Apple Valley 2021 update - ballot specifically instructs me: "In the novice division, debaters are expected to make arguments that are appropriate for their experience level. Judges should consider only arguments that, in their best judgement, are explained in a way that a first-semester novice could reasonably be expected to understand and effectively engage."

So, I will exclude certain arguments from evaluation for the first time ever. What certain arguments? I'll know it when I see it but as a general guide: easy to understand apriori's and NIBs are fine, but Lacan, insanely dense trick affs, theory shells, most pre-fiat offense, I will ignore. If you have a question about any specific argument don't be afraid to ask, I'll be in round room as early as possible.

Updated - 9/22/2019

Hi, I’m Lucas Bryant, I debated for around 4 years on the national circuit in LD and have dabbled in policy, congress once, and PF like twice.

Email - bryant.lucas1205@gmail.com

General info- primary role is minimizing intervention and be tab, assumptions like the AC is 6 minutes and conceded arguments are true I will enforce probably unless convinced otherwise. Everything is fair game. Also, tech > truth. For lay, I give leeway if neither debater extends but if one does and the other doesn't it's an auto-L for the person who didn't.

Speaks- I use John Staunton's speaks mechanism now. https://www.dropbox.com/s/uiw9hvdy5yl0t1h/Speaker%20Points.pdf?dl=0

Framework- losing influence in the meta which is a shame, determines what offense is / what impacts are/ how to weigh. I default to epistemic confidence, Biggest mistake in framework rounds is just a bunch of conceded preclusion claims with no interaction, I’ll attempt to resolve these by doing work myself which I don’t want to do.

-TJFs: fine and strategic, maybe abusive, idk that's for y'all to settle.

-Triggers/Contingent Standards: abusive but can be funny

-Skep: mixed feelings, seems lazy in terms of debate application, read unique skep args plz. Skep aff’s are always welcome btw.

-Impact justified fwrks: are awful and hurt my feelings, this won’t hurt your speaks or change my evaluation if it's not an issue brought up by the debaters in the round

Theory- I understand theory for it's strategic purpose. I don’t default on any paradigm issue, they should be in round, things like spirit v text of interp obviously don’t matter if no semantic I-meets are made. Also, I’m fine if counter-interp txt is just “I’ll defend the violation” or “converse / inverse of their interp”. I will never “gut check” against theory args. The "frivolous" nature of shells is determined in round.

-Interps: don’t repeat while extending, I got it the first time, just say “extend the interp”. You should flash this / type it out at a minimum. Don’t be too lengthy or too short. Positively / Negatively worded interp as metatheory makes no sense to me - still will vote on it though.

-offensive counter-interps: just read it a new off / meta-theory shell, calling it an offensive counter-interp seems like you’re just trying to get an RVI when you don’t need one to begin with.

-spikes: are great and some are probably a bit necessary depending on the flavor of the aff. I’m totally fine with hearing a 5 min UV with generic pre-empts and your speaks won’t suffer, you do you.

-disclosure: My opinions don’t matter in round, I’ll vote on disclosure happily if you won it but won’t like cap speaks or vote someone down solely for not disclosing if it’s not mentioned in-round.

K’s- where some of the best debates happen, nothing is cooler than an amazing 2nr collapse, but be slightly original please.

-Performance: they’re fine, make it clear whether or not the act of performance is pre-fiat offense for you.

-Literature: not going to list what I’ve read or authors I like, if you have a concern just ask before the round. My familiarity with any lit base has no influence on my decision. If an understandable claim is conceded that has a complex warrant, an absurdly long explanation isnt necessary.

-K’s v/of Framework: probably slightly abusive possibly but eh who cares, I'll default to the ROTB and standard/value criterion being on the same layer - if Kant is evil in it's application (w/o any like Teehan weighing) but it's true in determining what is ethical then that doesn't matter. Preclusion / Hijack claims make sense in this debate.

-“Going Right”: is maybe not as strategic but equally compelling, read theory to not engage if you want too, or even better, do both.

LARP- plans are cool, soft-left aff’s are dominating right now but that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a good extinction impact. I've done a decent bit of LARPing (reading a burner aff, crazy strategic) but rarely against a larp debater so not sure how I would be at resolving a pure Adv CP v. plan strat. But I've been in these rounds and babe some experience, it probably won't be an issue.

