GOLDEN DESERT DEBATE TOURNAMENT AT UNLV
2022 — NSDA Campus, NV/US
NCX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) bhaiji (by-jee)
they/she/idrc just anything but judge
conflicts: gbs and gbn
experience: currently a community coach for the chicago debate league, debated in hs at gbs for 3 years.
put me on the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: if you want a well-articulated judge philosophy, you won't find it here. just look at maddie pieropan's and i agree with everything they said, they are not only my best friend but also someone who i have always looked up to as both a debater and a judge (just know i do not judge as much as they do on a regular basis).
i find that judge philosophies hinder debaters' abilities within round because you all are so hell-bent on appeasing an adjudicator. most judges just want to watch two well-prepared teams have an in-depth debate about SOMETHING.
now if you don't have the time to read through maddie's paradigm here are my nitty-gritty thoughts for policy rounds:
topicality: probably the only neg strategy that i have real beef with. pls avoid reading t-subs in front of me, im not going to dock points if you do, i just hate the argument and find that most teams don't have specific violation ev.
da: love me a good disad vs case 2nr, as a ptx junkie, i do love a good midterms/horse trade scenario. what i am not a fan of is reading disads on case pages. for the love of all things good, separate the flows, i always end up with a mess of a flow by the 2ar and it makes me peeved that i have to scroll through 100 cells on my flow to figure out what was said come to the rfd.
cps: i will not judge kick for you if you do not explicitly say to.
theory: when it comes to theory, i am unlike most judges due to the fact that i REALLY enjoy theory debates. that is not to say that condo or whatever ridiculous theory argument you read should be the go-to strategy for the 2ar but i do think that things like international fiat and process cps bad are reasons to at least be skeptical of neg strategy. if you give a winnable 2ar on argument-specific theory, i will be very impressed. please don't speed through your blocks :), best 2ars are condo are contextualized and precise, don't give me the soap box speech, i want to know WHY their advocacy robbed your chances of the ballot.
k: great, good for debate. but lackluster link arguments make my brain turn to sludge and i will check out. what i am not good for is death drive args. i really am not all that into specific lit and big words that are being said and not contextualized garner quite the eye-roll from me.
planless affirmatives: if you have an advocacy statement, i need to know before cx of the 1ac. also please stop using debate buzzwords when your scholarship shows no indication of that kind of language. i highly recommend that you look at maddie's paradigm for a more thorough analysis of this
fw: reaaallly tired of fairness impacts, at most it is an internal link. but again, i highly recommend that you look at maddie's paradigm for a more thorough analysis of this
also side note: i am finding myself more and more frustrated with teams who paint the middle east as a terrorist hot spot with no warranted analysis. pls be weary of reading terror impacts in front of me, most of the scholarship is rooted in violent islamaphobic and xenophobic rhetoric.
non-content related things:
1. pls flow, like i can't believe i have to say this but when you read words that your opponent said, it helps you better respond to them.
2. signposting is a lost art, i am finding myself more and more annoyed in rounds where no one is calling advantages the same name, and i end up flowing the all of case debate on one page.
3. sending a marked version does not mean deleting cards you didn't read, you need to mark where you left off on a piece of evidence.
4. for online debates: i am not ready if my camera isn't on and will need you to be slow when giving a road map, it is hard for debaters to read body language virtually, and i think that we all deserve some leniency when it comes from debating/judging at home. also i really do appreciate it when you have your cameras on esp during prep and your own speeches
5. be KIND, we are all here because we enjoy the activity to some degree and the best debates are the ones where everyone is having fun while still being competitive
Debated at Cathedral Prep High School, class of 18'.
University of Toronto 22'.
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
** 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 primarily 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: email@example.com
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 University of Oregon.
CX Paradigm: My judging approach 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 util approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within the government, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to whichever framework one of the teams can convince me 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 hard for me to evaluate. 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 win a debate.) 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 (particularly if there's no email chain and I don't have your speech). If there is an email chain, I want to be part of it: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.
LD 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.
PF Paradigm: 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 your case upholds it). 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, so use what you have to the fullest. Ditto theory (to the extent it 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: email@example.com
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
Debated at Niles North ’15-’19, University of Kentucky ’19-’21
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Evidence quality is important, rehighlighting evidence is underutilized and good analytics can beat bad cards.
