Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

I debated policy at Eleanor Roosevelt HS for three years and debated at Liberty University for two years.

For the high school and college rez: I have not done much research on the topic, so be aware that I’m not familiar with topic-specific jargon and acronyms.

DA’s – I enjoy the politics DA’s probably more than any other argument. I am not compelled to vote on DA's with terrible internal link stories and even more terrible evidence. Impact comparison is important but I would much rather hear a substantial debate on the link level. I am also not particularly swayed by theory on politics DA's and will most likely not vote on it.

CP’s – I like CP's, the more specific the solvency evidence is for the 1AC, the better. However, I am not a fan of word PIC's or Consult CP's, so I encourage you to explore a different strategy in front of me.

K’s – My knowledge of K literature and philosophers is top-heavy, so do not assume that I have extensive knowledge about an author or argument that was read in the debate. I’m familiar with basic K’s (anthro, cap, security, etc) but I have little knowledge base with high-theory K’s. With that said, tag line extensions are insufficient and you should err on the side of explanation. Most K's fail in so far as the alternative is shallowly extended and explained; if that is the case, I am less compelled to vote for the K. I want to hear a discussion of what the aff looks like in the world of the alt. The alternative is a critical aspect of the K and should be a huge point of contestation. From previous debates I've judged, the weakest points of most teams have always been the alternative. So if by the end of the debate and you have not kicked the alternative, I would like a clear analysis of how it functions and the role of my ballot.

Topicality – I default to competing interpretations, unless told otherwise. I like good topicality debates but only when the impact is extensively discussed. Topic-specific definitions are good. I’m a tad bit sympathetic towards reasonability claims.

Theory – Most theory debates devolve into block reading with little clash. This is not the way to have a theory debate, and if theory is more than a time suck to you and you want it to be a viable option at the end of the debate, you should probs respond to your opponent’s args.

Conditionality – Two advocacies are acceptable. Three is pushing it.

Miscellaneous thoughts –

·       Although my style of arguments in high school were more K-oriented, my style in college has usually been policy-oriented. 

·       Debate what you’re good at, don’t feel like you have to change your argumentation style if you have me in the back of the room.

·       Although debate is a game, always have fun and show respect to each other.

·       As I judge more and more, I've discovered that I am an extremely flow centric judge. I don't like to do work for either team so make sure your speech meets the threshold of sufficiency. 

·       Clarity is important! If I can't understand you, your arguments are not on my flow. 

·       You don’t have to use prep to flash files, but don’t abuse this.

·       For any questions, contact me at ana.calizo@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

I ask that you read tags slow so I can flow them. There is no need to spread on tags if I cannot understand them or hear them. During cross ex, I am fine with a partner helping their partner out just as long as it doesnt become abusive. When extending cards, please state tag and not the author's name since I may not be able to catch the author's name during spreading.  K's and topicality topics are ok as long as it's not overdone. It is the job of the debater to persuade me to vote for them. The affirmative must prove to me, via arguments, that there needs to be a change in the status quo. It is the job of the negative to prove the affirmative wrong holes in the affirmative's that will cause me to vote against the aff.

Hello! My name is Aditya Mehta and I am currently a Senior at UGA. Go Dawgs! I previously debated at Chattahoochee High School

IF YOU'RE READING CRITICAL ARGUMENTS TRY TO READ AS LITTLE FROM YOUR COMPUTER AS POSSIBLE!!(I.E. Explain)

Debates Judged on the China Engagement Topic:

20

Debates Judged on the Surveillance Topic:
17

Debates Judged on the Oceans Topic:
40

Debates Judged on the Latin America Topic:
22

TL;DR:
- speed is okay, prefer clear, human speech to barely audible spreading
- no preference on argumentative choices, i.e. go with what you're good at
- understanding of da/case will probably be greater than understanding of specific/ obscure k literature
- be nice please especially in cross-x

Tech vs truth - TECH matters. Truth still matters somewhat - arguments need a claim and warrant + spin is hugely important for how I read evidence. Also, make sure to answer arguments like "turns case" and "counterplan leads to the plan" in the 1AR, even if you know your evidence is infinitely better.