Misc- sit, stand, lay on the floor or levitate, idc as long as I can hear you clearly. Flashing isn’t prep time but if everyone in round wants it to be then it’s up to y’all. Embedded clash doesn’t exist unless made explicit or it’s your opponents lack of signposting / messiness was the cause of why an argument would need to be evaluated with embedded clash. If there's anything I didn't explicitly mention, just ask.

Howdy, I'm Anthony Holm, I am a first-year out, currently a freshman at the University of Iowa

Email - TonyHolm2000@gmail.com

====================================================================

LD DEBATE

TLDR: Don't read tricks in front of me, I want to see debaters making actual arguments their opponents can engage with, that goes for every argument.

If you are relying on your opponent being unable to engage with your argument as a strategy that will make me sad.

I don't care how you present yourself, you can wear whatever makes you comfortable and you can sit or stand or fly.

I'll presume based on speaker points (in Elim rounds I'll presume based on speaker points I would have given). However, if you argue for a different method of presumption I'll presume based on in round arguments.

General info:

- Although I used to read tricks and I'll understand them if you read them, I've come to realize how extremely toxic and exclusionary tricks-style arguments are. So I really don't want to hear them being read.

- I don't want to intervene, please make it clear what my evaluative mechanisms are, I.E. the tools I should be using to evaluate the round.

- I'll assume some stuff like conceded arguments are true, AC is 6 minutes, etc. Unless you make arguments about why I shouldn't.

For Novice Debate: This changes a lot of my paradigm, I think debaters should be focusing on the fundamentals at this stage. So don't read tricks (a prioris, Nibs, friv theory) I will ignore these arguments.

- If you read a K or read theory, please run it correctly. I'm very happy listening to Novice debaters read advanced arguments but make sure you do it correctly although during the first topic I am going to have a low bar for responses (this does not mean novi get to ignore these arguments, I'll be upset if I think you're trying to take advantage of my leniency)

Speaks- Everyone gets above a 29 unless you do something that makes the space exclusionary or toxic (tricks debate or prey on your opponent's misunderstanding) cause then I'll just give you average speaks. If you do something extremely out of line you get a 25.

Cross Ex:

Do whatever you want, T-Pose, Levitate, Ascend, I do not care just make sure your opponent can hear you and so can I

I probably won't pay much attention to the actual content of CX cause I'll be writing comments on the previous speech as well as CX strategy, so if you're gonna call back to the content of cross remind me

I want a fun cross, if things get heated I'll pry be paying close attention. A fire cross-ex is my favorite thing in Debate so if you get going, please be confident, be aggressive, and get the concession or slip up you need. So long as you are not personally attacking your opponent or causing psychological violence in another way be as aggressive as you want.

if you can dodge questions masterfully I will be very happy

if you let your opponent get away with murder then I'll be less happy

Spreading

do it, just send the email chain if you're opponent asks.

Framework: Probably my favorite kind of debate, determines what offense is / what impacts are/ how to weigh. The biggest mistake in framework rounds is just a bunch of conceded preclusion claims with no interaction, I’ll attempt to resolve these by doing work myself which I don’t want to do. Furthermore, if you just read a bunch of straw man dump arguments against a framework (like most people do to Kant) it will make me sad.

-TJFs: fine read them if you want.

-Skep Triggers: Funny, I always enjoy the new ways debaters articulate them.

Skep: Do not read skep as your primary argument, if skep comes up in round it should only be as a result of framework issues triggering skep, I.E. both debaters defend consequentialism but consequences fail is also read.

Impact justified frameworks: make me sad :( read them if you want but be ready to defend them.

Theory- I don’t default on any paradigm issue, they should be read in the round, if you do not read fairness/ed./whatever is a voter I will not evaluate theory as a voting issue.

- Also, I’m fine if the counter-interp text is just “I’ll defend the violation” or “converse/inverse of their interp”. I will never “gut check” against theory args.

- Personally, I think RVI's are good, competing interps is true, and theory is drop the debater. I'll do my best to keep these biases out of my decision though.

