Hi,

I competed in LD and Policy for six years at Newark Science/Science Park High School. I also competed for 3 years at Wake Forest University in college policy. If, for some reason this helps, my specialities in high school and collegiate debate were critical arguments, soft left policy, and (critical and normative) T-framework. I'm best in clash debates, K v K, or K v T-FWK debates.

For the email chains: b.aaron3693 [@] gmail [.] com

Updates for TOC:

1) If you are unclear in any way, I will be brutally honest and say clear twice in your speech. If you don't adjust and are still unclear after the two times, I am heavily open to just saying "I didn't catch that argument" or "You were unclear" as my RFD.

2) LDers, tricks and normative phil aren't it for me. I'm just not the judge you should pref for any of those arguments because it's not my area of expertise. Same goes for one line blips. If the argument doesn't have a warrant, I will not vote for it.

3) Please properly disclose your arguments! I've glitched out before in online judging and have had competitors and other judges on panels glitch out too. It's so helpful that you are sending out marked documents and properly disclosing during the round.

4) My topic knowledge is constrained. I default to debaters to educate me on topic specific content, which means that you should default to explaining your arguments well.

On Speed and Document Accountability

Please start off at 75% of your speed then gradually get faster. Online debate doesn't help clarity either so you have to overcompensate for that. Also, just to make it explicit, I will not vote on arguments I don't catch on the flow especially when you are unclear. I hate flowing based on the document. I'll make sure to say clear when needed but, after two times, your speaks are getting docked.

All changes to the original file you sent out must be sent out immediately after your speech. For example, if you read through your 1NC and mark two cards and skip over a paragraph of analytics, the marked version of your document needs to be sent out. This aids in accountability purposes. I usually follow along and mark them myself but some of yall just overestimate your speed and skip around a bunch which makes doing so hard.

Arguments

I understand how arguments work.

Default to over-explanation of your position and get rid of acronyms. I love examples and non-abstract argumentation. And, for the love of everything, varsity debaters, throw it back to novice year where your coaches yelled at you to weigh and crystalize. It's SO helpful no matter what year you are.

Lastly, I'm NOT a tabula rasa judge. Anyone who says that is lying and/or oblivious to power dynamics. My experiences in debate and life will always inform my thinking which means please don't be racist, sexist, or offensive.

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Updated 4/11/24 for Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8.5-9/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, and Barrington AC.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speecj times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judgign debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 602 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 188 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.77% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

burdettnolan@gmail.com

Experience

I debated on the TFA and TOC circuits for 4 years in high school (2012-2016) and have been coaching and judging on/off for the last few years. I'm comfortable with speed and familiar with most arguments around the circuit. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask!

Paradigm

I will generally vote on any argument that is warranted, extended, explained with reference to the ballot, and does not create an unsafe space for students or participants involved. I encourage creativity with arguments and don't have strong feelings toward any specific style or type of position. I will not evaluate arguments that don't have warrants, even if they are conceded. Bad warrants are OK - they just have to be impacted to a ballot story.

I do not assume any particular role of the ballot or theory of debate - I will look at debate, education, and arguments in whatever way you tell me to. I do generally assume that my ballot must be connected to some decision-making paradigm and that my decision about the winner must stem from this paradigm, regardless of what that may be. I am open to diverse arguments that apply to debate in creative ways and will evaluate offense accordingly.

Evidence/Flowing

I tend to flow constructives off of speech docs and rebuttals by ear, even when there is a doc sent out. That means if you add an analytic in your constructive while in the middle of a speech doc, it is highly likely that I will miss it and not vote for it. Clarity, sign-posting, and spacing are really important to me because they help me flow. Flowing speeches well is hard. If your speeches are easier to flow, you will have an advantage.

I will only look at evidence if 1) It is explicitly called for in round 2) A warrant/explanation is mentioned that I do not have in speech 3) If I feel it is possible that evidence is being misrepresented. I generally think that debaters should be explaining the warrants in their evidence during speeches - but at the very least, tell me how good and warranted your evidence is in the speech so I can verify the claims you are making.

Speaker Points

I do not have an objective scale for awarding speaker points. I try to award them based on how well I feel a debater has performed relative to their own average performance (average being 28). But, if I think you deserve to break at the tournament you're at, I'll usually start with a 29. I acknowledge that this is not a perfect system but it is how I award speaks. If you are a stronger, more experienced debater hitting someone significantly less experienced: the way to get high speaks from me is to win the round effectively and efficiently with a clear ballot story, then continue to use the rest of your speech time to have an engaging debate with your opponent's position. The more educational, the better. I'm begrudgingly receptive to strategically sidestepping clash in most situations, but not this one - respond to their position, please!

Otherwise, I generally award speaker points based on strategy, execution, efficiency, creativity, performance, clarity, and personality.

Feedback

I give oral disclosures and feedback unless explicitly instructed not to. I try to spend a few minutes going through each speech offering feedback and constructive criticism. If you want to test out a new position, I'm a good person to innovate in front of - I'll try my best to give a few tips and thoughtfully engage with what you've written or put together.

Conclusion

Once again, if you have any questions or are confused by what's written above, just ask. I'm very open to questions. Otherwise, try to learn something, get along, and have some fun!

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

toss me on that email chain: aacchapman2@gmail.com

I graduated from UCLA in 2019. I coached LD for 4 years at Harker. I work in a volunteer capacity with the Heights now. That said, I have always had a lower threshold for speed. I'll yell slow twice then I stop flowing until I can comprehend the argument.

