Last Update: January 7, 2022

I competed in various forms of debate for five years on the college level however, I primarily competed in NPDA and LD Debate. I competed for Moorpark College (more traditional debate) and Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley (Nat circuit tech debate). At the 2021 NPDA I got to Semis and NPTE I got fifth in season-long rankings and fifth at the NPTE itself. I am ecstatic to see the future generation of debaters compete as a judge with that being said let’s get onto my judging philosophy which is probably the only thing you care about and are reading this for.

TLDR: As the great, powerful, wise debater Brian Yang once said "Go Nuts!" to be a bit more specific my paradigm is heavily influenced by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Tom Kadie, Jessica Jung, and Ryan Rashid so I would expect paradigm similar to them. In order of probably what I am probably best/most experienced judging Theory/Tricks/Larp/K 1, Phil 2 (just not as experienced although I did debate it a bit and learned from Phil debaters so I understand it and can judge it pretty competently) (Advice: For Parli Paradigm questions look to sections 1-4 for evidence debate gloss over section 1 real quick only a few things there matter then look to sections 2-5, for extra salt, info, and general advice include 6,7) bold/highlighted text is generally the more important stuff I would recommend looking at though the rest of it provides a lot of context and stuff so I would read everything there will in fact be a pop quiz... jkjkjkjkjk.... unless........

Table of Contents:

1. General Philosophy

2. Case Debate

3. Theory

4. Kritiks

5. Evidence Debate Specific

6. Contact Info

7. Uniqueness Rant... (no need to look to with regards to paradigm questions just tired of giving the same feedback lol)

My current views for debate, in general, are as follows:

1. General Philosophy:

A) Tech over Truth: Wtf is "Truth" honestly the fact that you vote on the flow shouldn't be an opinion you have it should be a requirement otherwise what is the point of having a judge other than to have some rando arbitrarily and most likely with prejudice decide on random claims it doesn't seem like a very fun event in that world but rather idk an event coated by some serious paternalism coded by all sorts of isms? I know I have def been screwed over before by judges that thought something was "true/untrue" when they were just wrong and describing something I did entire research papers on being like okkkk buddy...
B) Partner communication: I only flow what the recognized speaker says unless you have some sort of framework, performance, or theory justification that is won. Communicate as much or little as you want you do you.

C) Protecting the flow: I do try to protect the flow to the best of my ability. However, I would still recommend calling points of orders just in case I miss something.

D) Things that make me unhappy :( I reserve the right to drop anyone for being bigoted will cause me to drop the team given the real-world implications and harm that it creates.

E) Speaks: I have decided that speaks are probably disablist, sexist, racist, etc. particularly in debate events and as such I will give each team the highest possible speaks be it block 30s and 29.9 or descending by whatever the tournament allows. The exception is if your racist, sexist, antisemitic, disablist, transphobic, homophobic, or any of the phobics or antis or isms (come close to breaking this rule a couple of times although I haven't had to yet...). If I can’t give block scores I will give the winners higher speaks and the losers the lower ones descending.

F) Views on spreading: You do you I can flow. My partner Will White was probably one of the fastest debaters when going max speed so it's highly unlikely you can spread me out as Will could hit like 450WPM without cards and I could flow.

G) Shadow Extensions: I believe Shadow Extensions are new arguments. (A shadow extension is an argument dropped during the member speeches that magically reappears in the rebuttal speeches)

H) Extensions:

I. When extending an argument should it be untouched I am okay with a simple extend _____ there is no need to reexplain as long as your arguments related will not be new and only weighing in the rebuttal speeches. However, if you are planning to leverage it against another argument on the flow you need to explain how it applies.

II. If you are kicking something you do need to say "kick this" or "extend their we meet" or whatever "we're not going for it"

III. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE EXTEND YOUR VOTERS ON THEORY.

I) Cross-Applications in Rebuttals: I believe that cross applications through other sheets of paper are new arguments. For example, if you make an argument on theory and then in the rebuttal speeches apply it to case or K when it is only on theory in the flow and you don't say it applies to case or K that would be a new argument.

J) Words that you say when other people are speaking for lack of a better term: Slow and speed mean to slow down, Clear means to talk clearer not necessarily to slow down, Text means to pass the text, signpost means to say where you're at on the flow.

K) Written copies) Please give me written/typed copies of your advocacies/ROJ/ROB/Interps/counterinterps in case I miss something important. What you write down is the interp is what I will follow unless contested and told to do otherwise. I may ask for clarification after the speech and before the next speech before time starts for the exact wording.

L) Weighing) Absent weighing done for me by the debaters I default to Strength of link>magnitude>probability>timeframe.