- if it turns out you had some masterful strategic plan that required you to not read paradigm issues (I've done that before) then I'll be happy if the strat works.

T: Is fun I like it, a lot of the same rules for theory still apply

- Nebel T confuses me so be clear about it.

Interps: I'm fine with minimal extensions, "extend the interp" with a very fast explanation would be fine I.E. "Extend the interp NIBS are bad"

Spikes: I like them, read them more. They are probably necessary for certain affs just cause the 1AR can be soul-crushing when debating tricks gods (@Peregrine Beckett) or just in general.

- I'll listen to OV arguments like "spikes are ableist" but I don't think these arguments are very persuasive given that most under-views will preempt these.

K’s- I think Ks are really interesting and can have some good debates, but I do have a few problems with them

- don't be purposefully vague about the K in order to take advantage of your opponent's misunderstanding, this will really upset me. So If you do not read a clear explanation of the K, I will not vote on it. of course, if your opponent straw mans it a bunch I'll be much more lenient.

- ROBs-ROJs should have normative justifications, I need clear warrants as to why our decision calculus ought to be based around the issues the K talks about

- I want to see the K debater substantively respond to the AC/NC instead of making very broad overviews.

- Read Non-T aff's all day long I think they can be great, just make sure you are very clear about them.

LARP- is cool, it's not my cup of tea so I don't do it much. But it's strategically beneficial so LARP all you want.

- if you make some wacky argument like spark or dedev you'll be very cool.

If you have any questions just ask me. if you're trying to do prefs, shoot me an email.

I flow cross-ex now :D

My name is Brogan Kirkpatrick (He/Him or They/Them). I debated for 4 years for West Des Moines Valley. Of that, I did Policy for 3 years and LD for a year in between.

Email: brogank42@gmail.com

In general: I see debate as a sport (as it should be qualified as). I'll try to minimize my involvement in a round, but I will step in if there's bigotry or extreme hostility going on. There's rhetorical strategy to being aggressive, but I'm substantially less willing to vote for you if you're being offensive. You WILL NOT get the ballot if you're intentionally offensive/dehumanizing to your opponent. Luckily for me as a judge, I've never had that happen, but it's there so we're clear if it does. I'm good with most spreading, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I'm familiar with most common strategies in debate. I was primarily a K debater, but I've also read framework, tricks (sorry), and a good nuke war impact or two. If you have any funky new strat that you're looking for the right judge to read in front of, I'd love the honors.

I'm about 50/50 on tech vs truth; I try to default to tech though.

Policy: This was the format I did the most. I'm well enough learned on all K debate but the highest of high theory. That being said, it's still a good idea to limit (or at least explain) your use of K-specific lingo. I've been out of debate for a couple years now and might not know what you mean. I'd like the framework debate to be clear and emphasized. You probably know the K debate better than me. As for more traditional, plan-based debate, it's great if the link chain is done well. Rarely is there anything more satisfying than being convinced that flying drones over bears will lead to a nuclear war. As for theory debaters, be unique about it. It's fine as a tool for clarifying abuses, but when you read the same shells almost every time, it's abusive and annoying. Even something as small as telling a little story about how this round was uniquely impacted by abuse is enough to make your theory args shine. Also, please don't tell me to gut check unless it's the ABSOLUTE LAST CASE SCENARIO. I hate voting on a gut check, and probably won't.

LD: Even though I mostly did policy, my primary aff was Kant. Most of my arguments were heavily inspired by LD-esque strategies. I'll vote on tricks in higher level debate, but don't like to in novice level. Spikes can be funny, but also annoying if that's your only strat. Ditto the info from above.

