GOLDEN DESERT DEBATE TOURNAMENT AT UNLV
2022 — NSDA Campus, NV/US
NCX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Add me to the email chain - email@example.com
debated at niles west - keep in mind I basically have 0 topic knowledge :)
be nice and have fun.
being funny = better speaks, but don't make me cringe.
disads - great; there could be 0 risk of a disad
cp - yes; thick multi-plank = v good
k - explain it more if it's high theory or more nuanced, the generics like security = yes
T - be concise and clear about your interp and your offense/defense.
fun things to do: impact turns, 15 offcase, well developed arguments, hiding aspec in the 1nc, hiding condo in the 2ac, and extensions with a warrant, an aff mechanism that no links out of all neg offense and is somewhat topical.
not fun things: tagline extensions without warrants, saying "they dropped..." w/o explaining why it's important, spreading through your blocks of theory.
updated for gbx:
aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) bhaiji (by-jee)
any pronouns (pls don't call me judge)
political science major at depaul university in chicago, il, debated for 3 years at gbs, currently a program associate with chicago debates
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
do what you do best! i find that the best rounds are where both teams don't over-adapt to my preferences. debate is an educational space first and a competitive stage second.
i really cannot stress enough how bad i am at writing paradigms. all i ask is that you are kind to one another. i will put in the same effort as you in a round. i don't have a ton of topic knowledge and might ask clarification questions about arguments if i feel it is necessary (most of the time it is to ask what an acronym stands for).
i have very few qualms with the things that happen in debate rounds, but here are some things that i do think you should think about when you do your prefs:
- clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolutuion are fun and i find myself in the back in those debates most of the time
- i will not judge kick for you, you have to let me know
- there is such a thing as 0 risk
- big ptx junky, love me a good ptx da
- i LOVE good case debating, 2nrs that are just case and the disad are some of the most fun 2nrs to listen to, good research will get you far and smart analytics will get you even farther
- if you don't flow, whatever, but if you don't flow AND say that they dropped something, consider me peeved
- stop reading the necrophila k in front of me, idk what was going on at the trevian but i am tired of it.
- if you are going to read a terrorism impact in front of me, don't.
- i filter a lot of how i think about debate through my experiences in the activity (both as a debater and a judge)
- why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills
- a good analytic can be used to answer a crappy piece of evidence
- clipping is bad, don't do it. i will clear you if i need to and if there is a recording of you doing it, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach
- i flow straight down (mostly because of sloppy line by line), the more organized your speeches are, the happier i am.
- if you know my sister, let me know!
- timing is everything during tournaments, i expect the 1ac to be sent at the round start time. time yourselves and keep track of prep.
Debated at Cathedral Prep High School, class of 18'.
University of Toronto 23'.
Email - email@example.com
** My knowledge on this year's topic is quite limited. Explaining abbreviations and phrases would set up the round well. If i'm not flowing or have a quizzical look on my face, I'm likely lost **
- Clarity over Speed
- There is never one specific "way" to debate. Develop a personality within this activity. If that feels stressful, just do you. Always be respectful.
- Have a strong link to the aff, just like DAs.
- Take some time to explain everything a little bit more if you have me as a judge. That's a good way to attain some speaker points so I know you actually comprehend what your saying.
- My school was most familiar with Afropessimism, Queer Theory, and Neoliberalism.
- The Role of the Ballot is my way of assessing the debate. It would be good to hash that out.
Politics was my go-to 1nr. For any DA, links are important. The more comprehensive and nuanced, the better the debate.
Critical Affs/Framework -
I'd prefer if there was some sort of advocacy text for the negative to have some sort of stable target to defend; not necessarily connected to a plan or policy. I don't buy into the arguments that Framework should dictate the form of argumentation. Please try to make your impact arguments relevant to the round, otherwise, it just gets repetitive. I'll vote either way.
T is a voting issue. I think meeting interpretations is a yes/no option. If the negative isn't persuasive enough to state the aff meets, then there's no reason to reject the aff. I usually prefer explanations over evidence. However strong debates by the negative usually intertwine really good evidence with strong impacts.
I won't kick the counterplan unless I'm explicitly told by the negative.
Any other questions feel free to ask before the round.
add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Just a few things:
Ask questions before the round I am happy to answer them
UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.
Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.
After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.
CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.
And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.
As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).
I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: email@example.com.
Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.
Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.
Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such. I see framework as a key element of PF; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means spreading is fine with me...you don't have much time in PF, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Ditto theory (to the extent theory exists in PF). Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.
Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate @ MBA as a 2a/1n
Note for online: everyone who feels comfortable having their cameras on the entire debate should unless there are connection issues. Virtual backgrounds are great. You should at least be unmuted when you send out the doc.
I don't believe, as a senior in high school, I have the right to be very ideological in my judging. Also I'm a senior in high school, please just call me Ryan - I don't like being called judge
DAs - have good turns case, pref better ev over a lot of it
CPs - kinda neg on theory, condo is probably good, love a good CP that truly solves an aff
T -need to really focus on impact and what debate looks at under both models
Ks: I like links most if they are specific and tied to the plan. The alternative needs to do something. I'm not super deep into k lits so you need to explain things
Niles North HS 19'
University of Kentucky 23'
The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.
