Currently serving in the United States Navy in California. Honored to participate as a judge and watch young Americans practice one of the fundamental skills of Democracy. He/Him/His are my preferred pronouns. Unless preference clarified by participants, I will use initials and gender neutral pronouns when referring to specific participants.

Judging is based on participants' ability to clearly state their position, lay out supporting claims in an organized manner, provide insightful questions that diminish strength of opponents' claims, and defend their own position when questioned by opponent. I will do my best to provide comments that help explain reasoning and give feedback for improvement.

Key points:

I will always look negatively at responses that rely on straw person attacks, cherry picking data, unsupported slippery slope, and the greatest offender of all being whataboutism- derailing debate with unrelated issues.

Most importantly, be respectful to each other.

I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.

Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org

TLDR:

At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.

Specifics:

1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.

2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.

3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.

4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.

I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.

Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.

Clash is king. I am a parent judge, but open to whatever style of debate you choose to run, traditional or progressive, just communicate it clearly and connect it to your opponent's case. I can connect dots, but I might not connect them the way you think they connect, so do your best to draw the lines. Signposts and structure are helpful. Spreading is fine, but I prefer quality over quantity. may request to see your evidence, especially if you and your opponent disagree on its interpretation and implications

For LD, framework is important. If morality is on your side, use morality. If logic is on your side, use logic. If evidence is on your side, use evidence. If feasibility is on your side, use feasibility. If you have nothing else, make me laugh or tell me a story.

For PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it.

I am a license attorney, graduated from UMKC, and practicing employment law. also graduated in 2020 with a Bachelors of Science in Political Science from Missouri State University. I emphasized in International Relations, minored in Philosophy and graduated with distinction in Public Affairs.

I did Model United Nations throughout high school and college, and although I myself did not participate in debate in high school or college, I have judged tournaments around the country since early 2020, which would likely classify me as a lay judge. That being said, I likely have a stronger understanding of law, policy, and IR than most lay people.

When it comes to speech style, I strongly dislike spreading. (That's the lay judge in me). I understand its value in terms of debate strategy, but ultimately, it's unrealistic to communicate in that way, and makes it really hard for me to judge arguments I can barely understand. I value real, yet flawed, arguments much more than arguments made so fast that your opponent cannot follow.

I typically will not disclose unless I am required to by tab.

Overall, this is a learning experience for everyone, including me, and I hope all competitors can be respectful and understanding of their colleagues regardless of who they are, what their technology capabilities are, etc.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

I have judges multiple events, however I spend most sessions in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

I competed from 7th grade thur college - I was a Policy Debater.

I have been coaching for 20 + years. I am not a fan of the direction that most debate is going.

Don't waste my time with obscure arguments. Bonaparte once said that "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot. PS...make sure you have a warrant and impact...

If your flow and delivery are clear - SPEED isn't a problem, but if it sounds like you are having a spiritual moment while you are running your case - I am not impressed. Spitting is just rude. Work harder - no-one cares.

Loud isn't an emotion. No Bullies aloud/allowed 20L is in your future.

I am okay with offtime roadmaps - if it's really a roadmap and not trying to sink the other team...

Signposting is fine - I am an English teacher.

Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

I like good solid evidence, clear debate, and solid connections.

Debate is hard but it's not personal. Have fun - be kind - play fair and tell great stories.

I love powerful words and phrases.

CX can be the root of the best conversations.

I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

Yes, Email Chain: mclelland0@icloud.com

Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.

Public Forum:

My goal is to be as close to a tabula rosa judge as possible in PF. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.

While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am holistically a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, . This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you.

While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters. Please... do not give me an off-time roadmap. The only time this is needed is for Policy/CX debate where I might have 8 million flows... in LD there's two flows - we can follow along.

Congressional Debate:

Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.

I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.

Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.

!! Note on Inclusion !!

Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

I have a fairly straightforward perspective on my judging preferences. I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. I don't prefer spreading, and if a debater speaks so quickly that I have trouble understanding them, I will not be able to prefer their arguments.

Backing up your arguments with convincing evidence and telling me specifically why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's will help you win the round. Extending your arguments throughout the flow and pointing out to me any concessions your opponent made in cross-ex or any arguments dropped by your opponent will greatly strengthen your case. Voter issues are helpful. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech every time.

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

Greenhill 2022

Top Level

I will work hard to be the best judge possible for your debate. I will flow your speeches and cross-ex and base my decisions as much as possible on your words. I love debate and know how much work you put into it and the least I can do is be the best judge I can be for you. Tech over truth. I’m doubling down here this year because so few judges do this in practice. I would rather vote for high quality execution of untruthful argument that is won than interject myself into the debate.