Debate matters more than cards. that doesnt mean i wont ever call for them, but id rather go off my flow. if i have to read cards then i usually reconstruct the debate based off of the evidence as opposed to the actual debating. Flowing is important; the biggest flaw of paperless debate (among many) is the transition to over relying on the speech doc

any sort of ethical violation (clipping cards, cross reading) will result in an immediate loss and a 0 given to the violator, if sufficient evidence exists. if you dont have enough evidence, dont stake the debate on it

Speed/clarity - debate is a communicative activity. If I don't comprehend an argument then I'm not going to flow it. I'm not sure who the source of this quote is, but it's great advice: "Speed is the number of arguments you make that the judge thinks the other team has to answer".

I debated four years at Liberty University and am now in Grad School at George Mason University.

General Thoughts:

My email is: lindsey.murray92@gmail.com. I would like to be included on email chains.

I started debate as a novice at Liberty with no prior debate experience. Because of that, I think novice debate is one of the most important aspects of our community. Arguments about novice participation in framework debates are highly persuasive to me.

I believe communication is the crux of debate. What this means for you is I believe clarity is just as important as the arguments you are attempting to make. Speaker points will reflect this accordingly.

I will not give an RFD to a varsity team until their wiki is updated. For JV and Novice, I would prefer they put their cites on the wiki as soon as the debate is over but I will not hold them hostage. If their squad has a reputation of not updating their wiki, I will upload the cites myself.

If you have questions please feel free to ask.

Short version:

I spent 3 years reading policy and 1 year reading critical arguments. I am familiar with a wide variety of literature. I enjoy a solid DA/case strategy but will listen to any strategy. A well-articulated kritik can be just as entertaining to judge as a techy CP/Da strategy. The decision is yours.

When deciding a round, I defer to an offense/defense paradigm unless told to otherwise. I am flow oriented and will flow on paper in every round, even if asked not to. When deciding, I will look for concessions or arguments flagged as important in the rebuttals. Then I will determine whether evidence should be read to reach a decision. Argument comparison is extremely important and often overlooked. Impact calculus seems to be the easiest way to win/lose my ballot. 

Prep Time:

Prep time goes until the document is saved on a flash drive or being attached in an email. I will not take prep time for flashing the evidence to your opponents unless it takes an unrealistically long time. Do not steal prep. I will punish you with lower speaker points and I will restart the timer. 

Speaker Points: 

I will follow the tournament's point system. My speaker points defer in each division. Obviously in varsity it becomes much more difficult to earn a 29.2 than it is in novice. My speaker points will reflect this. I tend to think that okay speeches warrant between the 27.2-27.9 range. Good speeches are in the 28-28.9 range. Speeches that excel expectation are in the 29's. I don't ever predict giving a 30 because I think there is always something that can be done to better each speech. The best time to earn good speaks in front of me is in CX by being entertaining as well as strategic. 

Evidence:

I defer to quality of evidence over quantity. Teams that interrogate the validity of their opponents’ evidence as well as learn to effectively compare evidence will find it much easier to win my ballot.

With that being said, smart and developed analytics go a long way to defeating unqualified or poorly applied evidence. I will evaluate both.

Power tagging is just as awful as under-tagging evidence. If you tag a card as a defensive card and then apply it offensively in a different speech, I will treat it with high suspect. Flag arguments for what they are.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality:

I defer to competing interpretations. Slow down when reading definitions and your interpretation. Debaters are notorious for undercovering topicality/not answering the correct violation. These debates tend to get very messy and lack warranted explanation/comparison. This is an opportunity to do in depth impact comparison as well as what constitutes topical literature. If this is your strategy, make sure to compare impacts and give me a framework for why yours should be prioritized.

DA’s:

Love them. My senior year, my partner and I almost exclusively went for politics and case in the 2NR. They are my favorite debates. I think in a well debated DA I defer to the link over uniqueness. I love DA’s on case as well.

CP’s:

Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I enjoyed watching debates with specific CP’s that were deployed effectively. That usually meant the negative had a very clear understanding of what the CP did and was able to explain each important part of the CP as it related to the plan. You should slow down during CP texts and permutation texts. I defer negative on blippy CP theory but this is obviously up for debate. 

Kritiks:

Also love topic related kritiks with strategic alternatives. Having a one card shell is annoying, especially when you blow it up in the block to be 4 different mini-kritiks built into that one card. I highly doubt your one 1NC card makes all the arguments you will extrapolate on in the block. Aff’s – if the word “sandbagging” is not in your 2AC, I will yell at you post round. I am not really persuaded by framework arguments that make it impossible for the affirmative to leverage their offense against the alternative. I tend to give more weight to generic responses to answer generic kritiks because they are annoying.  