I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.
Not the biggest fan of theory debates, but understand the decision to go for these arguments when pushed in a corner/if the negative is being extremely heinous and will be receptive if the argument is well-developed and impacted out thoroughly.
OK for specific Ks on the NEG, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K AFFs.
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.
Ferris Owen-Sposito, Michigan Sposito-Hormozdiari
This paradigm contains plagiarism but is mostly original.
Tech over everything. Debate is a game and so competition has a privileged status among other reasons to participate. That said, feel free to make arguments about how we should treat debate differently. After about 200 debates, my voting record has me as right leaning in clash debates. (I no longer have a massive neg bias.)
I will do my best to be technical. I’ll flow and decide the debate through an offense/defense paradigm. I'm extremely unlikely to abandon the conventions of technical debating (concessions are true, new arguments are illegitimate, and so on). That said, I am willing to give generous berth to sweeping judge instruction arguments, provided they have a clear algorithm and at least some normative defense. This goes for flagging arguments as new, voting issues, whether or not I should read evidence, how strict I should be in evaluating a claim, etc. I'm willing to take substantive claims by stipulation for theoretical reasons, too, ("start this argument at 50% if you can't call whether or not it was actually new,") although that might be purely academic.
Technical debate is procedural and therefore content-agnostic. Any qualification to "tech over truth" is a violation of that maxim, because either the facet in question is a part of the flow, in which case it is false to suggest it as a caveat, or it is not, in which case voting on it is indefensible. (Evidence quality is not intrinsically part of the debate if I can't hear the internals of the card, but spin is.) That is an idealization: I am not the best flow (which I know takes the ethos out of my aggressiveness about 'tech over truth,' but it is our unfortunate reality), although I try hard and enjoy judging. But my aspiration is technical judging, and ideally error will be uncorrelated. Some arguments are better than others (and so will tend to win when evenly debated, hence all that follows), but that is different from giving myself leeway to vote or not on things that flatter my whims.
Related: I will never be proud that I don't understand an argument. There are right and wrong decisions in varsity debates, and judges can & do fail to deliver the right ones. Elite debaters often have a better understanding of the round than their judges. This is a regrettable but inevitable part of the game. There might be times when I vote for the wrong team b/c I failed to understand, but that's something that I will be embarrassed about (I will not smugly report to you that you "failed to explain," let alone "persuade," although in fairness it is true that sometimes a debater's idea of what happened is too optimistic). And I will always develop at least a working interpretation of what an argument is--I sincerely will try my best.
Recently I've found myself advising debaters in the post round that they should have gone for extremely bad, dropped blips. (Not in front of everyone, but in front of me.) I don't like the thing that people do where they just don't want to vote on something so they allow, in the later speeches, clearly new analysis. It is not always possible to recover from an error, assuming your opponent does everything serviceably after. Of course, if I miss something that's a problem, and things that are genuinely garbled/obscure do justify answers once they're made transparent.
The rationalizations that judges use to dismiss arguments they don't like are bad: It cannot be that all arguments require a 'claim and a warrant'-- that results in an infinite regress, because all warrants are themselves claims which need warrants, and deciding which claims are brute and do not need justification is supposed to be the point of the standard. A minimum time investment is also arbitrary, in addition to being purely hypothetical (who is timing the splits of anyone's speech?). I am not going to arbitrarily refuse to vote on cheap shots. 'Complete argument,' although it may supposedly refer to claim and a warrant, usually actually doesn't, because usually even blips have warrants. ("ASPEC they didn't voting issue vagueness is unfair" is clearly a complete argument, just one that doesn't take much to answer.) 'Complete argument' in truth is a codeword for 'argument I deem acceptable. ' These sorts of criteria serve only to give judges more degrees of freedom voting for whom they like, which I view as an existential threat to the activity. An argument is admissible if I understand it. Often implicit warrants are OK ("rising sea levels will cause instability in coastal regions" is technically just a claim) but sometimes explicit warrants themselves need warrants ("ontology is true because of the three pillars") That's how language works, and the innate human faculty for language is far more accurate than anything post hoc. Anyway, unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross-applications, or equally unwarranted arguments.