Some thoughts you may care about when doing your pref sheet in no particular order:

1. I don't have any massive preferences in terms of argument content. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense. I don't care what you do as long as you do what you do best. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Judge instructions are good. I prefer lbl to long overviews.

2. Evidence quality matters a great deal to me. I enjoy debates where cross-ex is spent digging in on your opponents claims and referencing their ev. Re-highlighted evidence should be read.

3. T - I rarely see 2nr’s that go for T unless a massive mistake has been made by the aff.

4. KAff/TFW - Appeals to Fairness and clash are both persuasive. I find it extremely difficult to overcome the notion that an unlimited prep burden for the neg is undesirable. To me that means the aff should probably be related to the topic in some way. That said, I often vote aff in these debates. The neg either isn't prepared to deal with case cross-applications and impact analysis of the team they are debating, don't do sufficient work establishing the impact to limits , and sufficiently leverage TVA's and Switch Side arguments to mitigate aff offense. Aff teams often lose when they are too defensive, insufficiently develop their counter model of debate, or make mistakes on the technical portions of this debate.

5. K - Like most judges, case-specific links pulled from ev, tags/rhetoric, established in cx, etc. are what I'm looking for. I find that too much of the debate often devolves into reading framing blocks which means argunents aren't ansered in a satisfactory way by both teams. This means that framing is rarely decisive. Moreover, I am not usually persuaded by arguments that say that aff offense just poof goes away unless the neg is substantially ahead on framing. The sooner you realize that framework may not be decisive, begin to engage what often become comparisons of apples and oranges (in round scholarship vs the results of hypothetical policy scenarios), and give me a way to wade through that muck, the better. Please do us a favor and stay organized - clearly label different portions of the debate on the k. Signpost! Please stick to the line-by-line. Short overviews are ok but long are not.

6. CP - Case-specific is best here again. There's almost nothing better than specific cp with high quality evidence. 2ac permutation explanations are your friend. Later in the debate, I tend to think your explanations are just flat out new and not spin. Just invest a bit more time to unpack your initial permutations and I will hold them to answering the nuance.

7. DA - Not a lot to say here. Good evidence matters. Creative spin is welcome. Zero risk is possible and extremely small risk of an extinction scenario can matter a great deal or not much at all depending on the evidence and analysis accompanying these arguments.

8. Theory - Defaults: Condo -> drop team. Everything else = drop argument.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Email: debate@inboxeen.com

**Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me! I was once you and I know what it’s like! When I award speaks, they are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. I am judging because I love the activity as much as you, and I want to help you do better if I can!**

School Affiliation(s)

Current Affiliation: East Chapel Hill HS

Current Role at Institution: I'm currently the Associate Director for Digital Communications at the Yale School of Management, but dedicate my off-time to S&D!

Previous Affiliation(s) and Role(s)

The Bronx High School of Science (Bronx, NY)

I coached primarily Public Forum Debate and Legislative Debate (Congressional Debate) at the Bronx High School of Science from roughly 2011-2015. I judged across all events – speech included. I began my coaching career at Bronx as an extemp coach.

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I have judged and coached (primarily Public Forum) throughout the years since graduating from this school.

Debate Experience

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I competed primarily in policy debate at River Valley High School in Mohave Valley, AZ. I also competed in other speech and debate events.

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York, NY)

I was a member of the Columbia Policy Debate team and competed for one year during my time in college.

Other

Tell me what to do – i.e. ‘tabula rasa’ insofar as one might even exist, and insofar as it might be helpful to roughly describe my ‘paradigm’.

Please ask specific questions at the beginning of the round for further clarification. E.g. my threshold for buying a reasonability standard has significantly heightened with age.

Run whatever you’d like – hypotesting, retro theory, nothing at all! I can handle it!

Most importantly, this is an educational activity and I believe in Debater/Debate -- i.e. you are more important than the round, so please speak up if you feel uncomfortable and tell me/your coach/tab immediately if something bothers you. I believe in the platinum rule - treat others as they'd like to be treated. Be kind to each other and have fun!

About me:

A proudly African woman from Kenya who is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents, and is a debate and judge coach to African debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Studies computer science as a university degree, and spends her free time debating, judging, listening to music, dancing, eating great food and of course, travelling!

Judging rubric:

In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches:

1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization.

2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebut them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is true, and why it is not only important in the debate, but the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization.

3. Weighing: take the best case scenario of the other side, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why, you've scored a solid win.

4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side, or try to water down their points without giving me proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems hard to engage with. Try your best!

5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Complexity does not win debates, simplicity does. Clear structure and simple but detailed analysis makes it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signaling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech.

6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case is important. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments, and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity is key!

7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions, and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from everyone's different perspectives!

Good luck everyone!