If you wish to criticize the debate community please clearly articulate what debate should look like. I find it very annoying when teams make generic claims about how the debate community is <fill in ism here> without providing what changes to the community would look like. I have a hard time buying kritiks that start out as being one thing in the 1NC and then in the block develop to be a criticism of debate. Does the debate community have inclusivity issues? Absolutely. Does that mean you deserve to win a debate because you point that out? Absolutely not. 

Performance Debate:

I engaged in quite a few of these debates during my career. They were some of my favorite rounds and I enjoyed them for the most part. I will evaluate as best as possible, but because I am a flow oriented adjudicator, you must explicitly give me the appropriate framework to evaluate the round. 

Theory:

I lean neg on most theory questions. Condo is good most of the time. Obviously this is up for debate and round dependent. Do not create 4 conditional worlds. Do not be blippy in your deliverance of theory. Debaters are far too dependent on blocks when it comes to theory. Get off your blocks, flow your opponent’s blocks and respond to each argument. It will be awarded.

I’m in my third year debating for Liberty University.
As a debater, I find myself often frustrated by judge philosophies that limit my strategic options in a debate, so I will make my best attempt at letting everything be up for debate.

I lean fairly policy, but I read a good amount of Ks on the neg and find those debates to be incredibly interesting. You should do what you’re good at and what will be fun for you.

I think that debate is a game and I’m fairly flow-centric, so tech generally comes before truth, but that certainly has its limits. Smart arguments should take precedent over spreading a bunch of cards.

Debate should be fun. Have fun and be nice.

Ks

I don’t have a ton of familiarity with every K author, but I’m pretty familiar with common Ks. Regardless of my familiarity, explaining your argument well is obviously better than extending taglines and stringing philosophical jargon together. Articulating a specific link to the aff and the way the alt functions is important. K tricks can be underutilized when you don’t explain how they function. (When your link or epistemology indict functions as a solvency takeout, use it that way.)
I’ll give the aff a lot of leeway on the perm, so winning a strong link is more important to me than spending a lot of time on the alt.
It often comes down to framing: if you win the framing of the debate, winning that your link is strong enough or that your alt isn’t vague is easier.

DAs

I love DA/case debates, and I especially love politics debates. 
Smart analytics are more important than a lot of mediocre cards. Making smart connections between the case and the DA is important- often, affs don’t spend enough time answering good “da turns case” arguments.

CPs

In-depth case debates are better than sneaky counterplans, but I spent a good amount of the War Powers topic going for an agent counterplan. Winning/beating the net benefit is probably more important, but a well-articulated solvency deficit can be devastating. I don’t think affs utilize theory as much as they should in beating generic counterplans (process, agent, etc).

Theory

I love theory/topicality/framework debates. I love debate, and I think debates about what practices are the best for it are both interesting and productive. Because of that, I don’t have very strong preferences on a lot of theory. You should slow down and give examples of in-round abuse and/or the things that are included/not included in your interpretation. Other than condo, I think most violations are reasons to reject the argument and not the team, but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. Two conditional advocacies is probably okay, but even that’s debatable and anything more than that is definitely debatable. I am fairly strongly predisposed, however, to think that having a K and a CP/Da in the same round is a good thing/not abusive, so articulating in-round abuse is important.

Framework/Non-traditional affs

Do what you’re good at, regardless of what that is. My experience is in more traditional styles of debate because of preference, not ideology. I enjoy these debates, but I need to know why what you do matters. I will be persuaded by arguments that your performance/movement/advocacy doesn’t do anything if there’s a lack of (or generally vague) explanation of what you do and what the ballot means. 

I am pretty much "tabula rasa" and will listen to any types of arguments and frameworks as long as they are impacted and the standards/benefits are explained and defended in the round. However I do value clarity in speaking and will dock speaker points heavily for teams or debaters that attempt to "spread" by slurring/mumbling through important parts of their speeches. I also sometimes dock speaker points for rudeness during cross examination, though not without a warning.

I tell both teams this at the beginning of every round and always emphasize the importance of "sign-posting", i.e. making it clear when a new argument or a different flow is being introduced, and I definitely emphasize that debaters should make it clear when they are reading a tag and citation for an argument or piece of evidence so I know how to organize my flow. My only personal bias is that I value the accessibility and openess of the debate activity to all types of students.