Similarly: An argument being 'bad' ALONE does not mean that I will have a 'high threshold' for voting on it (again, these are weasel words that allow judges to get away w/ voting as is convenient for them, or as they please). Teams still must answer an argument satisfactorily. It is true that practically, 'bad' arguments should be unstrategic b/c they can swiftly be beaten w/ the right arguments, but the other team only benefits if they know the right answers (which they often do, but sometimes do not, especially for arguments w/ a bad reputation). But that's not about thresholds, exactly....
Critical Affs and Framework:
Aff teams should go for impact turns. There are no sacred cows--I am far less likely to agree with aff arguments than the average clash judge, but far more willing to vote for things like "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models of debate" or terminal defense to the topic having any value or for such extreme skepticism that I disregard the case. Cynical and tricky K teams should reach near-competitive parity with policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal--but they must be willing to use those tactics. I am unlikely to be 'moved' or to suspend evaluation of some part of the debate by sincerity or pathos.
The neg should go for fairness. K teams worth their salt should be able to link turn skills arguments I feel like. I put little stock in the concept of education, and even less in the idea that preparation for a tournament causes it. (That might be a moot point though, b/c few teams are willing to be that extreme). It is not clear to me that participation in debate is better than what students would do with their time otherwise, and I think that if K teams pretend not to care immensely about winning, they are lying. Of course, I have no opposition to arguments made in 'bad faith'--I think I might prefer them.
Most ways that affs try to 'access' fairness don't make sense--most persuasive is a more radical and bold argument about why competition is bad/irrelevant/should be suspended. It really doesn't feel that hard to zero (or impact turn) neg framework standards, or to have some new creative set of tricks. (That's what excites me about these debates).
Middle-of-the-road strategies don't make sense to me. Anyway, if the aff chooses to counter-define words (rather than some meta-interpretation), they must counterdefine or meet all of the words the neg has, or they should lose on jurisdiction. (Of course, the neg never extends this argument.)
DAs don't link to these K affs unless the aff catastrophically fails in CX or admits to them. The neg should probably going for T, or some sort of PIC or PIK. If you can win a link (or competition), then by all means, but I'm not gonna pretend an aff that does nothing somehow collapses US hegemony...
Critiques on the Neg:
The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is some sort of philosophical competition argument. Critiques make little sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like counterplans. Then, arguments like ‘link non-unique’ or ‘perm: doublebind’ becomes unbeatable. I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation. Because I think about the K in a competition-centric way, I think that the aff should invest more time in framework, earlier, and I don't mind policy teams going aggressively for "no Ks" from the get go. It's usually at the expense of 2AC cards that are irrelevant anyway.
Again, the K should be a vehicle for tricks. I don't like saying that "the aff probably gets the aff," because really that's just an admission of overt ideological blindness, and clearly false when the neg wins a reason why plan focus is bad while the aff murmurs only about predictability. But it is true that the neg has to find some way of dealing with the case, whether it be an aggressive framework interpretation, or philosophical competition and an alt that fiats everything, or some sort of floating PIK, or link reasons why I should assume the aff is false, or reasons why I should vote for a team independent of whether or not they're winning the flow, etc. Traditional case defense alone probably will not work unless you also deal w/ the uniqueness problem for the links.
I was a K debater in HS (high theory, anthro, Buddhism, also security and cap). I still prefer those arguments to other Ks b/c they tend to be creative.
Links to the plan do not make sense to me and are impact turned by the aff winning aff outweighs. Links are either something that establishes philosophical competition for an alt that fiats everything, or they are a minimum bar that the neg must clear as it relates to their framework argument. The CLOSER a link is to a DA, the WORSE it is, because it will never be unique. The K needs to be about stuff other than the plan. That is, the aff will basically certainly win if they get the caseand the perm.
Aff: If the plan prevents extinction, that's all that needs to be said. Long case overviews against an uncontested extinction impact are unnecessary and therefore a poor use of time.
K v K debates
Generally suck unless it's something well-prepared like cap or psychoanalysis, which I tend to like. Although I have enjoyed when teams go for high theory or 'semiocapitalism' against K affs and often resonate with the arguments being made.
