** Updated for the 2023-2024 Academic Year**

She/Her/Hers

Evidence: Apparently I need to put this on here now, but evidence standards will always be an a priori issue to evaluation for me. If there is a procedural argument that is brought up on the standards for evidence (example: distortion, not being able to access source for evidence, clipped evidence, or non-existent evidence). I will default to NSDA evidence standards unless there are other standards governing evidence evaluation. I will also only evaluate evidence that has been brought up on an ethics violation. Once an evidence ethics argument has been made, I will stop the round and vote immediately on that issue before anything else in the round proceeds. I see evidence as a core ethics argument that impacts the ability to go through anything else in the round and impacts my ability to trust any evidence that has been read by a team with evidence issue.

General Background: I’ve been in the world of policy debate for about 15 years, ranging from participation to coaching. Way back in the day, I debated at both Topeka High and Washburn Rural HS. I also debated in the regional circuit for University of Kansas for a few years and coached in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. I have a deep love for the activity. I am currently working on a Ph.D. in Political Science and I study immigration surveillance as part of my research.

Topicality/Procedural Issues: I vote on these. While I default to competing interpretations, it's important that you are answering all levels of the argument-- including the impact level of the debate. If you are negative and hope to win the round on T, you need to make sure you have a complete argument out of the gate to vote on. I should see a definition, interp, link, and impact level to your argument and I should see the aff responding to these. Cross-apply this to any procedural argument as well (such as ASPEC, condo bad, etc.)

Disads- There needs to be a terminal impact (or at least solid analysis as to why that impact outweighs aff impacts in the round), a risk/okay probability of the disad happening (otherwise, why does your UQ matter?), and a plausible link to the aff. Generic DAs are fine, but there needs to be a plausible link, even if just at an analytical level.

Counterplans-- I tend to be alright with CPs and lean negative. I think most are generally smart. However, that being said, the CP needs to be both rhetorically and functionally competitive. I think Affs can/should be held accountable for clarifications made on positions and that those links apply across both CP and DA grounds.

Kritiks-- I'm fine with these, however, keep in mind that I am studying political theory in a Ph.D. program, so if your whole knowledge of your K is from a long series of back files on the K or from reading a few paragraphs of Nietzsche, this might end badly for you. I tend to prefer Ks with wider reach (capitalism, feminism, racism, etc) and less so Ks of particular authors, mostly because they are generally done poorly. If you run a K, it is EXTREMELY important that you provide a clear narrative of a) the role of my ballot, b) the world of the alternative, and c) how I should prioritize impact calculus in the round.

General Notes:

- If you are going for more than 2 major things in your 2NR/2AR, there is a low chance you are going to win the round. Similarly, if you don't provide an impact calculus, you likely will not like the decision I make at the end of the round.

- Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

- Please don't be unpleasant during the round. I can almost guarantee that if you are, it's not aligned with the quality of your argumentation and it's just going to be a long round. For me this looks more like arrogance or intentional cruelness-- I'm fine with bluntness, anger, frustration, etc. If you are unsure what I mean by this, please ask.

- I pay attention to the rhetoric used in the round. Slurs and derogatory language will almost assuredly earn you lower speaker points.

- Both teams should start impact calc early, use this to frame your speeches and line by line, and use impact calc to prioritize voting issues and role of the ballot.

- I reward debaters who make an effort to deeply engage with the topic area and issues.

- Squirrel affs are rarely good affs. They generally have poor structure, poor solvency or advantage foundations, and generate poor debate. I would rather see a super mainstream topic that prompts a lot of clash in the round than an aff that is poorly written for an ambush factor.

- In more policy-centered debates, I may err more on the tech aspect of the debate. In other cases, I may give some leniency on tech if the arguments are "true" (understanding that truth can be a subjective value).

- I'm starting to realize through my working social justice that I'm more easily affected by detailed narratives of sexism, racism, ableism (esp. invisible disabilities), and sexual assault. Trigger warnings aren't very helpful for me as a judge (I don't have a choice to opt out of them and I don't think that I would want to) but know that I may ask for a minute to just breathe or get some water between speeches, so I can have a clear head for the next speaker if there is a particularly vivid or powerful speech. This is by no means a common thing that I do, but I did want to add this to affirm the value of self-care in this activity.