I will flow and vote based on the things you said. NEGs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality is probably good. If you say death good you lose.
If you can’t defend your argument in cross-ex, you probably shouldn’t go for it.
1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]
- No Univ of Chicago Lab
- No Iowa City
2. Short Version
- tech over truth
- strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
- prioritize your impacts
- have fun!
3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes
- Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
- Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
- If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
- If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.
4. Some Detail
I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.
Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.
Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.
I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.
I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.
I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.
I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.
Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.
Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies.
I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.
Tech > Truth.
Do what you want to do.
Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.
1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.
2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.
EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.
3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.
4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."
5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.
6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.
7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.
8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)
If you have any other questions, let me know before round!
put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Hellgate highschool `21
I am a tabula rasa judge and view my job as that of a policymaker unless instructed otherwise convincingly. I will be open to any properly defended argument.
I prefer well-paced and well-founded argumentation over spreading. On that note, I will not flow your speech doc. If I can't discern your argument because you are speaking too fast, then I won't go to your speech doc and assume you covered it.
With that out of the way I have a few more things you things that I am looking for in a round.
1. Brink - one of the most overlooked parts of a disad is the brink. If you claim [opponents plan] will cause gridlock which results in [critical legislation] failing to go through, you must prove why any other legislation won't cause the impact to happen. That being said, if the aff brings up the lack of a brink I will give that point heavy consideration, but if the aff fails to point out the lack of a brink, I will believe the neg's disad.
2. Don't make up rules of policy debate. debate theory is not policy rules
3. Burden of proof lies on the one presenting the argument. If person X says that person Y's plan could cause problems for Z reason. It's not Y's responsibility to prove why X is wrong. X must prove they have evidence or a strong common sense reason, until then, all Y has to do is point out the lack of Z reason proof and move on.
4. Common sense is valid argumentation. It's valid to say that dropping bombs on X country will hurt their relationship with the sender. Don't say "can you prove dropping bombs on them will hurt the diplomatic relationship??". It's not valid to say "a spike in housing prices will lead to a bubble, so X is a bad plan", regardless of whether that statement is true, it's not common knowledge and needs to have evidence to back it up.
This paradigm has gone on for a bit too long, if you've made it this far, I just hope you can see my pov and we can all have a fun and productive debate. If you haven't noticed by now, I debated in a traditional state. Im not against anything fun like Ks and CPs, I just want to see it done in a way that is persuasive, not just a race to "win the flow".
they/them. 2nd year out. debated policy at UCLab from 2017-2020. ran K arguments on the aff and neg
please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
currently debating parliamentary (mostly APDA, some BP) at Swarthmore College
i've judged (5) rounds on the 2021-22 policy topic, adapt as you see fit
advice for novices at the bottom
tech>truth, but truth matters to some extent, especially when both teams are reading the same lit base
judge adaptation is overrated--run what you're comfortable with (but tend towards overexplaining if you’re running something i’m not familiar with or just don’t like)
i'm ok with speed (but does anybody actually admit to being bad w/ speed in their paradigm?)
have fun and don't be rude
i have very little topic knowledge, and most of it is outside the context of debate. this will probably reflect in T debates, so clearly explain interps. precision matters
i default to competing interps unless there's a substantial amount of work done on why reasonability is preferable. that being said, i'm probably more likely to vote for reasonability than other judges; it's a good argument that's often articulated in a lazy and unconvincing manner (people who say "just gut check" or "reasonably topical is reasonably untopical" deserve a special place in hell)
slow down on standards
case-specific CPs/DAs>>>. that being said, my lack of topic knowledge means you should probably over-explain in these debates
i don't love judge kicking, but i'll do so if the 2NR tells me to and the 2AR doesn't give me a specific reason not to
impact calc/framing is super important in DA debates. zero risk DAs exist, and affs should call out poor DA link and impact analysis
know what your authors defend so you don't contradict yourself
specific links are awesome
i think it's asinine to expect K debaters to explain every aspect of complicated philosophical concepts during a debate (you still should probably spend a minute in the overview just explaining what the K is). we come to debates with the understanding that there's a shared area of knowledge. policy debaters aren't expected to explain every aspect of the government, and K debaters shouldn't be held to a higher standard. that being said, the explanation that you do should be crystal clear and contextualized to the round, not a generic bundle of nonsensical buzzwords that gets copied and pasted at the top of each speech. bad K debate is the most painful debate to adjudicate
i don't think you need the alt to win the debate -- the burden of the neg is just to prove that the aff is a bad idea. that being said, if you're going for the alt, actually explain what the world of the alt looks like
K debaters shouldn’t be squirrely in cross-ex, especially when it’s clear that the other team doesn’t quite understand what the K is. be kind
i don't think that a plan text is necessary, but you need to be able to defend your departure from the topic
your aff should probably have some relation to the topic
presumption debates can be extremely persuasive against K affs
FW (against K affs)
i've run FW pretty much every time i hit a K aff. i'm probably more aff-biased in terms of my personal beliefs, but at the same time, debate is a game, and i think FW is a legitimate way to play that game
fairness probably isn't a terminal impact, but clash definitely is. this doesn’t mean you should never go for fairness—if you win on the LBL, you win period—but be aware that if it’s a close debate, i probably won’t be voting in favor of fairness as the terminal impact
neg needs to win that their model is good, not just that the aff's model is bad