I judge topicality like any other position---offense/defense and competing interpretations. Reasonability is winnable but requires substantial time investment. Remember, reasonability is about the reasonableness of your interpretation, not your particular case. This, I think, makes me more willing to vote neg on T than some. I don't regard my decision as norm-setting, and it matters little what the 'community consensus' on an interpretation is--both teams must simply be able to articulate why an interpretation is good or not.
I find that it is far easier to win a big limits DA than to win that 'predictability' (that much abused word) outweighs it. At the high level, predictable limits should win, but I am usually not impressed by the execution of that argument. It's simply easier to win a big limits DA than explaining why predictable limits outweigh. This is true in other areas too, but debaters seem to overestimate how bad it is to be 'arbitrary.' Interpretations that are best adapted to the idiosyncrasies of debate are hard to find and warrant departure from strict lexical analysis.
Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true. What else would topicality be about, if not the plan? (That is a serious question.) Scare-mongering examples of "[Resolution] by [unrelated mechanism]" lose immediately to counterplanning the unrelated mechanism and reading DAs to the topic as it's been defined. Most critics of PTIV seem not to understand it. The only thing that trumps that is cross-ex. If the aff says in cross-ex "we're the Courts," then clearly I would grant the violation for T-No Courts. The aff should simply say that the most likely implementation is the Courts (or whatever). Relatedly: Normal means is a factual question--if the aff declares that the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg has legitimate grounds to disagree, and win how the plan is, in fact, likeliest to happen.
My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious behavior--like counterplanning out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well. New affs justify terrorism. Violations are a reason to reject the argument and not the team--provided they're answered minimally...
...That said, I would be receptive to a team going for theory in a technical way, and that team would likely have decent success in many debates, because theory is often answered haphazardly and badly. And when theory is answered especially poorly, the aff can obviously go for the clean kill if they please. At least, doing so will not result in lower points. But in elite, fast policy debates, I'd be surprised if the aff won very frequently by complaining.
I would prefer if we default to inserting ev rather than reading it. Although I have now seen it abused, and it probably is unfair to the aff if it's for 1AC cards.
RVIs: Are dumb but also don't warrant random suspension of the law of tech over truth. Losing to an RVI would represent a catastrophic technical collapse by any competent team. Just answer the blip and move on... if you fail that, my sympathy is expensive...
Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. 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. The neg should go for the argument that maximizes their chance of victory.
Textual competition alone is a bad standard, but functional alone may or may not be worse than functional & textual. I like this stuff but if it's really cute I might miss it unless you slow down.
Judge kick is truthfully obviously OK, and my default. Of course the aff can start a debate about it, but I doubt competent teams will struggle for the right responses.
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. The neg should go for the argument that maximizes their chance of victory.
Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction--"below X% risk, you should treat it as 0, for blah blah blah," or else from something similarly mechanical--expired uniqueness or the wrong legal concept or something. Dropped impact defense I guess, but if it's like "warming is not existential," what am I supposed to do w/ that?
Impact Turns/Misc. arguments
Impact turns--teams going for them, and teams successfully beating them back--are my favorite. This goes for conventional policy impact turns, up to and including those that become reliant on sci-fi and futurism, and it also goes for arguments that are more philosophical in nature (the value of life, etc.). I have (and cherish) a very old-school sensibility about debate, where I want the most outrageous and counterintuitive positions possible vigorously debated. Arguments that will result in a point tax from a lots of judges I will treat as no different than topic mainstays, if not better (in varsity). In virtue of debate being a voluntary competition centered on disagreement, there ought be a much higher premium placed on composure in the face of unpleasant ideas, even relative to school classrooms or other extracurriculars, and an expectation that no argument is above refutation. None. It is the procedure of refutation that insures us against and leaves us vulnerable to bad arguments--nothing more or less would be appropriate.
Unconventional arguments are probably an unusually good strategy in front of me: Groupthink within debate often stops students & judges from actually understanding positions outside of a very narrow worldview, and so being vulnerable to them. Tricks cause discontent often because teams collapse at answering them and then, like villainous financiers, need to be bailed out by the establishment. Clearly, I am not going to bail them out. That said, I will absolutely lavish points on students who can defend the more traditional positions--that is far more impressive and ultimately, bad arguments cry out for refutation.