- Add me to the email chain: devon.cantwell@gmail.com

- I flow on my computer, so please make sure you take a beat at the top of flows before jumping in and please slow down to about 70% for analytical arguments, especially if they are fewer than 5 words. I have physical pain in my joints, especially at the end of long days of judging. This doesn't make my ability to assess your arguments any less, nor does it impact my competency. I will do my best to say "slow" if my joints can't keep up.

- If you think you might want my flow of the round, I'm happy to send it. Please try to give me a heads-up before the round starts, as I organize my flows a bit differently when they are being distributed. Also, send me an e-mail after the round to remind me to send it to you.

TL;DR: You do you. Have fun. Be a decent human in the round. Learn some things.

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

I did policy debate for seven years in high school and college. I coached college for a few years afterwards (MSU, UMich, and Harvard). I don't have an exhaustive profile so please ask questions before the debate if there is anything you want to know. I am comfortable with policy, critical, or other styles of debate. I will vote on a wide range of arguments. I am a relatively flow-centric judge. I tend to use evidence to mostly just to resolve factual disputes when they occur, so probably weigh cards less than usual than just like a well reasoned analytic.

I do my best to let the participants debate and minimize my own judgement of particular arguments (to the extent possible). Having said that, I reserve the right to not vote for something I think is total nonsense or against behavior I think is unethical.

PREF SHORTLIST: Ks > Policy >>>>>> everything else and if ur a trad debater pls strike me thank u in advance

Disclaimer: writing this completely from scratch as of 9/26/22 bc the other one was long & outdated & I didn’t feel like updating it.

anyways hi I’m James, if you don’t know me call me J. SFA ’21 & UT Austin ’25. I debated in cx/ld for 5(ish) years total & competed locally/nationally for all of those

Other disclaimers:

• I start at a 28 & go up/down from there
• +0.2 speaks for pet reveals in the doc
• my verbal rfds are usually pretty long but please don't let me keep you, if you're hungry or if you have a team meeting or if you're competing in another event or if you literally just want to leave you're more than welcome to. everything actually important is written on the ballot anyway

In a nutshell:

-       Yes chain: 27offlol@gmail.com

-       Any pronouns

-       Tech = truth

-       speed is good

-       theory is cool

-       t-usfg is cringe & non-t affs are based (as long as they don't just lose to presumption)

-       minus .2 speaks for each off in the 1nc that makes me use >6 sheets (LD) or >7 sheets (Policy)

-       meme rounds are cool just make sure y’all are all in on it

-       do not annoy me. Annoy me = nuked speaks. Things that annoy me:

o   postrounding (please just email me after the round you can be as rude as you want just let me get food lol)

o   being toxic to ur opponent

o   not disclosing. New affs included. Brightline = if it requires a new tag then disclose that tag/cite. Idc about open-source but I will hack for any new theory in either cx or ld rebuttals regarding an arg that was presumably undisclosed for a strategic edge

o   stealing prep. Yes I will notice

o   reading things besides a k or policy, and this is the only categorical imperative I’m willing to entertain

-       do not piss me off. Piss me off = L25 and I tell tab that you pissed me off. Things that piss me off:

o   Being prejudiced/violent or reading args that attempt to justify it

o   Evidence ethics violations

o   Telling a group of people what to do when you don’t identify with said group of people (e.g. nonblack debaters who read afropess)

o   Edelman. I don't have/want to elaborate further just don't lol

Questions? Comments? Smart-aleck remarks? Email me. K thanks glhf

update for Alta 2022 - I have only judged one tournament on the NATO topic so far, so bare with me.

I've been in the policy debate community for 7+ years. I will evaluate any argument unless it is overtly racist/sexist/etc. I look for good clash, warrants, extensions, etc. I am pretty well versed in most forms of critical literature. When I debated I mostly went for the K, (usually Baudrillard), but I also yearn for a good DA/counterplan debate. Also - simply running Baudrillard in front of me will not get you higher speaks unless I can tell you actually know the literature, don't just repeat repeat jargon and expect to win. I can follow speed, but haven't actually competed in a few years, so slow down to about 75% on taglines and analytics. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is VERY important for me.