Public Forum debater for four years, judge for three. Feel free to ask specific questions at the beginning of the round but here is generally what I will be looking for:

Sign Post (and Road Maps): Outlining and numbering in each speech not only adds organization to your arguments but ensures that I flow where intended.

Clarity and Presentation: Your arguments are only as good as the way you present them. Apply this concept to speed; speak at a pace so that your points are not only heard but also processed. Present arguments in both a logical and supported manner (with qualitative and quantitative evidence). Rely on BOTH evidence and logic throughout the round, not only the evidence, because I am much more likely to buy into evidence that is BOTH credible and that you can explain (since that shows you have a thorough understanding of what you are advocating for). Succinct explanation, including clear claims, warrants, and impacts will work in your favor. Impacts are especially crucial in explaining to me why what you are saying matters and why your impacts should be prioritized. Remember that link chains should not be implied but explicit.

Respect: Always keep in mind that the round should be clean, civil, and based in evidence. Anything you say will ultimately be a reflection of your character so stay level-headed and grounded in fact. If you question evidence, talk about its credibility, reliability, citations and card-cutting, etc. rather than using subjective words such as bad, atrocious, terrible, etc.

Weighing: Please refrain from squeezing this in at the very last minute! It does not matter if an argument goes uncontested if its impact, and all others, are not weighed against the other side and explained in terms of magnitude, morality, time frame, scope, probability, etc. Use world comparison to explain why it should be a clean ballot for your team. This will help relay a cohesive story to me on why to vote PRO/CON.

Above all, be confident and have fun with the round!

Email: rayelucamyers@yahoo.com

I am a lay judge, I will be flowing during round but please note if you run complicated arguments then it's on to fully explain them, I won't vote on anything I can't understand.

Please do not spread, I cannot properly evaluate arguments read at high speed.

I prefer quality>quantity, I would prefer a few well warranted arguments with compelling evidence instead of several rushed arguments.

Lastly, I vote based off the flow, so ultimately I will decide the winner based on which arguments extend and the impacts of those arguments. So please weigh your arguments and be sure to give voter issues and tell me why exactly you won.

Please be respectful during CX, it should not turn into a shouting match.

Finally please disclose your case to me at hnadendla19@gmail.com

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I do policy at Emory. I debated for and now coach at Durham. If you will be on the Emory debate team in the fall you should put me as a conflict.

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round. It's better to hop into the competition room early as opposed to email me since I might miss your question.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. Sending docs is good. It lets both me and your opponent verify the quality of the evidence you are reading. Sending docs is not an excuse to be unclear. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time. If we reach the round start time and you are just starting to set up the email chain, I will be very sad. Even if I am judging on the local circuit, I would like a card doc since I like to look over evidence and just sending cards out from the beginning is easier than me trying to call for cards while the decision time ticks away. On a somewhat related note, although I do think disclosure is good, I'd rather not watch debates about this. This is especially true if your opponent does disclose in some fashion, even if it's not what you consider the best norm.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. I find many of the ways that people classify themselves as debaters, such as being policy or k or traditional or circuit, largely artificial distinctions. I similarly don’t particularly care whether your arguments are properly formatted in line with whatever norms exist in various local, regional, or national circuits, such as if you read a standard or a value and a criterion. I do care that you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate. Smart arguments will win rounds.

I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but I think the distinction between tech and truth in debate is largely silly. That means there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Lastly, be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity and teaching me most everything I know about debate.

Specifics

Policy – Plans, CPs, and DAs are great! Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should also be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo counterplans, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. I lean negative on most competition issues, and I think I am better for process counterplans than most other LD judges. The 2nr is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or other new arguments, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr on most positions should just be in the 1nc. If you sandbag reading your CP competition cards until the 2nr, for example, I will be sad.

T – I love a good T debate. Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – K debates are great, just know the literature and be ready to explain it. If I don't understand your argument, I won't be able to vote for it. These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means. Alternatives should be tangible, and you should have examples.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. Whether you are going for an impact turn to the K or extending the K itself, you need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than most other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Regardless, I don’t think the negative needs the TVA to win, but it also won’t hurt to make one and extend it. Cap and other kritiks can also be pretty good if you understand what you’re doing. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love philosophical debates. I think phil debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

The following paradigm is fairly exhaustive because my investment as a judge is equally (if not more) important than what y’all do as competitors. If my feedback is subpar, the work and effort you all put in is a waste. Ultimately, the following novel is not meant to intimidate, but rather to aid in how the debate can be elevated. I look forward to being a part of the art of communication through debate in each round and best of luck!