I am the most familiar with policy/framework/theory arguments. I won't vote on an RVI on T

Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

[Evidence Ethics]

1. Things I will drop a debater on whether or not their opponent brings it up: Card clipping, mis-representing the authors claims, grossly misrepresenting a cite (Use discretion here - but a completely missing site would seem to qualify here). The round stops if I notice this happen, or if the opponent brings up this claim. If the opponent brings forward this claim, I will evaluate the claim after the round has stopped.
2. Things I believe should be debated out (with the caveat here that it's an uphill battle - I think these are good norms): Other disclosure norms (not including the whole paragraph in a cut card, broken links, etc).
3. If you expect the round to be stopped (Category #1, or Category #2 but its a panel) I expect clear standards/arguments in a doc emailed out laying out the evidence claim, and specifically, why I should vote on it
4. I will not vote on evidence ethics claim that hedge on the TFA constitution. While I respect the TFA executive board and generally agree with most of the constitution, I think it sets a bad precedent in requiring debaters, especially in Texas, to be beholden to overarching academic councils.

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

1. Interps & Counterinterps
2. Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

1. A good internal link debate w/ deep evidence comparison
2. Having a true/stellar response to UQ or Inherency
3. Nuanced T
4. A unique plan aff that is extended the whole round & leveraged correctly

[Strategies I don't love]

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Analytical args
4. Dense critical lit

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

Ks

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

T

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

Please put me on the chain - qtcc@bu.edu

Harker 20' | BU 24'

I did LD at Harker (Go Eagles!), went for a lot of policy arguments with a little bit of K stuff. Now I study computers and philosophy at Boston University.

Biggest thing: I very rarely evaluate theory. See more thoughts below.

Rules that are set in stone

- Arguments that are blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and clearly made in bad faith means an instant loss, 0 speaks, and an uncomfortable conversation with your coach. If it's clear the debate is being made violent the debate ends. If you have a question about an argument, ask before the round.

- if you feel uncomfortable participating in the debate (your opp. triggered you, accidentally misgendered you, etc) feel free to discretely email or talk to me if you're uncomfortable making it an issue in the debate and we'll all work to make the debate a more productive space

- If your opponent is speaking too quickly or unclearly for you to flow, you have a right to call clear.

- I won't flow arguments made after the timer ends.

-I'll evaluate evidence ethics and other cheating challenges per tournament rules.

General

I don't think judging from a tabla rasa perspective is either possible nor desirable. The way I make determinations about what is true and false, in the real world and in debate, comes from a Bayesian perspective where I have shifting confidence in the truth of things given my knowledge and exposure to them. Generally, overcoming these priors requires presenting evidence to the contrary proportional to how far away from my current position, and my confidence in that position is. I find that this makes me a bit of an evidence hack in the sense that I frequently look at evidence presented even when not asked to to assess how strongly my priors should be shifted vis a vis a given argument.

Examples:

I have a high certainty that the Pyramids of Giza are in Egypt. To win that they are actually in China would require outrageously strong argumentation or evidence because it is a position very far outside my belief.

I have low confidence that act utilitarianism is true. To win that Kantian ethics or Hobbesian ethics are correct would only require a minimum viable argument to the contrary.

I have a moderate amount of confidence that there is alien life somewhere in the universe. Winning that they are in our galaxy/sort of nearby would require some evidence, but would not be challenging because it is close to my existing beliefs. Winning the government is concealing terrestrial-alien contact would require a great deal of very strong evidence. Winning there are Alien shape-shifters walking on Earth among us would be virtually impossible.

The rest of my paradigm is an attempt to outline the prior beliefs I have most relevant to debate and what I find compelling (and not) to overcoming them. Broadly, I find my beliefs are pretty aligned with common sense, but I intentionally shoot for epistemic humility (I have low confidence about things I am not an expert in) so it is very unlikely I will totally zap an argument you have evidence for because I vaguely thought it might be incorrect.

About argumentation/debate things: Arguments that are dropped are given a "full weight" of access to change my priors, but not all arguments pass the threshold needed to do that. Saying "The Pyramids of Giza are in Colombia because I think I read it in a book once" is an argument, but does not swing my prior much so if the other side drops it that does not automatically mean I think the Pyramids are in Colombia. My beliefs are changed more aggressively by a] arguments that are explained in-depth and b] by arguments that cite highly qualified authors working closely in the field in which you are arguing.

About the Kritik: I have a moderate amount of confidence that the world is too complex to be totally explained by one social or political philosophy. I have a small amount of confidence in the idea that debate should soley be about the desirability of the plan. I have high confidence that the plan and Aff should be counted at least somewhat in my determination of the resolutional question. I think psychoanalysis is pretty silly. I am highly confident that reading framework/topicality is not violent. Generally, I find it to be the onus of Affirmatives reading explicitly non-topical affirmatives to explain in great detail why I should vote Aff beyond the Aff just being true.

Topicality

I have a moderate amount of confidence that evaluating the plan text in a vacuum is the best way to determine if the plan is topical, and arguments that attempt to argue a thing the plan's solvency claims they do is not in the resolution are better made as solvency arguments. I require a relatively high degree of certainty that the Negative is correct before I will vote on topicality. I usually need definitions that define the words in the resolution, and clearly and strongly exclude the Affirmative, to feel comfortable voting Neg on T. I have a moderate amount of confidence that predictability is more important than "pragmatic" concerns like limits, ground, etc.