i prefer seeing the aff turn the neg's standards to seeing them "meet" the interpretation. chances are, you don't actually meet their interpretation. stop LYING (though tbh lying is sometimes fun and if you do it in a super quirky way, it’s entertaining)
slow down when you're spreading thru your theory blocks
i default to rejecting the argument (except for in the case of condo), but i'm also probably more likely than most judges to vote on theory. if you're going for it, i expect to hear 5 mins of theory in the 2AR/2NR
i think analysis and comparison of evidence should be done by debaters during speeches rather than by judges at the end of the round. evidence quality matters, but it's probably risky for you to let me read the evidence and decide what it means because my reading comprehension gets worse with each passing year. if the other team's evidence is egregiously wrong and you want me to look at specific cards after the round, explicitly instruct me to do so in the 2AR/2NR
the only time i'll read thru evidence unprompted is if a) evidence comparison in-round is absolutely nonexistent, or b) you have long K cards and i have time to during your speech
re-highlighted cards should be read in speeches
1. every arg needs a claim, a warrant, and a fleshed-out impact. do NOT tagline-extend. tagline-extending=dropping
2. LBL -- do it!!! please address and answer the specific arguments that your opponents make
3. impact calc plz
4. don't be afraid to ask questions
5. be kind to each other PLEASE !! we’re all learning
in the words of my idol, sonny patel, "deuces"
Senior at Notre Dame High School, 3rd year debater
I was initially a 1a/2n, but I am now a 2a/1n.
5'2 if that matters.
Do not steal prep. I will vote for the other team based solely on that.
Spreading is fine but clarity>speed
Please sign post
No hate speech, please be respectful of one another
I like most DAs but you really have to win that the impacts are going to occur and why the impacts of your DA(s) outweigh the impacts of the aff.
I will be really impressed if you have specific links to the aff, but it's okay if you don't. Regardless you should be able to explain your links well.
I'm not a fan of most CPs, but I will vote on them if executed properly.
I do think that Process and Consult CPs are abusive.
50 States is one of the only ones that I'm okay with but you have to be able to explain why states solve better.
Not typically a fan but under this topic, I find it to be more acceptable.
Please extend your counterinterp and w/m arguments
Ks are so much fun but in order for me to vote on it, you have to explain why the alt solves. You should also be able to explain what the cards say in your own words during CX or in your rebuttal speeches.
It makes the debate interesting but I typically don't vote on it unless you are able to genuinely convince me that the other team is being abusive.
I don't like a lot of Condo.
DON'T DROP CASE!!!!!! unless you're going for T in the 2NR.
Please extend your strongest arguments.
If you make an AHS ref I will give you +.3 speaks
-only if executed well
Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present
10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions
I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and done on the top of your kritik/topicality violation before it is applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]
I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.
I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.
Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.
I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.
Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020
I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.
As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.
Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016
In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.
I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.
If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I think judges shouldn't prefer a type of debate.
That being said:
Fairness in an internal link
I was a policy debater for my first two years of debate, going for the K sometimes. Now I'm a K debater lol
Of course, tech>truth
Understanding what your evidence says is a fundamental skill that novices should make sure they work at
I will give leniency for online debate spreading through cards, but I will say clear if I can't understand your analytics
Also, it's okay to not know what debate terms mean. Just try and work at it. I remember starting off my novice year not knowing what it meant when the judge said "What's the road map?" or "How many off?"
If you have any questions whatsoever, don't feel afraid to ask
Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.
I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.
27.7 to 28.2 - Average
28.3 to 28.6 - Good job
28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average
29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job
29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.
30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.
I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.
I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.
Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.
GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!
LD June 13, 2022
A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!
LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022
I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.
Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.
I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!
I have judged many public forum tournaments before, however I have not researched this topic. Thus, please thoroughly explain your case.
Please don't speak too fast and have an organized case. I need to be able to flow and write notes during your speech. Lastly, please be respectful of your opponents during cross ex.
Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)
Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.
Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot
Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.
Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.
Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.
Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.
"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry
I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.
I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.
Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.
The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.
Have a plan for Cross-X.
Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.
Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.
If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.
A speech doc is not a flow substitute.
Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.
Glenbrooks: First, can we please default to inserting rehighlightings rather than reading them? Second, dismissing an econ argument as the work of "libertarian hacks" or the like is not going to resonate with me... neither is it my starting assumption that corporations or the government are nefarious, although I'm perfectly receptive to the reasons those might be the case, or that I should distrust economists....
Above all, tech over truth--to this, there are no realistic exceptions. Fairness in evaluation is most relevant for arguments which are disreputable, and it is my intent to be fair. I will evaluate every argument I have on my flow, and refuse none. It's an argument if I understand it, which includes most blips but excludes some K things. My opinions about content that follow are the equilibrium provided teams make the best available arguments, so far as I understand them, which means that when the best arguments aren't made, I'm liable to vote exactly opposite of what I've said here.