Tl;dr I have AuDHD so like, use that to your advantage ^.^

General Background:

I am the assistant debate and forensics coach at the University of Richmond, where I also obtained a B.A. in Philosophy. I have over ten years of experience as a competitor and four as a collegiate coach in six styles of debate (PF, LD, Policy, Congress, Parliamentary, and Long Table) and over a dozen speech events. I competed with and against international teams that are a part of the CIDD and German circuits and am a member of the VAFTDC (Virginia Association of Forensics, Theatre, and Debate Coaches). Additionally, I have/had involvement with Future Problem Solvers, Model UN, theatre, and improv. Given the scope of my background, a lot of my preferences concentrate on the art of rhetoric and communication within debate rather than a purely technical focus (truth>tech). That said, I try to also respect the difference between norms and rules given the breadth of the debate realm and appreciate the evolving structure of the debate realm.

Feel free to e-mail me any questions: zachary.e.perry@gmail.com

Main Paradigm:

Kindness is key. The purpose of debate is to expand upon ideas with good faith intentions and find ways to coherently communicate and critique nuanced topics. That said, there are certain truths that are generally held to be accepted as true (things should be logically consistent, all people should be treated humanely, opinions cannot replace facts though can be considered as informing perspective and bias, etc.). Especially given the current political climate, a healthy level of skepticism and grace should always be extended without resorting to ad hom attacks or broad sweeping generalizations. This guiding principle is something that can be utilized throughout our existence, which is what makes debating so valuable as a life skill.

I am sick of wasting time during round calling for cards in varsity rounds. I heavily suggest utilizing disclosure theory which means if your case is not presented in full and a card is asked for, I will run prep if it takes longer than 15 seconds.

Extinction arguments (re: nuclear war) are a losing battle and while it is not a guaranteed loss, know that we live in a world where that it is so statistically unlikely, it does not provide a compelling argument. Death is not a threat if it is inevitable, it's the suffering that we fear. If you're going to run existential cases, you're better off pointing to cyber warfare, anti-capitalism/totalitarianism, economic downfall, or human rights cases since that has more tangible, concrete impacts. Yes, death is a major factor to consider, but I don't lose sleep over dying in an all-out nuclear war considering that we live in a capitalist hellscape that makes existence make death seem like an escape sometimes.

Some things of note:

-Avoid personal phrases. Frame things as an objective pontification instead with “if/then” statements and “the affirmative/negative’s position claims…”

-Be honest about mistakes both in ownership and forgiveness. If a point is dropped, concede and find ways to move forward. Additionally, don’t take critiques personally and recognize the difference between norms and rules. It may impact the debate scoring or decision depending on how egregious the instance is. Debate is a holistically judged sport!

-Clarity is key. Making assumptions leads to a lot of miscommunication and though I may have experience in a lot of different backgrounds, I am human as well. Revel in the fact that you are the go-to expert in the room!

-Organization helps with everyone. Signposting and roadmaps are highly encouraged. Roadmaps are also more than just saying you’ll “touch upon the opponent’s contentions and expanding upon your own”. Being able to identify features of clash, impact calculus, voters, and what kind of debate it is (value, definition, evidence, contention, etc.) will help elevate the overall effect of presentation.

Other:

Case Sharing and Sources/Citations- It is not required to share the entire case with the opponent. However, it is in good faith to at least allow access to specific portions used and it is mandatory to share cards when asked. Though I do not like evidence shoving and card-based debates, it does not look favorable if you cannot provide adequate support of a claim. Sourcing is also important and when giving a piece of evidence, understanding the methodology and ideas of empiricism and epistemology are key in demonstrating an adequate understanding of the citations provided.

Speaker Points (from a 20-30 scale)- I rank on a bell curve structure that is fairly reflective of the indicated suggested ranking (poor, average, good, excellent, and outstanding). This may skew points in overall standing but also indicates that a score of 29 or 30 is truly earned. As long as the argument is clear (organizationally and orally), use up the majority of the time, are able to identify each necessary piece (value, VC, and contentions), the score should range from 23-27 based on other factors such as fillers (“uh” and “um”), dropped arguments, rebuttals, and overall ability to crystalize the argument. Rarely will I award anything lower than 22 unless the speeches are incomplete, there is a conduct issue, or the debate is entirely conceded. Conversely, scores in the upper echelon effectively demonstrate mastery of presentation (little to no fillers, solid stance and projection of voice, able to command the room without seeming too aggressive), expansive understanding of the topic at hand and evidence presented (clean links and warrant), and excelling at the art of rhetoric and argumentation theory via things such as voters, impact calculus, and word economy. Know that if you obtain a score of 28 or above, I am genuinely impressed!