Debate suffers from pervasive ideological rot, so much so that rounds have at times begun to verge on surreal. People will treat something as obviously stupid or false meanwhile I feel indifferent and vaguely curious; things taken for granted I often find extremely controversial, and so on. Calling an argument conservative does not answer it (except maybe in some K debates where the impact to being "counter-revolutionary" is already floating around). Scoffing at an argument doesn't answer it, is a waste of time, is at odds w/ what debate should be, disappoints me, etc.
You don’t need to extend impacts in the 2AC if the 1NC dropped them. Just briefly reference the concession and move on. The same applies to the 1AR, although you should give a quick explanatory sentence that demonstrates you identified the concession and are extending your scenario.
What ‘fiat’ means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan. Willing to hear circumvention tricks.
Plan vagueness: Another thing subject to overheated moral panic. Affs should try to get away w/ everything the neg won't successfully call them on. This is basic strategy.
Points & personality:
I like students that care, and care about winning. Kindness is a virtue, it's true, but so is drive, and the nerve to win.
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.
Iowa City CW and debating in college at Harvard (sorta)
Coach for UC Lab
Yes, add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Zoom Debate - if my camera is off or if I am not within the frame, don't start talking. I am not there and will miss your speech.
TLDR; I am a significantly worse judge than you think I am. My voting record is surprisingly neg leaning. I'm not a great flow. I *hate* framing contentions. I think being unclear is borderline clipping. Fine with all types of debates, but am generally preffed policy > clash > KvK. I generally give low speaks (I have never given above a 29.5, so far).
People who’ve influenced my views on debate: Vince Woolums, Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Ellie Bennet, Nate Sawyer, Kyle Joseph.
Will hold the line against any bad ‘ism’. If this is a vague standard to anyone reading my paradigm, 1) Don’t pref me 2) Read a better argument.
You can insert ev, as long as it was read by the other team.
Small schools get higher speaks, as long as I see a sufficient amount of Orginal prep work.
If you don't send analytics you lose speaks (doesn't apply for stuff on your flow, duh). If you send speech docs where you deleted analytics you will lose extra speaks.
If a debate were 50-50 I would likely vote for the FW team, but no debate will ever be 50-50 and I'll determine who's winning in the most equitable way possible
Full Disclosure: I debated a cap k aff for most of my sophomore year and have only read aff with plantexts since (although most were dubiously topical). I was more on the side of T during hs, but actively work to judge these debates with as little ideology as possible.
That being said, here are some of my preferences:
I very much enjoy originality, I strongly believe Shree’s view on aff diversity. There are lots of defensible positions in every part of the library, you should branch out and read the most strategic ones.
You actually have to beat T-USfg – I slightly prefer C/I over Impact turns, but you do you.
For FW teams – have SSD or TVA – probably don’t need both
Clash/Negation > Fairness > Skills
I think debate is good however the activity is flawed. I generally feel like most impact turns about the community aren't based on whether or not you read a plan text.
Case args are almost always mishandled by the neg – yes the aff doesn’t fiat something but almost all K affs advocate some sort of future. Debate the methodology, the ‘imagined future’, and the contradictions that are in almost all K affs. It’s far less difficult than you think it is.
Please don’t be rude in these rounds (@policy hacks), just because it’s a clash debate does not justify being an ass.
Non-T strats are very fun. Especially Counter Advocacies
K v. K are my least familiar debates but I generally view it as a question of the perm. Be clear on how you want me to frame my ballot please!
Similar to K affs above, I enjoy diversity. The best affs are the ones you cut.
Most affs are trash – sometimes the best affs are trash. Make of that what you will.
I hate framing contentions – I have never seen an arguement in a framing card that has needed evidence before. If you can’t find framing cards that are specific to your aff, then your aff is most likely bad.
Impact turns are fun (not spark). Also, impact turning impact turns is very fun Probably will involve me reading a lot of ev.
I think I’m a pretty good judge for this. I had a lot of experience debating T on very dubious affs. Aff teams get away with murder when it comes to affs, negs should hold the line.