Theory

- I have very strong opinions about theory that you cannot change my mind about (you can think of these as "unchangable priors") I have and will give decisions that where I throw out a theory argument most people are fine with. Generally, if you find yourself wanting to go for theory against a counterplan (process cps bad, delay cps bad, etc.) you are better off winning they do not compete somehow.

- T starts as drop the debater, but never an RVI, theory is always drop the argument, and never an RVI. Exception is disclosure theory, which is drop the debater.

- Arguments I will evaluate: non-resolutional actor fiat (like I-Fiat or States), disclosure unless there has clearly been no good faith attempt to get it. Unlikely I vote on stuff like "must have complete round reports" or whatever, but if their disclosure practices are truly terrible and you can explain why this is probably ok. Misdisclosure/intentional trickery in particular is easy to win if you can prove it. Topicality arguments that define words in the resolution, judge kick.

- Arguments I will never evaluate: Any non-resolutional theory argument not listed above. This includes: "object fiat", solvency advocates, PICS bad, conditionality, no neg fiat, new affs bad, any form of spec argument without a card supporting it. I literally do not flow these, and will say as such as part of my RFD. Do not bother making them.

Miscellaneous

- Regarding re-highlighting - to point out flaws in evidence inserting is fine, to make an offensive argument read it.

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

• It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.

• The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.

• It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.

• I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.

• There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.

• A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.

• My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.

• There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

• That which is morally repugnant

• This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent

• X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Final update - April 2024

Docs: speechdrop.net

Directing the DebateDrills Club Team for 2023-25 - here are incident reporting forms, roster, and MPJ/ conflict info.

Enloe HS '20 + UPenn '24. 2x LD TOC qual (cleared junior year/ skipped senior year) + 13 bids. I primarily read policy args + T/theory. I am fairly familiar with but do not particularly care for philosophy, tricks, or the K; however, I will not insert my preferences absent a poorly resolved debate - read what you feel comfortable with.

Debating

Debate is a competitive game that imparts useful life skills, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, speaks are my choice and not yours

Speaks boost for taking less prep and sitting down early if you've clearly won

You should disclose properly, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to "make changes" to the aff

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the badness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-loss given severity)

---Death/ suffering good (spark/ wipeout type stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ location/ etc (except disclosure screenshots)

---Arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

---Independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Defaults: fairness and education are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption, OCIs incoherent, perm theory is drop the arg

Tell me to read ev if you want me to

Judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context, and explain any insertions

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Consequences probably matter but perhaps you can convince me otherwise

Tricks tend not to have warrants in the speech they're introduced or in the speech they're extended in

Ks need to prove that the aff is a bad idea, affs probably get to weigh case and extinction probably outweighs

I seem to vote for Ks far more vs phil affs than vs policy affs

K affs need to do something but usually do not

I do not want to adjudicate personal survival strategies or callouts

T framework - fairness and clash/ research > skills/ movements

Things I shouldn’t have to say

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---Delineate and explain arguments and their implications throughout the debate

Cheating

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping 3+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article within the start/end of the card

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

Quick Notes:

- email chain: harrison.hall1999@gmail.com (use for additional questions after round)

- available for virtual coaching on weekends

- tech > truth generally, but I am fond of epistemology arguments

- fully extend unique impacts speech to speech

- restating taglines is not persuasive; extensions need to include interactive warrants

- this is a shared space so please make it accessible

- I need clash and comparative impact calc to stay awake

- jargon/buzzword spamming is not persuasive & mucks up the flow; signpost with intention

- evidence evaluation is very important to me; send out cut speech docs before speaking

Experience:

- 4 years of local & national LD for Centennial High School

- 3 years of policy for the University of Wyoming (executive authority, space policy, & alliances)

---LD AFF's---

1 Person Policy:

- fiat means that the advocacy of the aff is impervious to domestic political inherency for sake of comparative world construction; nothing more

- moderately high threshold for durable fiat; I need 1-2 warrants for it

- more than 30 seconds of frontlines designed to enable abuse are annoying & obvious; just prep the incoming shell and stop wasting 1AC time

- whole resolution please

- framing is optional but encouraged

- try not to write reverse engineered, impact oriented cases that epitomize security k links; you can still win on tech but I'll be a little bored

Traditional:

- framework should be reasons to prefer a method of evaluation for impacts and/or truth in the round, not just definitions

- definitions should have their own section to clarify ground (and function as interpretations for T)

- LD is a debate of philosophy (aesthetics, axiology, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, etc.), not just vaguely imperative morals; specify your prescribed philosophy to avoid ranting about subjective morality

- if you read an ends-based criterion/standard of any kind, YOU NEED SOLVENCY

- if reading a means-based criterion/standard, you do not need solvency; you also cannot access ends based impacts of any kind

Kritikal:

- discourse, performance, pedagogy, affect, proximity, etc. are all crucial; show me HOW within YOUR aff in THIS round

- if untopical, provide offensive reasons to ditch the resolution

- the more stable your advocacy is, the more stable my vote is; I hate shifty aff's

- please utilize these arguments with the intent to clash and learn more about the topic

Framework Heavy:

- I need at least 1 bit of substantive/contention level offense to weigh through the framework (link + impact); you can't win off of being endlessly theoretically correct

- unframed offense will be evaluated under util by default; make your framing obvious and consistent coming out of the constructive speeches

- epistemology operates above aesthetics, axiology, and moral evaluations in general until you tell me otherwise

- I interpret LD resolutions as truth testing and/or comparative world and enjoy that specific framework debate

- I evaluate competing frameworks under epistemic modesty, not confidence; the neg can weigh their DA's under aff framing, their own, or default util to save time