Michael Meng (He/Him/His)

mengmichael100@gmail.com

I'll vote on anything... but heres my list on familiarity

Pref Scale

Phil: 1-2 (depends how dense, kant / pettit, hobbes, contracts, sentiments, etc are all 1's)

K (idpol, reps, generics): 2

K (high theory): 5

Substantive Tricks: 1-2

bad tricks*: 3-4

T/Theory**: 2

LARP: 3/5 (3 for ITs + Process CPs, 5 for straight policy adv/da)

Trad - plz strike me

*even though I dislike bad tricks (eval after, no aff/neg analytics, etc), you still have to respond to it, saying "this is friv" isnt responsive, its much better to just group most of these bc lots of em have the same flex warrant

**You should probably disclose, I'll vote on disclosure but the more friv the less i take it seriously eg. disclose who won the round in rr

Presume (if NONE OF THESE ARE CONTESTED):

DTD on T and Theory

No RVI's

Epistemic Confidence

Truth Testing

Competing Interps

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

LESS IMPORTANT STUFF / SPEAKS

If you follow my TikTok and ss it and put it in the doc ill boost speaks by 0.5 my @ is local.sh(i)tposter * without the () bc tab told me to take a bad word out :c

Buy me boba = 30

Be nice to ur opponents, debate should be fun

If u drop an abhorrent impact turn I will vote on it... the threshold for response is literally just sneezing on it and if u can't respond u deserve to lose lmao, however if I do have to vote on this the winner gets W20

Other than that speaks are up to me, if you can beat me in a game of clash royale before the round (come early) you get 30, but if u lose -2 speaks of what I would've given u

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

doop doop doop

Put me on the email chain if you're gonna do it. Email: js46497@wdmcs.org

I'm a senior at Valley. I do LD.

Novice specific:

I prefer novices to read lay/traditional cases. I get that winning rounds based on varsity arguments your teammates gave you looks good to your parents, but if you don't understand what you read, then you don't gain anything from it. Instead, I think novices should focus on the basics of debate: good argumentation, being able to think on your feet, doing your own research. If you can actually understand your really technical Berardi case and it's something you actually want to read, then go for it. Otherwise, maybe don't.

If you're going to spread, try to spread well. Don't garble your words, speak clearly. If you can't do that, don't spread. Only spread if your opponent is cool with it.

All novices get 29+ unless they do something bad and by bad i mean defend racism or smth

PF specific:

I don't do pf so I will not know the topic literature. I have judged it a few times but I'm gonna judge it like an LD round because that's easier for me

You can call me a progressive judge, do theory and have an opposing framework and stuff (why do y'all not do framework debate? it's weird).

I'll vote on analytics, not everything needs to be carded.

This only happened once but if there's no impact weighing I will default to lives saved and look for who saves the most lives. *NOTE: I WILL NOT DO THIS IN LD*

General:

I don't care if you dress up or not, it won't affect my decision

Tech > truth. exception is if it's a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc argument.

Run what you want, but understand your cases before you read them, else i will be annoyed.

I won't flow cross-x unless you ask me to.

I'll say clear thrice. After that, I will stop flowing and just stare at you and let the judgment flow. if I say slow, it's not because you were unclear but rather that I am bad at flowing.

Things I like:

clear extensions with weighing. Specifically, I like hearing "extend this argument, here's the warrant"

tricks

phil

k's that my small brain can understand without learning

memey theory

Things I like less:

larp

k's with really big words that I won't understand without reading 13 doctoral theses in the subject unless you can explain SUCCINCTLY and CLEARLY

disclosure theory if it's not contact info

Time yourself, please, I'm lazy. I'm fine with you going a little over time to finish your sentence, but don't make it insane.

Use all your speech time. I see people not using all their time when judging novice debates. You can't get this time back, you might as well use it all. exception is if you're dominating/hitting a novice, in which case it's fine to sit down once you've hit all the important points.

Ask me questions after round, it'll help both you to become a better debater and me to become a better judge. I'll disclose speaks if you ask

I'll try to be lenient with speaks (especially for novices). Speaks will be decided based on how i feel

If you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc., I will drop you and give you a L20.

If you can tell me your favorite Tech N9ne song, I will give you +0.2 speaks (no saying face off or -0.2 speaks)

if you tastefully roast the following people you get +0.3 speaks (no generics and nothing actually mean): michael meng, nate weimar, ashley seo, caedmon kline, shreya joshi, ria tomar

if you praise grant engelbert you get +0.4 speaks

call me what you want, especially if it's funny like "joe mama, third in his line, conqueror of Brennan in smash ultimate" (you are forbidden from using this specific name)

Just have fun and try to learn something.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Speech must be clear and understandable if reading quickly. I appreciate when rounds stay topical however I am open to theory as well as other types of arguments.