DEBATE

Lincoln-Douglas:

Key judging elements I look for: Value/VC, Definitions, Framework, Theory, Analysis, CX, CBA

Plans, Kritiks (K), Fiats, and Theory- Though I recognize the validity (and growing usage) of “progressive” LD, I tend to follow a more traditional outline. I think plans and Kritiks (Ks) have their place as long as they don’t deviate too far from the topic at hand and provide explicit tie into solvency, inherency, and the overall framework/paradigm at hand. Your plan should also FOLLOW the establishment of contentions and general framework. PRE-Fiats also tend to be used in ways to derail the debate by completing sidelining the resolution at hand. POST-Fiats are totally fair game as long as it is still relevant and topical. The structure should not hinge upon a theory argument considering that the Value/VC is contingent.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you run a plan that indicates we should ignore philosophical/moral theories in favor of political and pragmatic ones (there is a painful irony within this notion) or appeal to theory as an end-all-be-all (save for very VERY limited exceptions), I will automatically dismiss your case. This is a particular problem because I have seen a butchered interpretation of some major theorists despite having good intentions. That said, it does no good to spread misinformation and accountability of knowledge is of utmost importance. In short, all politics is based off of theory, and using Rawls’ “original position” and “veil of ignorance” does not necessarily absolve you of that burden just because some antiquated dead white dude said it’s possible to be enlightened while conveniently ignoring the fact that We Live In A Society™. I also do not have the patience for Ks that purport a resolution being dismissed on the notion that it's inherently "racist, sexist, queercist, ableist, etc". We exist on a platform that is intrinsically rooted in privilege and if you're going to push an Oppression Olympics argument, no one wins and it defeats the purpose of debate. We all have something to learn through our own personal adversity and it is not productive discounting a person's opinion solely because they may be more or less privileged than you. Extinction arguments are also extremely annoying and offer nothing unique or interesting to the debate since it assumes a fallacious slippery slope scenario that is almost never rooted in reality. That said; use all of these suggestions at your own discretion. Remember, COVID still exists and has long term effects ;)

Framework, Paradigms/Observations, Disadvantages (Disads), and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)-

FRAMEWORK IS IMPERATIVE. If you do not give definitions, context, paradigms and/or observations, you leave the debate wide open for attacks or gaps to be filled either by the opponent or my own implicit biases. I will do my best to remain objective but if certain norms are expected, I will default to my own inferences of the topic at hand. Paradigms are important for context and should be given if the resolution is vague. For instance, is this topic Americentric or global? What is the status quo? Is there a timeframe? Though not necessary, those that include a sort of paradigm or observation within their framework generally tend to fare better. Remember what happens when people assume things :) Disads are also helpful when identified adequately for the rebuttal and rejoinder speeches. For me, CBA should be a general default when debating a topic. Debate is about exploring the nuances of the argument since most things are not black and white. Do not assume (again, there’s that word), my background in Philosophy means I favor a political or social case over an economic one though econ arguments do provide a good sense of impacts and concrete metrics. If one side demonstrates favorable merit and a cleaner link to the resolution at hand, it does not matter what flavor of argument is presented. I will vote and have voted for arguments that go against my own personal beliefs if/when they are conveyed well.

Flex Prep/CX Flow- I allow Flex Prep (shifting prep time for CX time) but only if both parties agree to its usage before the round starts through explicit consent. Additionally, I DO flow CX since I think it has a purpose in the debate and demonstrates a person’s ability to elevate the contentions. A good CX can make or break a round and help give additional points based on oratory skills.

Roadmaps/Signposting- Please use them and refer to the main paradigm section above.

Public Forum:

Key judging elements I look for: Definitions, Framework, Analysis, crossfire, CBA, well-composed rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches

The use of spreading, plans, and Kritiks (Ks) are antithetical to PF debate given the fact that it is understood as the most accessible form of argumentation to a layperson. That said, there should be heavy emphasis on analysis and warrant and not just evidence shoving. Given the rapid back and forth of this style of debate, the expectation is to be a kind of “mini-expert” of a topic with an intimate understanding of certain terms and elements related to the resolution and disseminated quickly. CBA is expected though not always necessary depending on the resolution. Use theory sparingly.

Definitions- these are imperative for framework. If you do not define the scope and context of this debate, it is impossible to create a basis for why the contentions uphold the resolution.

I DO FLOW AND HEAVILY WEIGH CROSSFIRES. The main appeal and, imo, fun part of PF is the “real world” aspect of having a rapid back and forth conversation. A person’s ability to adequately talk about a controversial topic with a level head means just as much as being “right” about a situation or topic.

Given how most constructive cases are prepared, the main weighing mechanism for me is how well people can utilize impact calculus (magnitude, feasibility, timeframe, and probability) and voters (evidence weighing, contention clash, definition debate) by the end of the debate. The best debates are those who are able to find the common thread and main clash of the debate (usually by establishing a CBA).