- stick to your lit; do not use obscurity as a strategy (ie buzzwordy & vague high theory) or I will punish you

---LD NEG's---

Traditional:

- line by line & strategic grouping are a must

- overviews are vital for traditional debaters; condense and collapse the debate to win on depth

- story telling is powerful in traditional debate assuming it isn't highly syllogistic or heavily reliant on pathos

- underviews are time wasters; further contextualize evidence in the rebuttals

- clearly separate the 1NC case from off-case arguments applied to the 1AC flow

DA's:

- do not read linear DA's, especially multiple

- 'DA turns case' is a swell argument, but absolutist rhetoric is sketchy; be specific when explaining the turn on the link and impact level

- high threshold for vague econ, heg, and privatization DA's ; provide recent and specific evidence

CP's:

- condo isn't inherently good or bad, so debate it

- process CP's are boring

- low threshold for PIC's good

- neg fiat must be frontlined in the 1NC; no private actor, no international, no multilateral

K's:

- not everyone is familiar with k's; please make the debate reasonably accessible for sake of clash

- one off k's NEED extensive framing; ROB's, theory, method etc.

- performative contradiction makes evaluating k's super uncomfortable, so please don't do that to me

- do not read multiple prior question/ a priori arguments; that's just backtracking the k and your offense

- the k should NOT operate as a linear DA with an easy to kick CP; provide solvency for your alternative or don't read a k

- links of omission are boring (high threshold)

- rejection alt's are boring (high threshold)

- PLEASE make presumption arguments if the aff functionally does nothing; I will vote for presumption over deontology in most debates

- THEORY TO PRAXIS; CRITIQUE IS A VERB

---GENERAL/RANDOM---

- DISCLOSURE IS GOOD FOR DEBATE and debate arguments

- I am comfortable evaluating policy, LD, and PF but prefer LD simply because framework is fun

- generic t/theory is not persuasive; keep it explicit if you need to utilize those arguments in a 45 minute LD round lol

- high threshold for RVI's; you need to prove that they provided no substance and wasted our time

- do not be condescending or you'll get a low point win

- do not call arguments or people ableist adjectives; your speaks will default to 27

- please default to gender neutral communication; unless your opponent doesn't like being referred to as a side or speaker position just call them those objective terms

- performative contradiction will affect speaker points, but it will only show up on the flow if the opponent impacts out the implications of the contradiction within the debate; subject positioning is crucial to these/all debates

- speed is # of arg's per minute, not words per minute

- if you spread analytics I want a doc (and so does your opponent)

- I'm a sucker for creative impact turns; do NOT impact turn forms of oppression (i.e. Nietzsche turns), but you can totally go the dedev/spark/extinction good/nuke war good route

- you will get dropped for creating a hostile environment; debate is a game, but that should NEVER normalize violence of any kind

- off time roadmaps only need to tell me the order of sheets to flow

- card/file manipulation will drastically affect overall truth threshold and speaks. CLIPPERS BEWARE

- essays with parenthetical citations are not debate cases and hurt my eyes; please utilize discretely cited evidence in the form of tagged cards

- all authors should ideally have qualifications written after the publication date in parenthesis

- please don't use news outlets as sources

- verbally deliver cards with tag, author, and date included

- using a verbal pause followed by "and" or "next" before reading a tag or transitioning in general is a good habit to form

- vague quotes at the top are a waste of time unless they are funny

- being super formal annoys me; just treat debate like the workspace

- I will evaluate any philosophy and sincerely attempt to remove personal biases BUT for the sake of transparency:

--philosophy I hate: Kant (all), Rand/egoism, vague/buzzwordy Baudrillard, Hegel, rule of law, constitutionality, social contract theory (all), trans exclusionary feminism, humanism, cosmopolitanism, minimum effort Rawls that is just colorblindness, state led communism, judeo-christian morality (all), psychoanalysis, and any Marx that dips into material realism

--philosophy I like: anti capitalist scholarship from the last 2 decades, anarchism that accounts for ableism, Beauvoir/existentialism, Braidotti, Butler, Deleuze ♥, Derrida, Escalante, Foucault, Habermas, Nietzsche other than oppression good crap, Puar, Eve Sedgwick (I love paranoid/reparative readings of the 1AC), schizoanalysis, utilitarianism (especially negative, go Karl!) and skepticism (trix 4 dayz)

- trix are fun but don't be mean or overly obnoxious about it

- I low key think that evidence from Rand Corp. and the Heritage Foundation is propaganda

- k debate should not be a 'race to left' with little to no technicality

- traditional debate should not be a 'race to the right' with little to no technicality

- not a fan of choreographed pathos in debate; save it for speech

- not a fan of bravado, condescension, passive aggression, tiny CEO syndrome, meme-ness or any other unprofessional dispositions normalized by debate

- I ultimately think that competitive debate is a black hole of diluted data bent to the egos of hyperconscious maniacs that specialize in sophistic threat construction, so showing off real world research and communication skills is the best way to generate ethos with me

- my goals as a judge are to:

1) attentively & objectively adjudicate

2) learn & teach via critical pedagogy

3) run the tournament smoothly

4) be paid fairly for my time & relevant experience

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Indiana University(IN),

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

-Brian Delong

-Jacob Bosley

-Adam Tomasi

-Jamie Davenport

-Matthew Bricker

-Alex Yoakum

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

General description of how I evaluate debates.

1] I exclusively debated policy (including topicality) and K in high school. I evaluate all arguments, which has a claim warrant and an impact in the first speech presented but the further you are from how I debated, the less comfortable that I am. I am best for policy v. policy, clash debates, good for T vs. policy K v Ks, ok for phil, meh for everything else.