Although it hurts to say, I am not the best flow, and will likely miss some arguments. I can't be trusted to make the right decision in situations when such a decision hinges on a single, unemphasized argument. To be clear, I will try to do that--and vote remorselessly on, say, dropped one line intrinsicness if I got it--but I may not succeed. I will try my best to be fair, and care about making the right decision, even when it may be inconvenient or for something I find distasteful. I have made the wrong decisions in the past--I am not a relativist, and decisions are right or wrong. Students have a duty to be intelligible, but they do not have a duty to be persuasive (beyond the line-by-line). Instead, it is judges who have a responsibility to have to render correct decisions. Corny as it, numbering 1NC case/2AC offcase arguments, and then adhering to those numbers, helps me a lot and will increase the likelihood I render the most correct decision.
I am very sensitive to judge instruction: About when an argument is new, about what evidence I should read or under what circumstances, about how strictly or literally I should take what was said, so on. My default is that I shouldn't read any evidence unless it's a subject of contention and that tags start at 100% risk. (I wish this weren't the standard....)
I enjoy villainy, and things generally hated: scandalous impact turns, process counterplans/neg terrorism, competitive personalities, egregiousness and trickery.
K affs and framework:
The aff should go for impact turns. I think that K arguments are almost uniformly awful, but will still vote for them. Go for "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models--only in-round 'violence'" or whatever else. Moderate-seeming or 'compromise' approaches often do not make sense; K teams are better off when they take aggressive stances. I have an essentially unlimited tolerance for stupid claims, but none for incoherent claims. Cynical and tricky K teams should easily reach competitive parity with top policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal, but they must then use those tactics in a strategic way... The ability to do so is usually follows from understanding that the K shouldn't ever win, because it emphasizes exactly why it still does, the fruitful exploits.
DAs do not generally link to K affs, unless the aff catastrophically fails in cross-ex. If they do, then even a negligible risk of the DA clearly outweighs and turns the case. The neg should probably go for T, or maybe a PIK (will the aff successfully execute competition?). High theory Ks can also be good against typical K affs, and mostly now lose, I suspect, for ideological reasons which I will not replicate. I am worse for identity politics than other Ks. I prefer bad faith debating about identity to its moralizing, sincere alternative, and technical debating above all.
On T, the neg should go for fairness. I have a low opinion of the education that debate provides or even could provide, really, even in policy v. policy debates. Clash is not the point of debate--it is strategic to minimize it. I think most of what students pick up in K debates actually harms them (it certainly harms me), and I think that the exclusion of most K arguments would be desirable in and of itself, and wish more teams would argue for that. So, K "research" isn't worth learning about; even if it were, debate wouldn't teach it; to the extent that it does that, gamesplaying still outweighs.... Of course, you need to competently make this argument. But this is where my sympathy sits.
There is behavior sufficiently objectionable to sideline competitive concerns. That is easy to establish. The rub is whether or not the object of the dispute (often, reading T) constitutes that behavior. Truthfully, it basically never does, but policy teams can lose this argument, and do.
Ks on the neg:
The best Ks are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is a concrete (if utopian) alt with framework-type reasons why "do both" is illegitimate. Without some way of overcoming the uniqueness problem, Ks don't make sense and wouldn't outweigh the case if they did. Alternately, the K should be a vehicle for tricks: "If we're right about the incurable racism of the academy, assume that all social science is false and vote neg on presumption" is the kind of thing I would speedily vote on when dropped by the 1AR, perhaps because it was overstretched having to answer several other tricks. Those are the three main 2NRs I am looking to vote for. "Link, impact, alt" is incoherent and factually defeated by the perm double bind. The problem is not me--the emperor has no clothes. To be clear, that excludes "links to the plan," which are bad, non-unique DAs. Even when they are unique, they likely will not outweigh the case without considerable attention paid to framing. Of course, the aff still must minimally extend the perm and non-unique and so on in situations that call for it.
One implication of this is that you really probably don't need more than one link, and it doesn't matter at all if it's specific. Whether or not an argument rejoins the plan does not depend on its novelty to high school debaters.... Similarly, the 2AC really probably does not need that much more than 2AC 1 is framework....
To reiterate, I think the fiat K that moots the case and has the neg go for framework impact turns is very winnable, something on which the aff could reasonably get out-teched. Similar the other 2NRs. I believe debate is a technical game and don't want my feelings in truth about the K to be mistook for my belief that it's not at least sometimes viable. On the other hand, incoherent arguments are extremely unstrategic, because they can be easily beaten.
Obviously, I will only assess the aff's FW interpretation versus the negs. Middle-ground interpretations are fine, but you don't need them to win, and I will won't opt for one unilaterally. A neg interp that allows the aff to weigh the case but reserves uniqueness for links does solve some fairness offense and could be strategic if the K impacts get to extinction (say, security or cap), but I think the aff should probably go for no Ks.
There are some teams and persons who inspired me in the K world--Izak Dunn, James Mollison, Ani Prabhu--who made me believe that more creativity and alternate models were possible and worthwhile. At the moment, it's hard to reconstruct exactly what they were. But I mention them here to curb my cynicism and to break from my narrow prescriptions up until this point. I was a K debater in high school (high theory, Buddhism, anthro).