I tend to not count "flashing" time as prep but if it starts to cause ridiculous delays (more than a minute or so between "ending prep" and beginning the next speech) I will sometimes have to put my foot down.

Aaron Vinson

Debate Coach, New Trier High School, Illinois

Formerly, Head Coach, Princeton High School, Ohio

Glenbrook North Alum, Miami University of Ohio Alum

email = vinsona@newtrier.k12.il.us

==Updated 8/1/23==

Overarching philosophy of debate/judging (scroll down for thoughts on arguments)

I used to judge a good amount. That has not been the case. I taught at Michigan this summer and probably judged about 15 debates there .

Debate is about having fun - you should read arguments that you enjoy regardless of my past debate background or what arguments my students may or may not read.

Debate is about communication, response, and oral argumentation - if it wasn't in the debate or if it was not clear to me in a debate, it's not a thing. All arguments should have some level of engagement with what the opposing team is saying or they are just floating statements. I try to judge all debates through a lens of, how will I explain to the losing team why they did not win and how can I explain how they could have won.

Debate should be a safe space - be respectful to your partner and opponents; if your "thought experiment" includes trivializing genocide, suicide, x identity, you should consider the impact that that argument might have on your opponents and anyone watching the debate. I understand that discomfort in engaging new areas of literature can be beneficial but there is a line between that and making people feel uncomfortable talking about their own identity (literally referring to CX exchanges with this example). If this is egregious I will feel compelled to intervene.

Thoughts on specific arguments

Topicality - it's fine. Probably hard to win in front of me. What I would call a "low probability victory" because I think most debates fall down into infinitely regressive limits debates that are easily resolved - for me - with reasonable interpretations (that means the aff would have to extend a reasonable interpretation!). To be successful in front of me I think that debating topicality more like a DA (link explanation + impact) and then debating interpretations like a CP (what the debates under each interpretation would be like and why they are good).

Counterplans - they're good. Consult CP's are fine. Condition CP's are fine. Process CP's are mostly fine. Delay CP's are mostly fine. Advantage CP's are good. Agent CP's are good. International Actor CP's are fine. States CP's are good. 2NC CP's are questionable. Offsets CP's can be fine. Affs can be most successful in front of me by explaining what is different between the plan and counterplan and then explaining why that difference is impacted by a specific aff advantage / internal link scenario). Final thought is that the aff often forgets to point out that the billion plank advantage cp prolly links to politics.

Counterplan theory - conditionality is probably good because the alternatives create worse debates. I evaluate these debates technically, which often gives a slight advantage to the neg, and look for impact calculus that never materializes (which is also good for the neg). Also, most things just don't make sense as voting issues except conditionality. If you want to be successful with counterplan theory in front of me, see my notes about topicality. And be very clear about what you want me to do and why (reject the argument, stick them with it, they lose, etc).

Disadvantages - they're good. Politics DA's are good. Elections DA's are okay. Rider DA's are so-so. Tradeoff DA's are good. Economy DA's are good. Spending DA's are so-so. I think intrinsicness is interesting, turns case is a big deal, contextualizing size of DA vs size of case is helpful for all. Negs who make their DA's bigger in the block (impact wise) are often successful in front of me.

Kritiks - they're good. I believe my voting record skews neg because of most aff teams' inability to generate offense. Aff perm strategies are okay but should be contextualized with offense, solvency deficits, etc. I default to fiat meaning "imagine" so sure we arent going to start a world revolution but I could certainly imagine that or we could talk about if that's a good thought experience. I would give myself a "B" for K literacy fluency.

T USFG/Framework - it's good. But ... I believe my voting record skews the other way. I've had the pleasure of many coaches angrily asking me about arguments that weren't in the debate. I view debate as a communication activity and I only consider the arguments presented in the debate. Coaches get upset when this emphasis on technical execution seems to "hurt" their framework team. I think the data bears out that I am winnable for either side. I will say that affs that don't read a plan AND are not in the same direction as the resolution OR don't read a plan AND are not related to the resolution have a low win rate in front of me. See notes about debating topicality in front of me.

Ethics - clipping is bad. Miscutting evidence is bad. Misrepresenting evidence is bad. Misdisclosing is bad. Are any of these things auto-losses in-front of me? Probably not. Context matters. If one piece of evidence is miscut or misrepresented, it seems reasonable to just imagine that card wasn't read. If someone does want to stake the debate on one of these things that can be verified, I can be persuaded. If team A asserts that team B has clipped or miscut evidence, and stakes the debate on it, and is wrong, team A would lose. That's what it means to stake the debate on something.