I tend to lean on the side of conditionality good, tech over truth, and reasonability, but can always be persuaded otherwise. If you're going to read a K on the aff you should note that more often than not I vote for framework in these debates, for this reason I think its very important to have good, warranted offense against framework. For example, instead of spreading yourself thin by going for 3 pieces of offense, explain 1 or 2 very well.

If you have any further questions you may ask during round, or email me at dylan.j.hefley@gmail.com

pronouns - she/her

email: 429devinmh@gmail.com

In high school I was a 2N and 2A with 2 different partners. I went to Meadows and graduated in 2021. Make me laugh so I'm not bored :)

Plan Affs - I read one in high school. Don't assume solvency is a given.

K Affs - I might know what's going on but assume I don't and explain the important stuff because I won't make those connections for you

T - ORGANIZE !! Yow won't win a T flow in front of me if you don't signpost and order your arguments. I'm not super familiar with the topic so precise, credited definitions will make my decision.

Ks - This is what I'm most comfortable with, explain your arguments and you'll be fine

CPs - I've never gone for a CP but as long as you have a net benefit and impact calc you should be solid

DAs - You're gonna have to do a lot of work to convince me your impact outweighs if your internal link chain is shitty

Overall: Have fun and don't take it too seriously

liamjameson99@gmail.com pls add me to the chain

About me as a person:

I am an environmental scientist. My day job is habitat restoration and land management in East Tennessee. I know a lot about ecology and I care about the environment a LOT. I think impacts about food/water/ecology resonate with me more than the average person, and I am not inclined to enjoy bad or contrived environment-related impacts/internals.

In my free time I work with land and labor advocacy groups out here in the Unaka Mountains. I’m rabidly pro-labor and pro-conservation, so do with that what you will.

About me as a judge:

Very few of my preferences are set in stone. Debates are about your arguments.

I am ready to hear anything. Surprise me. Impress me. Make me laugh. I’m hear to listen.

I don't like theory debates. I think almost any counterplan is justified if it's competitive. Although I am biased against object fiat and counterplans without actors. I'll vote on condo, but I think almost everything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I don't like T debates. I think too many people have drunk the limits kool-aid, and, to quote Seth Gannon, I'm a reasonability guy.

I think death is bad and extinction is worse. But it’s not *TOO* hard to convince me otherwise.

I didn’t read a plan in college and I’m really into continental philosophy, so I have working knowledge of most critical theses.

I think people should read plans. But again it’s not that difficult to convince me otherwise.

I think it's possible for the negative to win that the AFF doesn't get to weigh the plan. In fact, I think it would be easier than most people believe.

"Good" arguments in debate are relative. Quoting another old man, if you can't beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people or that rock genocide is good because they are people, then you are a bad advocate for your cause and should lose. Most of the crazy arguments you hear are "crazy" because a lot of smart people have thought about these things and concluded that they're nonsense.

No audience participation. No arguments about the people in the round. No arguments about stuff that happened out of round. These three beliefs are 100% immutable. (To clarify, debaters’ in-round actions are still fair game for arguments. Don’t be cruel to each other.)

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

Email chain: bmnushkin@gmail.com

I have done no research on the topic and have been out of the activity for 6 years, assume I have no knowledge of acronyms on the topic.

Judge intervention is horrible - tech always determines what is true.

I am not a good judge for affirmatives without a plan.

As for going for the k on the negative, my biggest piece of advice is to go for unique offense. Your links to k things should be a predicative statement that doing the plan will cause something bad to happen. Links that aren't about the plan need to be resolved by the alt but not the perm.

Try to impress me with your understanding of the material, execution of the strategy, or stylistic ability and I will do my best to adjudicate.

chocolatecookieswirl@gmail.com

West High 2020'

University of Utah 2024'

B.S Economics

B.S Political Science

One of my core principles about debate is accepting a variety of arguments, so I encourage that students have in their strategy whatever they are comfortable running and won't let any of my predispositions or bias of an argument affect my views of the debate, so I default to tech > truth unless told otherwise.

BUT over the few years I have encountered two positions that seem to be an uphill battle for me.

1) Conditionality -- I have a firm belief that conditionality is vital for negative teams to have an effective strategy in any debate. Please posit a reason why

2 Ks without ANY case defense -- Unless you are making you link you lose arguments on framework. I have a hard time evaluating the K when there is a huge risk of the aff.