For policy debaters: If an extinction impact is dropped, it needs no further elaboration.
Reasonability is about the threshold of necessary offense before the the penalty for substance crowdout is outweighed. It is wholly irrelevant of whether or not the aff is popular or easy to debate or if the neg read multiple positions in the 1NC.
It is far easier to win a giant limits DA and 'debatability matters most,' than that precision in the abstract outweighs, and I will vote on that. But my true belief is that there really is a 'best' way to read the resolution in context, and I care about this 'precise' reading immensely. I don't know how pertinent that will be in really-existing debates. I highly, highly recommend Scalia's Reading Law for thinking about topicality.
Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true, and better than all competing standards by a great deal, with the exception of specification in 1AC CX. (It is only better than that standard by a lot.) Serious question: What would topicality be about, if not the plan? "Planicality" loses swiftly to an analytical PIC and a topic DA. PTIV is not the argument that the text of the plan can be considered in isolation (what could that possibly mean?). It is the argument that the "function" of the plan is determined wholly by its text (as it would mostly be in other standards, if they were ever clearly articulated, without other vague and capacious additions).
Related: Normal means is a factual question. If the aff declares the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg should read contravening evidence.
Counterplans & theory:
I like counterplan competition and find it interesting, especially its outer recesses. I agree exactly with Rafael: "I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste that many do for plan inclusive or process counterplans. I won’t think a net benefit is bad just because it’s ‘artificial’ and I don’t think a DA/Case 2NR is necessarily better than a counterplan that steals the aff." You should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory, regardless of whether or not it represents research as some people in the community may like. Clearer: It may be difficult to convey how unconcerned I am with a practice in debate being 'educational' or not. Debate is a game played to win, which has the incidental sometimes-benefit of teaching kids some economics and CWAs. (If it were up to me, analytic philosophy too....) What I care about is whether or not the counterplan makes the game better or worse, more fun or too unmanageable. Of course, education matters, and I will behave like a normal judge insomuch as I won't go rogue and ignore the debate... But I will be quite receptive to teams making the commonsense fact-and-values claims that give me license to mostly ignore pedagogy and focus on the part of the game that matters....
Textual alone is a bad standard, but I think textual and functional or just functional are both OK. Process counterplans I think are key neg generics, certainly on bad topics. In CP debates, may we all drop the politeness that a K being a generic or a functional limit is a desirable state of affairs? I care most about process counterplans being fun, or, on the other side, word games before fun, or at least a skill customary to our game.
I am a little higher on theory than I used to be, because I realized that competition alone cannot elegantly exclude game-breaking counterplans, like those which fiat both the federal government and the states, or private actors. But I am still mostly in the "get good" school, and am fine for the neg on most questions. Then again, theory is a technical matter like any other, and in fact more susceptible to fatal drops, and so it's still probably worth the time.
Conditionality: Seven is clearly worse than two, but even seven isn't so bad.
RVIs: Stupid, but don't warrant suspension of the law of tech over truth.
Judgekick: Truthfully good, but no different than everything else in vulnerability to technical debating.
Text vagueness: Concern is overheated. The neg should write texts as vague as they can get away with, but counterplans should probably be policies. Normal means determines what the counterplan does; sufficiently vague ones may factually do something unrelated to neg solvency claims.
Again Rafael: "I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it affects the substantive magnitude of the impact." And again, you should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory.
Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction, or expired uniqueness, or some sort of plan flaw. But even then, how can I be sure that I'm not only hallucinating it's not 2016? Or that the author of the card didn't accidentally cite the wrong bill? Truthfully, I think this logic is suspect, but the reasons why that are commonly discussed in round are unimpressive.
See the note on PTIV as well.
What fiat means is open to debate, but starts at durable, good faith passage. Circumvention is a theoretical, normative matter whose viability varies by the topic.
Presumption is the procedure for adjudicating a tie, not deference to the status quo through "least change." Of course, it may behoove the neg to advocate the "least change" standard.
Analytics can defeat many advantages (but probably won't get them to zero).
Soft left affs will likely struggle. The more the "framing" arguments are defense (even if not in the traditional sense), the more successful they will be. Strategies that grant that the plan causes extinction but plead that other issues matter more hardly even need to be answered... judges are licensed to do obvious impact calculus in almost every policy debate...
Impact turns/misc. arguments:
Debate is a voluntary, competitive game centered on disagreement, which means that, of all scholastic activities, it must be the most permissive in speech. I must be a responsible supervisor of high school students, but I also have a responsibility to ensure fairness between competitors, as measured by technical, openminded, and impartial judging to the best of my ability. Relatedly, skill in the art of debate requires the cultivation of mental toughness and the ability to countenance ideas that may be upsetting at first; it requires a philosophical tact and cognitive flexibility to take seriously a superficially ludicrous claim, or four. Debate should not be a place where scoffing is good enough, or where students are taught to run to an adult the moment they encounter something challenging--that is literally everywhere else. It should certainly not be a place where judges abandon logic and allow bad responses to defeat arguments they dislike. Not only would I undermine the fairness of the game were I to intervene against some arguments, I would also compromise the development of habits of mind that are sorely needed nowadays, and which, you'd hope, debate would provide....