2] I view debate through a lens of relative risk (magnitude of impact * probability of impact). Weighing arguments bring up the magnitude of an impact and are usually not preclusive filters. If you win that X outweighs Y, I will not evaluate the round on who has a stronger link to X but consider X to have a higher risk. This means that weighing arguments (K vs. theory, warming vs. nuke war, predictability vs. limits) all still need to put defense on the other impact. The exceptions are non-consequential Ks and phil frameworks.

3] This means that I strongly value well-warranted arguments. Risk starts from 0 and goes to 100 with how well you warrant it. A well-warranted, dropped argument has near 100 risk. Good evidence or historical examples bolster empirical debates such as K and Policy (although good evidence alone without spin wont help you). Well thought out logical syllogisms will help in phil debates (don’t require cards as much because of the abstract nature of these debates).

Specifics: All of below can be changed with good debating.

Policy—Not much to add here. I am somewhat worse for convoluted politics disads than other judges. Agnostic on whether I think agent counterplans, process counterplans, states are competitive. Tend to think competing off certainty and immediacy are illegitimate. Near impossible to convince me that international fiat is legit. Any advantage counterplan that doesn’t fiat negative action (US should not go to war) is legitimate. Object fiat is not a real thing. Judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality and unless the aff contests conditionality, I will judge kick.

Ks—Strongly dislike overuse of buzzwords. Bad for framework arguments that make it impossible for the aff to win. Good for links indexed to the plan with root cause, links turn aff arguments. Fiatted alternatives should lose to permutation double bind. Good for alternatives that have a framework argument and establish competing values from the aff. Bad for utopian alts that say that people should be “nicer to each other.” Good for any aff offensive strategy (extinction outweighs, link turn perm, da to the alt). Affs should mercilessly attack the alt. Terrible for Ks that ripoff Afropess when your cards don’t make an ontology claim.

K aff vs. Fwk—Personally think debate has value which is why I spent so long doing it. Good for K affs that re-define words and have a coherent counter-model. Worse for affs that impact turn everything (although I get why it’s strategic with LD’s short 2ARs). Great for fairness and clash. Bad for skills. Hard to convince me that fairness and clash aren’t impacts; can convince me other things matter more. Terrible for five second arguments that debaters treat as TKOs (ci: your interp plus our aff, truth-testing).

Theory—strongly dislike frivolous shells. Hard to convince me that all theory is DTD. Very persuaded by DTA and reasonability. Unwarranted 1AR shells that blow up in the 2AR are unbelievably bad. Think counterplans should be resolved at competition, not theory. Need argumentation for why an argument makes it harder to answer other layers of the debate; otherwise it’s a reason to drop that individual argument.

Phil—I like good warranted phil debates. My understanding is quite bad in these debates admittedly which means that extra judge instruction, warranting, and weighing is needed than if you debated in front of average east coast judge. Agnostic on epistemic modesty vs. epistemic confidence. Personally think nuclear war matters more than lying.

Extraneous thoughts:

Likes (will help speaker points)

Strong historical knowledge/examples

Tasteful snarkiness (see below)

2NRs off paper

Innovative strategies

Dislikes (will strongly hurt speaker points)

Scripted 2NRs and 2ARs

Unfunny/just rude snarkiness

Shiftiness

Shadiness about disclosure

Being rude to novices (don’t think you have to debate down whatsoever but don’t be rude)

Throwing a water bottle because you lost a round

New - NDT 24. Welcome to Atlanta!

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll recieve a loss along with the lowest points tabroom will allow me to asign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissable for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Hi. I did LD at Westwood High School for four years. Put me on the email chain - trumantle@gmail.com

Affiliations: Westwood ('19-'22), DebateDrills Club Team ('21-'22)

I've shortened this paradigm because it was very lengthy, but the full one from the 2021-2022 season can be found here.

TFA 2024 Update: I know nothing about the topic and nothing of the current debate meta. If you think there's a chance I don't know an acronym or I'm unfamiliar with a certain strategy, I strongly advise you to slow down for your sake.

Main things:

1] I am comfortable judging policy-style debates and T/theory debates, though the worse the shell gets, the more unhappy I am. I am comfortable judging phil and kritik debates if they don't get too advanced for my brain (pomo, Baudrillard, existentialism, etc.). I am not comfortable judging tricks debates, and though I will still evaluate those debates, I have great distaste in that debate and my threshold for answering those arguments is much lower than other arguments.

2] I agree with Rodrigo Paramo on evidence ethics and trigger warnings. Detailed specifics for ev ethics is below as well.

3] I think tricks args operate on a sliding scale; I think some tricks are worse than others. For example, calc indicts are fine whereas "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" is horrendous. Likewise I also think indexicals and tacit ballot conditional are horrendous arguments for debate. If you're not sure whether an argument is too tricky to read in front of me, err on the side of caution, or just email me pre-round.

4] I believe in open-source disclosure. I think most disclosure arguments that go beyond this are bad (contact info, round reports, actual tournament name, etc.).

5] I give speaks based on how far I believe your performance would get you at the tournament I'm judging at. I tend to average around a 28.5. Yes I will disclose speaks if requested.

6] I require much more explanation for arguments than you think I do. Many 2AR's that I've judged go for a 3-second argument in the 1AR that I did not catch/have an understanding for, and many 2NR's that I've judged blitz through overviews of the theory of power/philosophical position that I cannot keep up with. Either slow down or be clearer in explanations.