Rhetoric Scoring: I often award low point wins to team with creative or more personable approaches rather than stock cases because I think it's important to reward people who think creatively and critically rather than pushing a case that was probably cultivated through online forums/briefs or coaches themselves (let's be real here...). I don't care if you sound smart. I care if you soundaccessible.This is PF. If you want to sound like a pretentious nutwit (rightfully!) go do Policy.

Policy:

Key judging elements I look for: Plan building, heavy evidence usage, links/warrants/analysis

Policy, to me, is what the highest and most refined debate should be. Pulling from all other disciplines (the oratory, bill building, and procedural skills of Congress, the theory and analysis skills of LD, the evidence and case building of PF, and the impromptu style of Parli and Long Table). Any and all aspects of the above topics are fair game as long as it’s in good faith. Though policy is, admittedly, my least favorite and least familiar debate style, I appreciate the craft and some of my favorite rounds have been in policy though it is a beast to understand and an even bigger feat to master so hats off to those who compete in one of the most profound forms of debate!

Spreading- Please do not spread. The art of debate is about communication and a person’s ability to have an impressive wpm does not promote adequate expansion of complex ideas and is antithetical to the spirit of argumentation. I will doc points if I cannot flow properly due to speaking too quickly. If I cannot physically fully follow the argument, I cannot award adequate points.

Congress:

The quote, "Politics is perception" is especially true for this form of debate. The showmanship and ability to present a topic in only three minutes is a powerful tool that is heavily based on the speaking style and engagement with the entire chamber. The focus on evidence is not as important but I typically look for at least one source per contention. I only recommend one since I think that the quality of analysis is more important than the quantity of sources. Being able to address the bill or resolution specifically will also elevate the overall impression and score. Back and forth debate is obviously the ideal though as long as it's not too lopsided, I don't mind doubling of one side occasionally. As long as people are respectful and communicative without stepping on too many toes, I'm a fairly lax judge.

From a Parliamentarian's standpoint, being able to take up space confidently without suffocating the room is a delicate balancing act. Being eager to participate without stifling others is also key in the communal aspect of Congress. Efficient chambers are nice, but if the room becomes too tense, it sucks all the joy out of the event. PO scores tend to be a bit more inflated due to the extra burden of tasks though top scores almost always come from those who give incredible speeches.

Parliamentary:

Given the nature of Parli debate, it is understood that pretty much anything goes. The notion of this debate is meant to be elevated but also accessible so I don't have as many constraints considering the (assumed) maturity of collegiate level debate. That said, I do like to see a person's ability to merge the ability of a solid orator with that of a logical common thread. Though I try to remain unbiased, I will also be tempted to fill in gaps if references are made without adequate sourcing due to the nature of this debate.

QUOTE ROUND: I'm fine with either leaning into the resolution from a literal interp of a quote or a broader context of what certain norms and systems mean through theory and storytelling. Use your own discretion.

Other notes: I have a humanities degree so advanced econ theory and neuroscience is probably going to go over my head (though I will give it the good old college try!). International Politics is also not something I'm particularly well-versed in. I am but one human on a planet of almost 8 billion with over 200 municipalities. Please hold my hand through your thought process.

Speech:

General Note:

Though my first love was debate, I am a speech kid at heart. The variety and depth is vast and I don't claim to be an expert in any of these individual events. While I think characterization and textual analysis are key to making a piece "come to life", I also appreciate the vast amount of perspectives and lived experiences in how we understand narratives. That said, I am entitled to use my own discretion and I as an audience member have a role in your performance. If I am not engaged or not "included" in the process of creating this art, it will reflect in the score with reasons that should at least be acknowledged. My aim is not to crush anyone's creative spirit though sometimes certain artistic choices can have consequences that need to be considered (swearing, content choice, general presentation, decorum, etc). We're all human though accountability is of utmost importance.

Self-published pieces are... risky especially since the purpose of an "interp" is to interpret ANOTHER'S work. Though that isn't to say it doesn't come without potential reward. Be wise.

After Dinner Speaking (ADS): plz make me laugh ????

Communication Analysis (CA): I tend to find this event a middle ground of persuasive and informative that is pinpointing a specific event or speech at hand. I should be able to follow along with the topic if I don't have any prior knowledge while still being able to be on your side by the end of the speech in some way, shape, or form. This tends to be a really dry event so feel free to spice it up with a few jokes. I like to think of John Oliver, Contrapoints, and Lindsey Ellis as good reference points for CAs on topic areas.

Declamation: I don't mind if you try to embody the original intent or put your own spin on it but it should reflect the words spoken in some meaningful way. This event is the most text heavy so be EXTREMELY purposeful in delivery. I couldn't care less about physicality, just make sure to project.