If it's not clear: Yes, that includes the death good argument that all human life is worse than nonexistence on balance, so maximizing the number killed is good. It also includes spark and war good and liberal shibboleth bad and aliens and souls and libertarianism and yadda yadda. My views are no longer the in majority within our community which, although discouraging, has the silver lining that I am perfectly comfortable saying that if you would like judges to intervene on your behalf on those issues, you should strike me. You will still have the majority of other judges to choose from; I'd like to judge debates where teams have 'opted in' to the joy of nihilism.
(Also, it is not just that if you cannot beat bad arguments, you deserve to lose. Yes that, but not only. First, some 'bad' arguments are clearly reasonable, e.g. animal wipeout. Second, and more important, bad arguments are what debate is for; the truth is self-proponing, and rhetoric, at bottom, can only beautify falsehoods. The point of debate is sophistry; it certainly isn't research, judging on what we churn out (or fail to) annually. Read Gorgias. I mean this only half-impishly, although impishness isn't unwarranted or motivated by spite. The other half is that there is great beauty and richness and joy in the philosophical attitude, and the ability to try on different ways of seeing. The prevailing Stalinism makes me feel resentment and despair, or can you tell? I don't care if kids end up with some bad ideas--in fact, I want them to. It gives color and flourish. It increases diversity.)
Nonetheless, there is something gorgeous about teams defeating impact turns, defending the truth. Successfully parrying a 1NC full of garbage would make very pleased to vote aff, if they did, and has historically afforded my best points.
D-rules are not answered by "case outweighs," nor uniqueness, and instead require a defense of some kind of consequentialism or criticisms of deontology/rights. In general, I am not much of a consequentialist, and generally think about morality in terms of agents bearing rights and responsibilities (like competitors bearing a right to fair treatment). I think that "fairness is an intrinsic good" makes more sense and is less arbitrary than saying "fair practices are good because they bring about these states of affairs." (Why are those states of affairs good? Either a different state of affairs, or an intrinsic good. If the former, then ask the question again. If a primitive, why not fairness? Pleasure and pain have ample problems, but I digress....) This is also how we reason in everyday life; we do not say killing is bad only because of its effects on others and the pain inflicted in the process of death... instead, we say (if we are honest) that there seems something intrinsically wrong with killing, over and above the earlier considerations. This is because persons bear a right to life, as they bear other rights.
Whether or not an argument is "generic" or has legitimately no bearing on how much the other team has to respond to it. Similarly, the threshold for answering a bad argument is only low in the sense that there exists a short 2AC that wins---it does not mean that arguments other than those 'true' responses are somehow better. So, a long 2AC against something "stupid" or "generic" may still be unrecoverably poor... in fact, I have seen such 2ACs, and short ones that are composed of equally unwinnable responses, only fewer. Anything else is unfair (to competitors) and illogical.
On the flipside, if you only need one or a few arguments to win, why say more? No need to waste speech time, if you're right.
The 2NC is a constructive, and so wholly new case arguments and positions (including counterplans) may be read in it. The 1NR and 1AR do not get unjustified new arguments, although justifications are easy to come by, and include the other team making any new arguments. Similarly for cards. When extending, say, dropped theory, the extensions should also be blippy, to avoid making new arguments to which the aff can respond, or at least careful to avoid them, demarcating which kinds of new arguments may be allowed. When an argument is truthfully new or illegitimate, you do not need to respond to it, other than to point that out.
Dropped arguments that make the other team's thing zero risk cannot be recovered from, assuming the team that made them doesn't own goal themselves. Sometimes there was nothing the rebuttals could've done! Focusing on improving your speeches is often a cope--the 2AC/block is generally more tractable and outcome-determinative....
Don't do the annoying echo thing--if you need your partner to say something, the ideal is that you type it in a Google Doc to which they alt tab when you tell them to. If it's not written down, then I will flow the speaking partner until it becomes excessive, after which I won't flow it at all. The only reason you should repeat them is if it wasn't audible. Obviously, this is bad for your ethos and you should try to avoid it.
I spent my high school years (graduated in 2010) participating in policy debate and managed to qualify for CFL and NFL nationals during that period. Although I have not been very active in the community since then, I have judged some debates (mostly novice, but some more advanced) in the years since.
In other words, I am very familiar with the activity but a little rusty. I can keep up with moderately fast debates - some speed reading is OK but if you're gasping for breath every few sentences I will have trouble following specifics. Make sure tag lines are read a little slower and clearly at a minimum. I prefer a slower pace in kritical debates.
I tend to default to a 'policy making' paradigm and highly value impact calculus. Tell me how and why to vote for you and you'll have a leg up.
Happy to listen to kritiks but as mentioned previously, I tend to prefer a slower pace with these. If you understand the argument and explain it clearly I will be happy to listen.
Less interested in topicality and theory debates unless truly warranted. If you make these arguments I prefer a slower pace and thorough explanations.