7] Slow down please, especially in online debates. You will not be happy with my RFD if I don't catch something because you're blitzing too fast.

8] I am extremely visually expressive. I know it's hard during online debate to see my face when you're reading through a doc, but you should almost always be able to tell if I like something/find something confusing.

9] I don't know anything about this topic. Err towards overexplaining and try not to use too many acronyms.

[Evidence Ethics]

I perceive the following to be cheating (or check Rodrigo's paradigm):

- Clipping

- Cards starting or ending in the middle of a paragraph, or leaving paragraphs out (yes this includes the "they continue" stuff

- Miscutting evidence

- Misrepresenting the date of evidence

I would much prefer debaters stake the round on evidence ethics claims. I will notice clipping without debaters pointing it out, though you should still do so to make it easier for me. If there is an evidence ethics violation, it will result in the offending debater getting an L 25. If there is not a violation, the accusing debater will get an L 25.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harker '21 - debated for 7 years in LD and Policy

email chain - 21akshaym@students.harker.org

Policy args > Ks >> Phil / Tricks

Policy args:

Vast majority of args I read in my career - i feel very comfortable evaluating these debates, go for it. love to see creative and well-researched strategies, which will be reflected in speaks

impact turns are some of my favorite debates - co2 ag, dedev, etc are all on the table, and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

politics probably a thing, but also probably can lose to smart analytics especially if your cards are bad. that said i'm a sucker for a good politics disad

i lean very heavily towards judge kick -- probably a really hard uphill battle for the aff to persuade me against that.

i'd be very hard pressed to vote on zero risk.

Theory

good for more stock theory args (mostly CP theory) than frivolous theory -- i am more receptive to reasonability and arbitrariness args against spec, new affs bad, etc. good for regular disclosure but not niche args like "round reports", etc

i prefer paragraph theory on the offending page (eg condo on a CP) then as a "new off"

i lean neg on most counterplan theory except for international fiat.

i find competition arguments against cheating counterplans more persuasive than theory arguments

default drop the arg (unless it's condo), competing interps, no rvis

i'll flow by ear for these debates so slow down

have warrants for your arguments beyond "vote aff for deterrence" or similar stuff

Ks:

better for these debates than you might think based on the arguments I read as a debater. I read through most literature bases during my time as a debater, and I feel comfortable evaluating these debates. 2nr link contextualization (e.g., drawing lines from 1ac/1ar evidence) factors heavily into my decision calculus.

Negs will do best by saliently dealing with the case -- either with robust link turns the case, alt solves the case, and unsustainability arguments, or with a *heavy* push on framework. the case page should make the 2nr. I find critiques of extinction impacts more persuasive than "structural violence outweighs". that said, i think most critiques have more compelling extinction impacts than a good deal of policy affs. i find aff ballots most persuasive when the negative underexplains the reasons behind their structural claims (especially regarding ontology arguments). equally debated, i think the aff generally gets access to the case, but specific framework evidence goes a long way for the negative (especially regarding epistemology claims). ROJ/ROB are silly/contrived mechanisms.

For the aff, I find 2ars on case outweighs or impact turns most compelling. impact turns are often underutilized. please explain perms -- "perm do both perm do the alt perm double bind" in one breath can be answered by a thumbs down from the neg. weighing is most important for me when judging this genre of debates.

between debaters of equal caliber, i think soft left affs would consistently lose to the critique. hard left/topical K affs (that assert a theory of power) seem extremely strategic to me *if* well-researched and germane to the topic.

line by line >>>> big overview

floating piks should be identified in the 1nc.

K affs:

Prefer affs that are within the parameters of the resolution. better for k affs that have a spin on the topic rather than impact turning every element of limits/debate. if you're negating, i mostly prefer arguments about skills or clash over fairness on framework. K affs probably get perms. the 2nr should cover the case. I think K v K debates can be incredibly interesting (and what I normally went for in these debates), but specific link and alt work by the negative is crucial.

Topicality

update: *not a good judge for nebel t - i very often vote affirmative in this debates*

probably lean towards competing interps. i'd prefer a substance debate to topicality but good T debates are enjoyable to watch and get good speaks.

i prefer topicality to be well developed in the 1nc, and I find many 2nrs to be almost completely new in explaining their standards. i dislike how prescripted these debates tend to be, especially with regards to nebel T -- I’ll lean against pre scripted nebel 2nrs and underdeveloped 1nc t arguments when pointed out by the aff.

Phil

i appreciate philosophical literature but find these debates to usually be exceedingly blippy or underwarranted -- not the judge for you if that's your style. i prefer ACs & NCs with evidence justifying the framework. slow down on dense or niche framework explanations. I did not read these arguments in high school but debated them a number of times.

Tricks

just read a disad please

"underview" of more than a minute caps your speaks at a 27. please debate the topic.

presumption always flips neg, unless the 2nr includes an advocacy.

Other things --

fine with inserting rehighlightings

i will definitely read your evidence. i'll reward good ev with good speaks, and punish bad ev with bad speaks. evidence quality caps your truth claims, even if they're dropped -- please reference ev quality in your speeches in general (this shouldn't substitute for explanation though). good topic knowledge is also good for speaks

smart analytics can beat bad cards

"independent voters" are usually not independent voters -- i am unlikely to vote for args flagged as such without a theoretical justification for doing so

dropped arguments are still influenced by how true they are -- e.g., dropping no neg arguments is not an issue. i won't be too interventionist/this is more aimed at tricks but dont prioritize lots of terrible blippy offcase or arguments in favor of a smaller more substantive strategy

good humor/sarcasm is very good for speaks

**Conflicts for TOC 24: Harvard Westlake, Scarsdale, Westridge TW, Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, San Mateo YR, Monta Vista KR, Los Altos AK, Amador Valley EM, Brophy TJ, Stanford OHS AY, Horace Greeley SG, Bellevue WL, Concord Carlisle FZ, St Agnes EH

**TOC Specific: if you're a senior and would not like to hear the RFD, just let me know!

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past two years/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

If you are going too fast for me to tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not. I will call clear and slow, please listen or we will all be sad.

