' arguments, but I think good flowing helps create good debaters who have a solid grasp of what's occurring in the round and the ability of debaters to weigh and prioritize arguments. I flow the entirety of the round, so you probably should too!

IPDA Paradigm:

Constructive speeches: Be sure to clearly state and cite your definitions, judging or value criterion, and sources throughout the round. If you plan on offering a counter definition(s), do so clearly and don't abandon your framing after the constructive speeches. Also be clear when stating your contentions.

Cross-Examination: This is a question and answer period, not a speech. Be clear, concise, and strategic with your questions. If you turn CX into a speech it will likely affect your speaker points.

Rebuttals: Clearly identify why you are winning the round, how you are ahead on the flow, why your framing/definitions or judging criteria are preferable, etc. You should be able to isolate one to two key reasons why you are winning the round and impact them out during these speeches + state why they are preferable to your opponent's case.

Timing: Keep track of your own speech times. I will roughly gauge the times, but you should hold yourself and your opponent accountable. If I notice that someone seems to be going over time or not timing accurately, I will step in but I'd rather not have to interrupt anyone :)

Flowing: See above in my PoFo description^

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Aff: I'm game for policy or critical affirmatives so long as you can defend them, but you shouldn't abandon your aff position after the 1AC. Run what you want, defend it, and don't abandon your case flow.

T: I think affirmatives should at least be related to the topic on some level or another. That being said, I'm all for persuasive arguments as to what is vs. isn't topical. I'm not a super strong proponent of strict, policy T shells. As long as the aff can justify why they are in the direction of the topic, I'll usually grant the interp.

FW: I'm down for FW, but it should be specific. Vague framework shells that are a stretch at applying to the aff aren't very persuasive (i.e., general "K's bad" FW shells probably won't win my ballot). However, substantive framework debates about why I should view the round a certain way are great.

DAs: Good, a pivotal part of policy debate, especially for novices. I'll vote for a disad, but be sure to explain how they link to the aff.

CPs: Same thing as DAs. I think CPs are a pivotal part of policy debate, especially for novices. CPs should have a net benefit + at least solve part of the aff.

Ks: Love critical arguments (both on the aff and the neg). However, if you run a K strictly for strat and I can tell you don't know the argument, that isn't super persuasive in my mind. If you're going to run a K, know it well. If you run a K on the neg, be able to articulate the links and the alternative. If you run a critical aff, you should be prepared to answer T/FW and be able to articulate the world of the affirmative if you win the ballot + how the aff advocacy solves.

TL;DR Primarily a Trad coach who also enjoys K's, Tricks, and Theory. I'm fine with LARP but at least run interesting arguments.

Bio: I've coached LD since 2013, and competed since 2009. I've coached students to stage at the NSDA national tournament, and had a lot of local success in Ohio. I'm the director of LD curriculum at Triumph Debate which I co-founded.

I strive to be a tab judge, and am pretty much always tech over truth.

Email: m.slencsak@gmail.com - Please put me on email chains. Please.

Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 400+ local rounds

If you cite sources you need to follow evidence standards (this is mostly an issue in Ohio). In my opinion paraphrasing in unacceptable in both LD and PF.

Debate camp is for trying out new arguments and debate styles. Just have fun with it.

Conflicts:

Liberty HS (OH)

Triumph Teams

General

- Please provide me with a clear way to evaluate the round. If you don't I won't be happy when I try to figure out who won.

- Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete? (more on this in the trad v. circuit section)

- If we're online please just always send speech docs.

- I'm probably not watching the video, so don't stress about that.

- I have ADHD and can lose focus easily. Please try to make sure you're engaging and feel free to yell into a mic, or do something in round if you feel as if I've zoned out.

Public Forum

• Warrants and Links are more important to me than impacts. I'd rather your argument make sense and have some probability of happening, rather than end in extinction. Of course, I still expect good impact calc.
• Impact calc is important. Explain why your impacts are more important than your opponents. This is especially important given the lack of frameworks in PF
• Try to present you case in a way I would actually want to hear it, were I not forced to be judging the round. Be interesting, use unique arguments, vary your rate and volume of speech, etc. Do something to differentiate yourself from everyone else at the tournament.
• If you're circuit or plan on reading prog, I have a very low tolerance for prog in PF. Theory is fine to fight abuse, Topical K's are fine, T is probably necessary at many points in PF.

Circuit

- I primarily coach, and exclusively competed in traditional LD. Please keep this in mind. It's not that I don't understand circuit or can't flow spreading, I just don't have as much experience here as I do with Trad debate.

- Phil: I enjoy this. Just try to keep the debate accessible and make sure you're explaining things well.

- LARP/ Policy: Not my favorite rounds to judge, but feel free to do it, I won't hold it against you. Provide clear weighing mechanisms (and use them to weigh). I prefer more interesting arguments to generic ones.

- Tricks: Go for it

- K's: I prefer it if we keep things vaguely topical, but you do you.

- Theory & T: I weirdly enjoy theory debates when it's done well. T is fine with me as long as it's not to out there.

Traditional

Framework is the lens through which I'll evaluate the round. That means to win the round you need to show how you best achieve whichever framework won the round.

Values - Are a waste of time and should just refer to some sort of generic good concept.

Philosophy - I'm cool with anything from a philosophy standpoint and enjoy seeing interesting takes on the topic. Personal Preferences are Hobbes, Kant, and Rawls, and I'm not a fan of libertarianism. I'll still evaluate everything fairly though.

“They do not achieve their fw” is not a response to the fw. “My fw is a prerequisite” is almost never explained and I usually cannot figure out a single reason why it matters or is true.

If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they’re like “my framework is rights” but it’s clearly just util.

Trad vs Prog

I believe some of the best education in debate comes out of traditional vs progressive rounds, that said, it is largely based on how the progressive debaters acts towards the trad debater.

Trad debaters - Don't whine about progressive debate being bad, don't read spreading bad shells that a teammate gave you, don't read K's bad, etc. Engage with the arguments and refute them, and you'll be fine.

Prog debaters - It is your job to keep this debate accessible. This means doing things like accepting your opponent won't read a counter interp, but if they engaged with the theory argument just going with it. This means politely explaining the K in cx (both substance of the K, and how K's operate in general). As long as you're polite, and make the round accessible and fair, we won't have any issues. Feel free to ask for guidance before the round if you have ANY questions on this.

I borrowed parts of this paradigm from Eva Lamberson. Thank you Eva.

Thank you for reading this paradigm, I will award references to horses with a very small bump in speaks as a reward for actually reading my paradigm.