Speaker points - I know I look 16 but I'm much older. So are my points. I'm trying to be better to represent changing norms but that's a thing. If you lose you're probably getting a 28 something if you were reasonable. If you weren't reasonable you're probably getting a high 27. If you win I try to think about if I would expect the team to break at the tournament. If so they're probably getting a 29. Then relative comparisons to other people in the debate kick in. Things that bump your points up: clarity, cx, respecting your opponent, judge instruction, evaluation and assessment based arguments at the end. Things that can bump your points down: being hard to understand/follow, being mean, not kicking arguments correctly, not attempting line by line, only reading cards, not answering / not letting your partner answer in cx, not disclosing to your opponent before I get there, tech incompetence, prep shenaningans.

I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).

Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.

*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say that I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.

*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to prove that. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.

*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags makes with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.

*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.

* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.

*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.

* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.

*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -

I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.

My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.

Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.

I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.

*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.

*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."

*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.

Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.

I try to be open minded and let the arguments made in the round shape the decision.  I know of no argument that I would never vote for.  I tend to be a default policy maker but can be persuaded to adopt something different.  

My background is as a policy debater.  I debated HS policy in the early 90's and debated college LD.  Some early CEDA pre merger and my senior year debated some NDT.  

Fair warning with speed.  While I am not opposed to it I am out of practice.  There are levels of speed that I simply cannot comprehend anymore.  It is not like riding a bike. 

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is significant offense for the interpretation.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.

Email: sarah.wingo@gmail.com Please include me on the email chain.

TL;DR: Choose your battles for the second rebuttals, don't just tell that you're winning everything. Tell me why the impacts that you're winning are more important than the impacts that they're winning. If going for theory args, you should spend at least 4 minutes on it. I flow by ear, not by speech doc so it behooves you to be clear.

General: I expect every debater to flow and to be nice to both opponents and partner. Cross-examinations should be civil and at a conversational volume.

I value clarity over speed and have a tendency not to evaluate arguments that are not sign posted. The clearest speaker will receive the highest speaker points, and I will let you know if you’re not being clear. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your arguments, and they probably won’t factor highly in my decision. I don’t care if you sent me the whole speech doc and said it word for word. Debate is a competition of communication and reasoning, you need to be clear. That is usually at the expense of speed, which means you also need to manage your speech time effectively.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Time and CX: You should keep track of your own prep, speech, and CX times, as well as your opponents', if you deem it necessary. CX is not a shouting match. It’s not a game of interruption

a. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want high speaker points.

b. Aim to ask the question that the debater couldn't answer if that person had the whole 3 minutes.

c. I absolutely loathe when questions are basically “you said this but what about our card that says the opposite?” That’s setting up the debater to then spend 3 minutes telling me why I should prefer their evidence.

d. As the questioner, do NOT let them run away with your time. Ideally they won't because you're not asking questions like the one above. The way to shut them up is saying, “ok that’s fine. Moving on, [separate question]?”

DA/CP: No preferences/opinions

K Aff: I think affirmative teams should have a plan text. On the aff you must win a reason why FW is violent/bad and a reason why this round in particular is key. The reason why either side tends to lose is because they don't interact with the other sides' arguments: that means that k teams should adapt their blocks to answer the specific way the neg team is going for framework and neg teams should engage with the substance of the aff.

Ks on the Neg: Links should be specific to the aff. Even if your evidence is generic, good analysis and spin can still win you the round. If your links are just state bad or based on fiat, I will probably vote aff. SLOW DOWN ON THE K. Assume your judge hasn’t ever heard the K before and is trying to understand the reasoning that it indicts. I am especially inclined to vote for an identified and impacted performative contradiction.

Topicality: I don’t particularly enjoy T debates, but I will vote on them. I generally think that if the neg has specific blocks to answer the case, it’s probably topical. I’d prefer a debate on limits and grounds rather than “abuse” and “fairness.” I’d like to hear a debate on the literature and competing interpretations.