Debate is a game at its core but can be easily convinced otherwise. I have run primarily k affs during my junior and sophomore year and only well versed in cap and security. I typically went for policy arguments and framework as a 2N. I enjoy watching the affirmative make clever counter interpretations to eliminate or at least minimize offense on framework, coupled with link or impact turns to the negative model of debate.

Labeling of arguments has become increasingly important to me. It is the clearest way to communicate what argument you are extending for me.

I try to follow this rubric for deciding speakers.

http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html

Specifically, I look for line by line clarity and organization, overall argument deliberation, and awareness in the debate, in that order. I also reward good disclosure practices on your caselist and in round, so let me know if you believe you meet those criteria, so I can reward you. :)

I have not debated in years, and judge on and off, but I try my hardest, and I am not Michael Wimsatt BUT I do take Judge instruction VERY seriously.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Mike Shackelford
Head Coach of Rowland Hall. I debated in college and have been a lab leader at CNDI, Michigan, and other camps. I've judged about 20 rounds the first semester.

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible.

Key Preferences & Beliefs
Debate is a game.
Literature determines fairness.
It’s better to engage than exclude.
Critique is a verb.
Defense is undervalued.

Judging Style
I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, just ask.
I think CX is very important.
I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions.
Add me to the email chain: mikeshackelford(at)rowlandhall(dot)org

Feel free to ask.

Want something more specific? More absurd?

Debate in front of me as if this was your 9 judge panel:

Andre Washington, Ian Beier, Shunta Jordan, Maggie Berthiaume, Daryl Burch, Yao Yao Chen, Nicholas Miller, Christina Philips, jon sharp

If both teams agree, I will adopt the philosophy and personally impersonate any of my former students:

Ben Amiel, Andrew Arsht, David Bernstein, Madeline Brague, Julia Goldman, Emily Gordon, Adrian Gushin, Layla Hijjawi, Elliot Kovnick, Will Matheson, Ben McGraw, Corinne Sugino, Caitlin Walrath, Sydney Young (these are the former debaters with paradigms... you can also throw it back to any of my old school students).

LD Paradigm

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of my expectations and preferences. I spend most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I do teach LD and judge practice debates in class. I try to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: I'm unlikely to vote here. Most theory debates aren't impacted well and often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: Clarity > Speed. That should be a no-brainer. That being said, I'm sure I can flow you at whatever speed you feel is appropriate to convey your arguments.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.

Lowell '21, Davis '25
Yes I want to be on the email chain: leenicholwilcox[at]gmail.com.
Make sure to add lowelldebatedocs[at]gmail.com to the chain as well.

And please - actually label your chains. Please format it as [Tournament Name] R[Round Number] Aff [School] AB vs. Neg [School] CD. (An example - ASU R3 Aff McQueen LR vs Neg Lowell WW) It keeps things neat. If you send me a chain labeled "1AC" or "No Subject" I will have a stroke.

About me: Lowell High School from San Francisco, California, Class of 2021. I use he/him pronouns. These days, I'm a student at UC Davis. I was a part of policy debate for four years at Lowell and was moderately successful. I've been both a 1N/2A and a 1A/2N so I know what a good example of every speech in debate looks like. Make a funny joke about anyone on the Lowell squad and I'll give you +0.1 speaker points. Taytum Wymer was best and final partner as a 1N/2A, but I've also debated with Alvin Yang, Zoe Rosenberg, (at the lay level) and Aaliyah Mangonon. Debnil Sur is my god, father, and guiding influence, and was my debate coach through high school. (Jokes about any of them get you +0.2 speaker points.) He has influenced my thoughts and attitudes about debate immensely. If it's not in my paradigm, check his and the chance is good that I agree with him.

Notes at the top:

-Tech > truth. My personal opinions will almost never affect my decision in a round, but they may affect how I read and treat your execution of certain arguments.

-Do not waste your time telling me something was dropped if it wasn't, it's irritating to me as a judge and gains you nothing.

-Most important thing in a round is judge instruction - as with most judges, I'm lazy. Write my ballot for me, I beg of you.

-Snark and grandstanding in speeches and c/x are fine when it comes to ethos, but it's a fine line. If I don't like your behavior, and in particular if I find your behavior condescending and disrespectful toward your opponents, I can and will dock your speaks.