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)

Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.

TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)

Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.

If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.

Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge

Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.

he/him, appleton east ‘19, wisconsin ‘23

matthewrmoorhead@gmail.com

wsdt update -

i am excited to judge your debates, please just do the following:

a. read my paradigm and please ask me questions if you have any - i would much rather be transparent than leave you with concerns over your strategy

b. share the evidence you will be reading to your opponent and myself before your speech starts - evidence quality matters and your opponents have a right to analyze the evidence you read

c. do impact calculus - rounds without good argument interaction require me to intervene which is always bad, the more work you do to write my decision for me = the better your decision will be

d. be nice, enjoy yourself, treat everyone with respect, and focus on improving every round instead - ballots aren't everything and you should take every round as a new opportunity to learn something new, take notes afterwards and ask questions about my decision if anything is unclear

paradigm proper -

1. tl;dr - not formally involved in debate anymore but judging is a privilege and i am plenty qualified to judge your round, i care about good debating and really nothing else, don't worry too much about tailoring towards my ideology from when i was a debater/coach

2. background - did ld and dabbled in policy at appleton east in wisconsin, i broke at the toc in 2019, led 3 summer labs, and have coached state champions and toc qualifiers - my main experience is with policy-style debate and kritiks, but i have extensive experience coaching, debating, and judging every style of debate at national and local levels

3. hard and fast rules - strike me if you don't disclose/flash your evidence or i will rigorously tank speaks, an arguments' risk starts at 0% and goes up based on the quality of it's warrant, evidence quality matters so i will read cards you reference in the 2nr/2ar, yes judge kicks but tell me to, won't vote for stuff i can't explain back to you which means winning arguments require a ballot implication, arguments that demonstrate your work put into debate are always better than cheap shots you grabbed from backfiles or had your coach explain to you pre-round

4. for high speaks - my avg range is 28.2-29.4, biggest boosts for ending the debate early/speeding things up and being casual/personable - have fun, make jokes, be technical, and write my rfd

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

Dulles '21

Stanford '25

Email Chain: abhinav2002sinha@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Abhinav! I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying and clearing at TOC (2x)/TFA (3x), 10 bids senior yr, won some tournies (Bronx, Harvard RR, Grapevine, Strake, etc). I mostly read T/Theory, Phil, and policy style arguments.

I’ll try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making. Although Tech>>over truth, I think a truer arg is easier to win

Quick Pref Sheet:

T/Theory- 1

Phil/Policy Args- 1/2

Trix- 2/3 (no blips please :(, cannot flow), also check trix section before reading

Ks- 3-5 (if you can explain it/be tech about it, I’m good)

Important Rules

- I'm bad at flowing soooo slow down for analytics like really slow down/OR JUST SEND (yes this is a rule like the be slow part)

- CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

- Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

- I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

- AD HOMS: I really really really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

- Be nice to novices and traditional debaters. I don’t like it when the debaters are just jerks to each other in CX. Prep can be CX not the other way.

- I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

-+.2 speaks per minute of speech not used

If you want to stop reading, you can stop here, everything below here is just argumentative preferences, but I thought it was useful to read what a judge thinks about various positions before preffing them, so read if you want.

More Info

Argument Defaults

- I default whats assumed in the round but if someone says x argument wasn’t made (i.e 2nr says no one said fairness is a voter, I will no longer default fairness as a voter)

- DTD, no RVI, CI, epistemic confidence, policy presumption cuz less arbitrary, theory>t>everything else, f+e voters, comparative worlds

Theory/T

- I love theory debate! A good theory debate is fun to judge and probably something I’m qualified to judge

-Flash interps/shells

-If paradigm issues arent contested I don't think you need to extend them.

-I got confused when judges would say I think x shell is “probably” true or not, I’ll vote on any shell thats won through the paradigm issues in the round. Bad shells obviously have true answers, so they are easier to beat back (font size theory, shoes theory, must label tournament name, etc.), but you still have to make the arguments to beat it.

-No new 2ar fairness/edu weighing

-Reasonability needs either a substance education bright line or something else-it’s probs true vs more friv shells, but again make the argument

Larp

- Did only policy debate my freshmen/sophomore yr and did quite a bit my senior year

- Spin>>evidence quality but good/bad evidence should be pointed out

-Smart analytics vs Pics/das/cps are all really important and can be collapsed to

-I probably wont read ev unless you tell me too, but you still have to do ev comparison

-Judge kick has to be justified

-I really like creative/well researched CP/DAs vs small affs

-PTX is fun, but have good cards or else you’re gonna lose to analytics

-Zero risk could be a thing

Phil

- Did lots of Phil debate, so I appreciate good ones

-Must weigh framework justifications in 1ar/2nr/2ar

-Familiar with most Phil lit, so read what you want but explain it.