Niles North '19
add me on the email chain Matt.Sturt.firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: I like debate a lot. Speak clearly. Speaks probs 27.5-29.5 Be Coherent. Tech>Truth most of the time
you should do the following
DO LINE BY LINE
TIME YOUR OWN SPEECHES AND PREP (if you really need me to do this i will, but don't expect great speaks)
you should not
BE RUDE IN CROSS-ex
BE ABLEIST , SEXIST, RACIST, or anything along those lines (I do not shy away from stopping rounds or calling people out) you will be reported to your coach and you will (hopefully) face repercussions
STEAL PREP i will also call you out for this
BE A RUDE PERSON
I believe that debate is a game, but not just a game. There are extrinsic and intrinsic values to debate that come aside from winning. my thesis for deciding rounds is whether or not a policy is desirable, so things aside from that don't have a ton of pull on decision. if you do run an arg that you think is not like this, I am most likely not the judge for you. If you somehow get stuck with me, its not impossible to win these types of args, but if you can switch your strategy, i would if i were you.
Also i have done some (not a ton) of research On the CJR topic and niles is my first tourney of the year , so please explain every acronym and implication of your aff/neg strat, even if you think its a given. I reserve the right to not vote for an argument if I can't explain it to the other team after the round.
in order for me to vote on a t arg, I need to know what is bad about the aff specifically in terms of 'breaking debate'. whether it be education, fairness ( which im pretty sure is an !, but my mental jury is still out on that one) or any other possible ! on t args. I also dont know this topic super well rn, so please explain things to me so that i know what this arg even is and am able to vote for it
Aspec is a real arg, you should flow and catch it (even if its not on the doc), but i might doc your speaks if you go for it. This should NOT be your strat going in, but if you feel that passionate about it, put it on another flow
i hope in the age of virtual debating you have the heart to at least put it on the doc. Please don’t put me in the situation where I have to vote neg bc the affs computer lagged and missed your .2 second ASPEC shell
A big thing on this aspect of the debate is both the ! level, but also how one gets there. if you read a nuke war = extinction !, the amount i deem it probability of both a. happening and b. it killing absolutely everyone is intrinsically intertwined with the I/L debate. I care a lot about every part of the DA, so you better have a convincing story about your DA. Also just a side note almost every DA, in my opinion, is theoretically legit, only exception is rider (NOT Horsetrading, those are different @TimFreehan). This includes Ptx, but I do have a bs meter and if its egregiously false/lacking ev, my bar becomes much lower to vote on aff o/w with just ! analysis.
i think most things are probs a reason to reject the arg. conditionalitY is not this way obvi. my mind can change on this, but like if you're going for theory i probs know what they are doing is abusive.
Counter plans were the heart and soul of my novice/jv debate career, but fell to the side as I looked forward into debate. That being said, your generic process/agent/actor/topic counterplan will still need some explanation, as to why it is a. better b. mutually exclusive and c. not too cheaty. refer to what i said above about theory, but if you go for a cheaty counterplan, and you're losing the judge kick part of the debate (more on that later), then rejecting that arg is pretty important in your stake in the debate. With aff specific Counter plans, Im gonna need you to explicitly say what the fundamental differences are between yours proposal and the aff. Do the same things as above to avoid losing to the Perm, but I will put some faith that you either wrote it, or understand it enough to know how it interacts. Again if you dont understand it, good luck getting me to.
Advantage cps are great, PICs that steal all of the aff except a word or phrase are probs abusive, but prove to me why they aren't
Judge kick needs to be debated early and often in front of me. I default not to give it, so make sure you flag it if you would like me to consider it.
Kritiks on the neg are becoming more and more of topic norms and generics in hs debate, and i absolutely love it. that being said i am probs not the right judge for super jargony and nuancey Kritiks, as i havent read the lit and will have massive problems understanding why your alt is preferable to the aff. Generics (think cap and security) sit well with me and you'll have to explain less as i very much understand them, but if you read baudrillard or [insert philosopher here], Im probs not gonna get it, and wont vote for it. going back to the above, i need a reason the aff is bad, and why ts case proves the alt is good/better. I dont think debate should be about whos world is perfect, but rather who's is less bad. Also i will vote for fw tricks, but i need a real explanation on them, not 10 seconds in your 2nc.
also, personal preference, if you have a lengthy overview at the top of your 2nc/2nr, pleas tell me so i can be ready to flow. makes my life and your life easier so i can evaluate it and the direct response to it.
K AFFS/ FW
fun fact about me: i read and defended a planless aff for exactly 3 rounds during my highschool career and lost all three of those rounds, so please do not consider me an expert in the realm of planless/kritikal affirmatives. this does not mean, however, that i am against this style of debate. when debating I have gone for fw every time against a k aff except once, so I understand that offense against it the most. just being honest, i do think policy debate should be rooted in some form of policy or action, so i inherently lean towards frameworky type args, but I can and will vote for K affs, given that I understand them.
my judging record shows i am incresingly good for the k aff, but the above is still true.
i default to "ROB: team who does better debating"
if your strat as a non traditional aff is "C/i - the USFG = the people" im not the judge for you. You will lose this arg 99% of the time in front of me
K V K ROUNDS
i am not the judge for you, just being honest. i dont understand a lot of the args already with the k aff, throwing another one in makes the whole thing even messier and less understandable.