Duo: My favorite event! This is probably the most theatrical so whether you make me laugh, cry, or just think a little bit more about life, give me a show! Physicality is key. Don't just create a character, BECOME them! Creative use of limited space is key and really try and create dynamic movement not only through your movements, but through the text itself.

DI: Duo... but solo

Extemporaneous: I recommend at least two sources per point to have a good qualifying score. That said, evidence pushing will only get you so far and I'm far more impressed by a solid analysis of the information presented. The expectation is that you're the mini-expert for 7 minutes and should be able to adequately inform me of a topic in the allotted time (within reason). That said, don't assume I know the context of the topic or that either of us are the smartest person in the room. The event is meant to humble us and designed to force us to appreciate complex topics that need to be handled with care. Hot takes are entertaining but may not always be effective. Use discretion.

Impromptu: I recommend no more than 2 minutes for prep for top speaks. I'm not entirely impressed by minimal note usage since it's a tool given to you for a reason. Careful about fillers and make sure to have some sort of methodical and cohesive narrative or thesis statement. If I suspect you're using stock stories and inserting the topic as a buzzword, I WILL immediately dock points and recommend disqualification if confirmed. This is not a prepped round and it antithetical to the purpose of the event and I consider it a form of cheating. I hate cheating.

Improvistation: Yes and... make sure it's funny :)

Informative: Make me think! I want to be able to take away at least one new fact from the speech. Though logos is the main focus here, there should be a heavy emphasis on sourcing and ethos as well. That said, evidence pushing only goes so far so analysis and warrant should carry your argument forward throughout the presentation. If I lose sight of the thesis, then the overall presentation falls with it. Make sure to establish a common thread and not make it too dry. There should be little to NO opinions in this event save for polls or other pertinent information regarding the event. My role is to learn about the topic, not be persuaded.

Original Oratory: No matter what emotion you make me feel, I should sense it to be genuine AND relatable. OO is one of the hardest because not every story is able to fulfill both requirements and is extremely subjective. I don't have any other feedback other than making sure the narrative is cohesive and follows some sort of the hero's journey. You are the hero, make me want to root for you!

Persuasive: Though this event is rooted in a lot of elements similar to informative, you should at least convince me to see the validity in your argument even if I don't think it's entirely sound from my own personal opinion. Pathos will also take you far here so definitely appeal to personal anecdotes or other emotional appeals that pair well with the logos and ethos elements in this event. This is meant to be a blended event and showcase your oration skills outside of just presenting an idea. Think TedTalk.

Poetry: Same as prose but, like, poetry, maaaan. I do permit passages from different languages! Just note that the work needed to convey emotion is harder, though not impossible! Please don't just sing a song ????

Prose: I'm literate. I love books. Words make me feel things. Bear in mind this event is less about acting and more about textual painting. I should be able to feel your characterization by your tonal inflection and wordplay and appreciate the unpacking of what the author intended blended with your own interpretation. I have a nuanced opinion about Death of the Author so don't assume I'm going to discount the context of the piece just because you have a new spin on it. Honor the work you're presenting, even if it means being subversive with the text.

Radio Broadcasting: All about the diction, inflection, and personality. This event is incredible because looks truly don't matter. I find the funnier, the better since most RB voices tend to be drab and have a grating sense of braggadocio that is off-putting. Larger than life doesn't have to mean phony so make it BIG but believable.

Storytelling: Pretending you're ACTUALLY giving this presentation in front of kids. Lean into the absurdity and silliness of humor. I want my inner child to be awoken!

Overall, I'm excited to be a part of the artistic process and look forward to hearing all of your pieces and speeches!!

I debated for West Broward High School for 4 years and was mostly active in the Public Forum national circuit my Sophomore and Junior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have any additional questions, ask me before the round begins.

updated as of 1/28/23

-If you'd like, send cases to robhommy@gmail.combefore the round starts. If I call for a card, you can send it to that email as well.

- I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

-Tech > Truth always. If the argument is ridiculous, I expect you to tell me why. Don't assume I know that an argument is BS, explain it.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I personally spoke pretty quick when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. You also may run the risk of too much speed hurting your speaker points.

-If both teams fail to generate legitimate offense by the end of the round, I will vote on a risk of offense.

-My attention levels during crossfire are much lower than they are during your speeches. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense for it to be in final focus, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it's never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to read it

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory arguments and Kritiks if they are well warranted enough. I didn't compete in LD or Policy in high school, however I read theory and kritiks at the 2019 TOC (in PF lol). I mildly understand structuring but if you decide to make it a voter, please make sure the warrant is well explained in summary and final focus. As a disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language and/or arguments, depending on its severity.