-2nrs/2ars need to collapse

-NOTE TO UTIL VS PHIL DEBATES, to win extinction first you MUST win consequences matter or else I will be VERY hesitant to vote on it and phil debates must point out why consequences don’t matter. Ext o/w is a fine argument just win consequences matter and Phil debaters must beat consequences matter. Excluding consequences through syllogism>>calc indict

Ks

-I read/went for a couple of Ks my senior year, but please explain your K. Don’t try to win a round just because you don’t explain your position to your opponent

- LBL >>>>>> Long overviews

-Winning a theory of power or how the world works is important but you must explain how that applies to other flows.

-2nr NEED to explain links whether to plan (yay!) or not (boo!)

- I don't like doing work from overview to specific arguments, so do that work for me

-Aff/neg framework is usually hella important so both debaters need explain why winning their interp means they win/or why losing it doesn’t matter.

-T framework vs K affs: I think fairness 2nrs are great but skills 2nrs are also good, if you need to win a tva explain it, if not dont. As a non-t aff debaters I prefer creative answers and just pure impact turns(and flash analytics here cuz most people go way to fast for me to understand)

Tricks

- MUST EXTEND warrants for conceded arguments like for anything besides paradigm issues 1ars/2nrs/2ars need to extend warrants

- Do not like long underviews, plz don’t read super tricky affs, plz lol

- I like cool and innovative trix> recycled trix

- P/p is p important so explain it/how it functions in these rounds

- SLOWWW DOWN I CAN'T FLOW AGAIN(lol)

- I like cool logical trix >1 liner “no neg analytics”

- Don't be sketch in CX(like tell people apriori/implications)

Other Notes

- Yell clear twice before stopping to flow

- Feel free to ask me any questions before round!

-be funny and you’ll get higher speaks

Speak scale- based on in-round performance.

29.5+: expect you to win the tournament/really good speech

29-29.5: expect you to get to late outrounds

28.5-28.9: bubble/expect you to break/early elims

28-28.5: don't expect you to break

27.5-28: really don't expect you to break

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021

Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

--- LD ---

While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.

Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:

1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).

2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."

3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.

4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.

5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.

6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD) and just recently graduated with a Business degree from UT-Austin. I currently work at a FinTech firm as a Business Analyst and do part-time independent coaching. I coach, judge, and research a decent amount so I can follow-on substantive topic jargon but don't be overly aggressive with acronyms.

TOC Conflicts - Actively coaching Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, Westridge TW, San Mateo YR. Conflicted with St Agnes EH, Westlake MR, Strake JW, and Strake NW.

email - elmeryang00@gmail.com

This paradigm has been changed to reflect the most important aspects of my judging. When I was a younger judge/coach in the community, I used to have pretty heavy predispositions and annoyances. Now, I care most about you performing your best regardless of style. Everyone has spent so much time on this activity and it would be a disservice to not see you at your best due to my dispositions. The only true thing that annoys me when judging is avoidance of clash. If you chose to introduce an argument for me to listen to, I expect that you know it and are prepared to rigorously defend it through an attack from multiple angles. If you introduce an argument that is so obviously put with no thought and meant to just be hidden and dropped (yes this is most but not all of modern day Tricks debate, but also reflective of incomplete DA's, T shells w/o cards or offense, and 3 second Condo Shells), I will be sad and annoyed that you did not care enough to produce your best. Whether you are reading a K-Aff about Clowns, the Arrow's Paradox, or the Politics DA, I just want to see that you care and you've put thought into your craft. Debate is so much easier to judge if you as debaters look and feel like you're enjoying it and I will enjoy judging you.

That said, I do have argument styles I'm more familiar with. I work mostly with K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, and K v Policy debates. I occasionally work with light Phil (mostly just Kant and Pragmatism) and almost entirely in Phil v K debates. I very rarely work with or encounter Theory and Tricks debate. I have no predispositions towards arguments, but the less experience I have with them, walk me through your claim, warrant, and ballot or else I will mostly likely evaluate the debate in a way that you would not expect or like like.

Things that increase likelihood of high speaks (and also winning):

1] Clarity - I've judged both fast, clear debaters and slow, clear debaters. I have no issue with speed but I do have issue if you're going faster than I can flow or process.

2] Strategy - showcase that you've come prepared OR make tactical moves on the fly in the middle of the round.

3] Innovation - I've been judging for a while so a lot of debates tend to be reduxes of debates I've judged in the past. Introducing new args or making new spin on args I've heard before often impresses me.

4] Vision - demonstrate that you are able to see the round from a multi-layer and dimension perspective. If you can connect the dots between args on different flows and comparatively weigh them, that will go a long way for speaks and the ballot.

5] Packaging - 90% of the time, the thing that distinguishes a winning arg from a good arg is how you frame and phrase it. Explaining complex args simply is an art and being able to explain why it matters is extremely important in any round.

Lastly:

1] Absent a Perm or Theory, my RFD in a Process CP or CP/DA debate will be "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve that question.

2] Do Impact COMPARISON not Impact Weighing. I can intuitively understand why your Impact is bad, why is it worse than your opponents. In a debate style with so little time, you need to invest a significant chunk of it on resolving arguments.

3] Topicality arguments need cards to compose of real arguments. I would prefer if they defined the words in the resolution but if you give me a master class on grammar principles, I will be impressed.

4] K debates now are super Framework heavy and there's only been once that I've decided the Neg has won Framework but lost the debate. However, I wish they were heavier on the Link. Ontology is a thing but it usually is not a thing that can be resolved by the Alt or worsened by the Aff. The worse your link, the higher burden it puts on the Alt (and the inverse of that is true). Good link debating is the most important part of any K v Policy or K v K debate.