-Dropped arguments mean nothing absent contextualization. Explain to me what it means that they dropped this argument. Great, it's true. How does that affect the rest of the round and my decision?

-I think I'm pretty expressive, so if I don't like your argument, trust me, you'll be able to tell.

Lay Debates: In a predominantly lay environment like a GGSA tourney, I'll judge it like a parent unless you explicitly ask me for a circuit-style round. If I'm on a panel, I will judge you on a flow basis but am fine with being adapted around. I can roll with anything.

Online Debates: Slow down and have your analytics in the doc. I flow based on what you say, but if I miss something I'll probably reference your doc, and if you read a bunch of one line analytics and try to blow them up later in the round only to discover it's new to me, it's not my problem. Signpost explicitly. If you put more in the doc than you end up reading that's fine, but be extremely clear about what you didn't read. Don't be the debater that puts everything in the doc and barely reads any of it. I will dock your speaks. Unless you have internet issues, I expect your camera to be on. Be accommodating of tech issues. Wait for explicit visual or auditory confirmation from everyone before you give your speech. I will either say "I'm good" or flash you thumbs-up when I'm good. If I say nothing or I say "I'm not good," for the love of God do not start.

Topic Background: I am not intimately familiar with this topic, so don't take my knowledge of topic-specific jargon and the meta for granted.

Argumentative Preferences: The word "preferences" is doing a lot of work here, I'll vote on and listen to a lot but in general I prefer policy arguments, although I've moved substantially leftward as I've gotten older. (Some of that has to do with the topics we've been getting recently) I will still vote on your K or K Aff.

K Arguments

How compelling I find critical arguments depend on the K itself and on the aff it's being read against. I'm relatively well-read on Ks like Security, Cap, and Setcol, (and likely have working familiarity with a half a dozen more) but I have higher expectations for link work than "they exist in the system." I'm also probably a poor bet for less "common" Ks like Baudrillard since I tend to be biased against them. The closer it is to cap the more I'll probably agree with it. The more material it is the stronger it is in my book. Alternatives are often the weakest part of a Kritik. An affirmative team that properly indicts the alternative and holds off neg offense on the links and framework is in a good position for me. Perms are useful situationally. If you get wrecked on framework a perm will not save you.

I don't find sweeping ontological claims absent contextualization to the affirmative you're reading compelling. If you don't win it and framework is lost, I let them weigh the aff. Probably a death knell for a K team, but solid turns case work and good explanations can still have me hand it to you. I tend to vote for whatever I think has the best chance of solving the most important impact, so if you win that your impacts are the most important and your alt is all that has a chance of solving it, I'm golden.

Framework-wise, (and this goes for T debates as well) I don't see myself as a policymaker. Critiques of the educational structure of debate or indicts of the way educational value is produced under your opponent's interpretation are extremely strong for me, but I'll vote on whatever is debated to me better.

Disadvantages

Most of them are nonsense. I was a straight policy team for my first couple years, so believe me when I say I know exactly how asinine your DA is. If you read a stupid DA and your opponent mocks it for what it is, I find it exceptionally compelling. Neg teams should vigorously defend their internal links with specific, warranted explanations and have clear and compelling links to the plan. Otherwise, affirmatives will almost certainly outweigh your low-risk impact in my book. Don't treat your impact as an afterthought, and be sure to do some impact calculus, but in my experience DAs lose on link/internal link stuff far more often.

Counterplans

Honestly, they're either painfully generic or obviously don't solve for the Aff. For the neg, explicit and clear solvency explanations and using sufficiency framing to mitigate solvency deficits as well as weighing the net benefit against them are an absolute must. For the aff, detail out the solvency deficits and quantify them so I get a sense of how much of your aff they don't solve. You also need to be able to explain your perm beyond a tagline for me to take it seriously. I'll judge kick unless the Aff wins I shouldn't.

Theory

If it's not dropped I almost certainly won't vote on it, and frankly, unless I see in-round abuse I won't vote on it even if they drop it. (Don't take that as an excuse to drop it, please) With three or fewer conditional advocacies I lean Neg on condo. Slight aff lean on process counterplans but I won't reject the team. I lean neg on every other theoretical argument I can think of.