- If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as su*cide, PTSD, or sexual assault, I would strongly advise issuing a trigger warning beforehand. If you don't know how to properly issue a content warning, ask me before the round. I believe debate should be a safe space, and the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Wear whatever you want, I don't care.

- Be nice to each other.

If you have concerns, email me.

Shoutout to Max Wu, I finessed most of his paradigm in making this.

I'm a parent judge for speech. What I'm looking for in speech is fairly simple: well-prepared, having a clear idea and conveying your idea precisely to the audience.

Other previous experiences: I'm used to be a parent judge for Lay LD debate. I’m looking for clear but not too fast speeches, sharp questions and responses in cross examinations, and strong rebuttals. I'm also expecting well-prepared cards and at the same time being interested in how you are engaging your logical thinking in the debate. Besides all the debate techniques, respecting your opponent is also key to my judgement.

I am a parent judge who has been judging LD in eastern North Carolina for the past two years. I appreciate the challenges and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such insist that a cordial and respectful environment be maintained at all times. This will ensure space for the highest level of thought and expression.

The most important points that I respond to in a successful debate are:

1) Clear logic and articulated support. Preferably argued under an overarching structure where evidence can be understood through tangential relationships, and not a series of unrelated statements.

2) Composed and effective communication, including body language as well as verbal skills.

3) Intellectual agility- the ability to quickly craft and articulate thoughtful positions in a short time frame.

If these points are present I am confident that you will be a very strong debater, and gain as much as possible from these exceptional educational opportunities.

There are however a few things that hinder my ability to evaluate information and arguments as fairly as possible. Primarily speed is a detriment to my ability to synthesize the arguments being offered. Please no spreading. Also, as a lay judge I prefer traditional debate styles. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

I have been judging all forms of Speech and Debate for 5 years. I competed in Congress during my time as a competitor

I prefer to have a structured debate that has a progressive flow on both sides of the argument. Aggressive debate is fine but competitors should remain cordial to each other throughout the debate. All debate is point structured, so the win or loss is allocated to the competitor who both makes the better point and defends best against their opponent.

Organization is key for me as a judge. Your debate needs to follow a logical order with cohesiveness, if I can't understand the argument than I will have a much harder time judging it.

The most important aspects of a debate in terms of wins and losses is an evidence based approach that addresses all arguments in a manner of completeness. Leaving an opening within the debate is a sign of lack of preparation and will be judged accordingly. I expect all competitors to be aware of NSDA rules and regulations within their debating structure.

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

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

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

I am a Lay Judge, and look for consistency in your arguments. Please make sure you do not spread (speed read), or else i will not be able to understand your arguments and evaluate. Please make voter issues clear, so that I can make my decision easier. i would also prefer if your arguments were not too out-landish.

I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I just graduated from Duke University and am finishing up my fourth year coaching PF at Durham Academy.

For Nats 2023, please put me on the email chain- smith.emmat@gmail.com.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

- Please preflow before the round. Holding up the tournament to take 15 min to preflow in the room is really annoying :(

- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason. At the very least, I'll tank your speaks and write you a kindly worded educational ballot about making rounds unnecessarily hostile.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- HUGE DISCLAIMER: My biggest pet peeve in PF right now is the use of progressive args to make rounds inaccessible to teams who don't know how to handle them. Reading progressive args against a clearly inexperienced team to get a cheap win is an easy way to auto lose my ballot. ALSO I am really not confident in my abilities to evaluate progressive arguments. If you choose to run them, you take on the risk of me making the wrong decision despite doing my best. Proceed with caution!

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

Ashton Swinney, Senior Intelligence Analyst - Fort Bragg, NC

Background:

I am an Intelligence Analyst that works for the US Military. I have spent over 10 years in the role. My job has made me very familiar with public speaking, albeit within a military framework.

With that in mind, while I am adept at picking up jargon pretty fast, I am not familiar with the colloquialisms/slang of this organization quite yet. So I would ask that you keep that in mind.

I expect all arguments to remain professional and respectful. You may speak at what pace works best for you, as long as you are speaking clearly and concisely. I am used to listening to my audiobooks/podcasts/videos at 2-2.5x speed, so I don't expect speed to be an issue unless what you are saying is said poorly enunciated. Please do not test how much you can say in one breathe though.

I don't care if you sit, stand, or talk with your hands.

If the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision at the end of the round after I have submitted my ballot.

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.

I did competitive speech and debate for all four years of high school. I competed on the local and nation circuits, so I am well equipped to understand the flow of the round. However, I am still looking for the teams to weigh the round on their own. I do not want to look back at the flow and try to decide which argument was better; tell me. Since this tournament is virtual, I will not penalize you for technical difficulties. To ensure the round runs smoothly, I would suggest making sure you have a stable network and doing a sound test to make sure I can hear you.