I’m very much on the side of Legal precision outweighs Debatability (the only reason something is debatable is because we know what the topic is)
Jurisdiction is just a reason why T is a voting issue
T is not genocide
Hidden theory dropped = insta dub (as long as you go for it)+ me being very sad - if you hide your theory on a flow that is not T expect low speaks
I have either debated or debated against basically every K that teams read nowadays. I am most familiar with Cap, Security, Anthro, Abolition, and Set Col.
I think self-described K debaters often get stuck with very little strategic K diversity (a different link card does not a new K make). As with K affs above, there are many parts of the critical library and many of them engage the aff better than most generic Ks.
I actively support arguments that engage in sedition.
I exclusively went for the Perm + link turn as a debater. If you wanna defend heg though, go for it.
K tricks are stupid and affs have a very low threshold to answer them.
Yes, your Baudrillard – I see no reason why debates over author quals are legitimate on other flows but not here.
Negative teams get away with murder when it comes to cp texts, affs should hold the line
generally fine for perm debates - impact calc and framing on the definitions is the best way to avoid judge choice from determining rounds
Condo is a reason to reject the team, it should be in every debate. That being said I read both 4000 conditional advocacies and 0 conditional advocacies in my career, so its really just a question of who debates it better
Perms are an affs best friend
Not much to say here – topic disads are better than ptx das but I get that its not possible to have topic disads sometimes.
Its generally a question of the link – tbh idrk if uq determines the link or vice versa – it shall be open to debate
Disad theory is pretty dumb, exceptions being fiat args vs ptx das
Member of the No Spark Society
I flow exclusively on paper
I won’t vote you down for memes but like they’re not good args
Please email me with questions after a debate if you have any
Any type of debate that’s not policy, I apologize profusely that you have to have me judging. I know nothing about your event. The closer you are to policy the better you will do in front of me.
FOR PF – Paraphrasing evidence is academically dishonest. I will NOT evaluate ANY piece of evidence that is paraphrased. Don't test me.
My email is email@example.com please include me on the email chain. I'm a senior at The Meadows and I've been debating 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.
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
Add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a policy judge and I've only judged a handful of PF rounds in my life. The closer you are to policy, the better I am for you. My problem with a lot of the PF rounds I've judged is the lack of clash + impacting out implications arguments. I would love some comparative explanation of what my ballot endorses. I'm going to default to evaluating consequences, unless I am told otherwise.
Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code
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 learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur - his paradigm is 1000x more nuanced and thought-out than mine will be.
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 ;(.
I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are - I personally dislike judges injecting their personal views into decisions. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments. No judge has a clean slate but I’ll try my best to decide the debate based solely on what I hear in round.
Tech >>>>>>>>> truth
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. 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.
Fine with speed, but I do flow on paper & don't look at speech docs during the round so be clear
Looooove judge instruction - I’m lazy, please write my ballot for me.
My biggest frustration when judging rounds is inaccurately flagging arguments the other team spent a substantial amount time answering as “dropped" - your speaks will reflect this frustration. Second to that is repeating “they dropped x” instead of explaining what the technical concession means for you.
Topic Knowledge + Background
I'm a student at UC Berkeley studying Computer Science and only coach College Prep on the side. I mainly help out with researching policy strategies when I have the time, so it's been a while since I've was really immersed in K literature. I worked at CNDI this past summer so I judged a few rounds on the topic, but St. Marks will be my first tournament of the season. I'd say my comfort in judging rounds on this topic would be Policy vs. Policy > Policy vs. K > K vs. K.
I refused to read a plan for most of my debate career but I enjoy framework debates and don’t have a heavy lean towards one side.
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 usually like to go 6-8 off against planless affs - one off framework debates are boring for me. If the aff says you can read topic disads - hold them to that and read a bunch in the 1NC. If not, there’s your abuse for framework.
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."
Smart solvency deficits >>>>
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.“
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.
Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations about clear evidence distortion(deliberately modifying evidence to alter its meaning)/clipping. If one team is accused of an ethics violation, I’ll take it seriously and ask if the accusing team would like to stop a round, then let tab take it from there.
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.