Other Theory (condo, alt vagueness, etc.): I generally dislike theory arguments. Either go for them (whole 2NR/2AR) or just don’t read them. That being said, I will hear them and vote them up if explained and impacted. If you can explain why something such an issue, I will vote on it. However, I am more likely to reject the argument not the team. You must tell me how I should evaluate the debate, meaning in which order I should evaluate theory and policy. I am not inclined to judge kick an argument unless the 2R tells me to (and poor answers).

******Updated 11/14/2020

I debated four years at Liberty University starting as a novice and two years in open and did Lincoln-Douglas debate 3 years of high school. Now I'm at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary getting my Masters in Divinity.

Overview - If you make good arguments and explain them to me then I will listen to it. Don’t assume that I know the basis for your arguments, that isn't to say I don’t understand your argument but rather I want to see that you understand your argument and can explain it to me. Don’t make me have figure it out on my own, give me the reason’s I should vote for you. Especially for the Emissions topic, I haven't been working with a debate team this semester so I am not coming in with prior knowledge of the topic. I'll easily understand your arguments but don't make me have to assume what your inherency or link is, tell me.

Topicality – For the aff I want to see an answer for the reasons your interpretation is good and why your aff creates good debates. If the negative is going for T then there should be good explanation for why the aff is abusive. For negatives I tend to like arguments about how the aff justifies other untopical affs. It really comes to framing of the impact level, like in any debate if you can win your impact framing and why yours come first I will vote on it.

Theory – I tend to think that some kind of ground will be lost inevitably on both sides so I don’t WANT to vote on it. But like with topicality if you give me specific reasons why you have lost ground or there is abuse in the round and give good explanation I will vote on it. On conditionality specifically I think that one conditional advocacy is pretty much never abusive (again it can be argued but there should be a fantastic explanation of why it is). The more conditional advocacies the more inclined I would be to vote for it. I think it can easily be argued and think is true to an extent that contradictory conditional advocacies are abusive to the aff, but on the neg I think it can also be argued why this is good to test the aff and just a test of the aff from multiple angles.

CPs – I think CPs are strategic, but a lot of times a perm isn't answered sufficiently. I think it is really strategic for the aff to argue how the cp still links to the net benefit or really any offense against the net benefit. At the same time, if there is any chance the net benefit turns case and a good risk that the perm still links to the net benefit then I am inclined to vote neg on risk of both. I also like a good solvency debate discussion here. How does the cp actually solve for the aff's advantages? Does the cp solve better then the aff? If an aff can make me question if the cp can solve for the aff then this gives me less reason to vote for the DA or that the perm can't solve.

DAs – I think the roughest place for negs to win is on the link level (they are usually generic or really weak…or both). I love good clash on uniqueness as well. I think the biggest part of the DA debate is on the impact level. Why does the aff outweigh the DA or how does the impact turn case? On DA’s whoever does the best job of impact framing will have a better chance of getting my vote.

Kritiks – I have debated a policy aff for my entire college career and lean more policy in the way I view a round. At the same time I ran kritikal arguments for an entire year almost exclusively on the negative and I am open to hear your K and have a basic knowledge of most K’s. I think the problem with most K’s (and what I have heard and seen in many judge philosophies) is that the alternative is terribly explained, so I want to hear a clear explanation of what your alt does and how it works within the round. Don’t expect me to just understand your K, as I said in my overview don’t assume I know your arg, I want to hear your explanation. Tell me why the K outweighs case and what specifically the affirmative is doing that is bad or viewed wrongly. If it is a K aff I want to hear why what you are doing is good for debate, I will talk more about this on framework.

On race K's i have not read the literature on that as much so you may have to do a little bit better explanation on your args. To clarify as well I don't always see this type of argumentation the way some judges do. I don't think because the state is racist (because no one is winning that it isn't) that it is a reason to vote the aff down. With this topic the aff is taking a negative state action so there are strong arguments about how they can deconstruct that. I think there needs to be more nuanced argument of why the aff is specifically bad and not just a generic "state is racist" link. But this is a debate to be had, and again if your explanation is good I'll vote for who does the better arguing.

Framework – On framework my overview kind of tells the story of what I want to hear on both sides. For a critical team I want to hear why your form of debate is good or creates change, this explanation is KEY to me voting for any type of K on the aff or neg. I think teams many times have good arguments but don’t have a good reason why this creates good discussion or good debates. Like I said at the beginning of my K philosophy, I tend to lean more policy and think it is easy to win that K’s create a research burden. Really…I just want to hear a good debate about whether or not different forms of debate are good and bad and a good explanation why.