Overall, I am fairly policy oriented, but like the k when read/explained well
any questions be sure to email (it is at the top) me or ask me before the round - i am an open book and will tell you preferences that i have
Put me on the chain- email@example.com
I like all sorts of arguments - I go to MBA and am the most well versed in policy, however Ks are pretty cool too- I don't have too much background knowledge on anything other than Cap, Agamben, Set-Col, Anti-blackness etc. I heavily prefer specific links to the aff.
Condo is cool, it's a debate to be had, but i will likely vote on the better extended interp
Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)
Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist
Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University
I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.
Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.
Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.
Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.
For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.
Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.
Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.
Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.
Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.
Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences
--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards
--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.
--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX
I would like to be on the email chain – firstname.lastname@example.org
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Senior at Highland Park.
Debated policy for three years, did LD on the UIL circuit.
I've seen a lot of things, but I myself have run tons of stuff. Went for the cap K a lot, and have seen most generic Kritiks so if its not a more mainstream one pretend as if I have no knowledge on the topic because I probably don't.
I'm not too familiar with this water topic, but I know the basics so if you're gonna be super jargony explain the first time around and I'll get it.
I prefer if you have your camera on just to make speeches easier to follow, but if you have camera problems it's all good.
not sending analytics caps speaks at 28 - if you want to not send analytics debate from your flow
off case positions are for cowards
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org please include me on the email chain. I graduated from The Meadows and I debated since freshman year.
Topicality is fine as long as your interp is not arbitrary and you have tangible impacts.
I'm good with theory but again make sure you are impacting it out. It's pretty hard to convince me args like condo bad unless it is VERY clear that you won.
I don't like cheaty counterplans so if you're aff don't hesitate to go for theory. I think cps should be textually and functionally competitive.
I think probability is most compelling because everyone's impacts are probably extinction by the end of the round anyway. Please explain why your impact matters.
I've almost always run ks on the neg so I'm pretty comfortable with them.
For the aff, I don't like only running framework against a K especially just "ks are cheating". Perms are good as long as you take the time to explain them- one well explained perm is better than 4 bad ones. Cross ex should be focused on the alt and links- this is probably where you will mess up the neg the most
For the neg, I think most ks should have an alternative that resolves link arguments. You're alt needs to resolve the impacts for me to weigh them. PLEASE KNOW WHAT YOUR K IS and I don't like one card ks in the 1nc as a time skew.
I have mostly run affs with structural violence impacts. I'm good with k affs as long as you know what you're talking about. You should be impacting everything out and explaining why your education is better for debate. If you're running a hard right aff you need to be able to explain a coherent story with clear internal links- if you're neg and the aff can't call them out on it. Make sure you're doing impact calc- explain why I should prioritize your impact over theirs.
Case debate is always good. I think solvency deficit and internal link answers are most compelling.
Be nice and have fun!
Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers
Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.
I think about debate in the same way as this guy. (He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judge then I am also a good judge for you).
I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy > K vs. Policy > K vs. K.
I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur - his paradigm is 1000x more nuanced and thought-out than mine will be.
I'll vote on anything.* I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.
*Outside of the blatantly offensive arguments, but I think that's obvious.
Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.
Looooove judge instruction - I’m lazy, please write my ballot for me. Top level framing and cleaning up the debate for me >>>>>>>>. This makes it infinitely easier for me to resolve debates, but I'm seeing less and less of this in 2NRs/2ARs that I've judged recently.
I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis/contextualization - I personally believe that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical debate skills. As a result, I tend not to look at evidence after the round unless it was specifically flagged during speeches. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of evidence indicts or resolving done by teams in round. You probably don't want this because I feel like its opens up the possibility for more intervention -- so please just help me out and debate warrants + resolve the biggest points of clash in your 2NR/2ARs.
Obviously I'm fine with speed, but it seems like people have forgotten to sign post or slow down on tags/analytics. I'll clear at most 3x, but if I'm missing important stuff you'd like on my flow, that's on you.
Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. Smart, nuanced link analysis/internal link explanation >>>> “our impact outweighs on [x] because [unwarranted assertion]!!11!!”. Detailed, subpointed link modules and link turns case analysis will make me and your speaks very happy.
Default to judge kick unless the 2ar is really convincing on why I should not/wins the thesis of condo.
I can't remember the last time I heard a really good counterplan. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."
I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.
Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.
Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.
To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“
Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”
For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of “refusal” affs or advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.
For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else.
I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.
I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.
Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.
Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.
Please don't start until you see my camera on!
If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.
I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.
Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.
I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds, which you can read about under the "General Things" section above.
I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.
If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.
I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.
If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.
Be nice & have fun.
Add me to the Email Chain: Bryan.Zhang22@montgomerybell.edu
Debate @ MBA as a 1A/2n
DAs - have good turns case. I prefer better evidence over a lot of it
CPs - I lean neg on theory, condo is probably good, love a good CP that truly solves an aff
T -need to really focus on impact and what debate looks like under both models
Ks: I like links most if they are specific and tied to the plan. The alternative needs to do something. I'm not very deep in the K literature so you would probably need to explain a bit more.