2. Case Debate:

A) Affirmative:

I. Policy:

a. Have a plan text and preferably advantages. Other than that it is pretty much up to you and your opponent. I do enjoy a good Heg, econ, and Uniqueness solves the case debate for Tix if you can't think of anything...

b. Advantages: Preferably in the formats of Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, then Impacts or Uniqueness, Links, Impacts. Make sure your uniqueness is going in the right direction, explain your links, and terminalize your impacts. I would love it if you would give me clear links not just plan passes and war, explain how you get to war. Don’t just say death and expect me to do the work for you. If you say gut check as a wise man once told me “I will gut check everything and you may not like that.”

II. Value: Should have a criteria and contentions. You don't need a Value Criteria in addition to your regular one but if you want to provide one strategically that is up to you. Preferably for both Contentions and Countercontentions on the Negative, the structure I usually ran was H.I.S. (Harms, Impact, Solvency) with harms being the harms of the opposing value, Impacts being the impacts of that, and Solvency being the solvency for using your value but I understand there are many different structures and not every value round is capable of having that clear of a structure so how you run it is up to you.

III. Fact: You should have a criteria and contentions. Your contentions should preferably have impacts and not just be statements otherwise it is very hard to weigh the debate.

B) Negative:

I. DAs: refer to section 2.a.I.b. on advantages.

II. Counterplans: some of my favorite debates are plan CP debates having originally been coached by one of the “inventors” of the CP. I’ll vote on any type of perm textual, functional, one with net benefits, severance, intrinsic, timeline, etc. if it’s won. I default to perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. Also going for Severance and going for your aff is not a double turn just two independent win conditions unless the opposing team makes/wins an arg that it is. If a perm hasn't been argued as either a test of competition or advocacy come the 2AR my default is locked and I will consider it a test of competition and any argument as to the contrary as new.

III. Presumption: I default to presumption flows Neg unless the neg runs an advocacy/Alt/CP in which case it flips AFF absent a framework argument that is argued that it is negative. If you’re condo and kick it I default to it flips back to the neg but am open to arguments that it stays aff. Side note: I default permissibility affirms

IV: Offense V Defense: if you clearly articulate how it is terminal defense and presumption is still negative ground I will vote on it. Generally, I vote along a very heavy offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

V: Condo V Uncondo: Default to all plans are condo unless the status is asked and they say not condo. IDC how you run it up to you. Also like the great Amanda Miskell says “Dispo is just Condo in a suit” jkjkjkjk even though it isn't tbh most of the same standards level offense will be triggered on a theory position maybe you get some additional education offense depending on conditions but it seems minimal to me but meh whatever you do you. I don't care one way or another on condo will vote on condo bad (if won) as much as I will vote for infinite condo good (if won) fun math proof for infinite condo here ( I don't think it's fully accurate but its def fun/funny lol): https://debatedrills.com/en/blog/defense-infinite-conditionality/ .

VI: Judge Kick: I don't default to judge kicking the CP but if you win that I should judge kick that's fine. I also think that responses to judge kicking coming out of the PMR in response to new MO framing should be to drop the argument not drop the debater.

3. Theory:

A) Structure: It should preferably have an Interp, Violation, Standards, and Voters. Unless it is an IVI, RVI, paragraph theory all of which I will vote for.

I. Interpretation:

a. No preference for or against any type of Theory run whatever you and friv theory = FUN. Condo bad, no neg fiat, Ks Bad, AFC, Spec, Topicality, Trichot, tropicality, neg gets to split the block, etc. (although I will likely be heavily biased against theory that calls out someone's personal appearance and/or the way they dress... to the point I most likely will intervene and not vote for it but I haven't fully decided on that yet)

II. Violation: probably should clearly articulate the violation even if so blatantly obvious and not just they violate but it can be quick if it’s very clear like if you run F-Spec, just say “they didn’t specify the funding mechanism in the PMC” or something like that.

III. Standards:

a. Your standards should provide clear links to each voter that they work in conjunction with Fairness, Education and/or accessibility and work as reasons to prefer your theory sheet. Ideally, they should be contextualized to the round/interp rather than just general descriptions of the standard.

IV: Voters

a. To vote on theory I need clear explained voters don’t just say Apriori, fairness, and education and expect me to vote on them you need to terminalize those voters and what they mean. For example, with education you could say that education is the reason debate exists and without education, nobody would do debate and it collapses or for fairness say that if the round is unfair we cant evaluate arguments to tell if they're true. Or on fairness, we cant test their arguments/methods/ it skews eval etc.

b. For theory, I have no preference for reasonability vs. competing interpretations and will vote on how you tell me to vote. though I will say I have no idea what reasonability means until you provide some sort of bright line like winning all the Counterstandards and standards or something I dunno your argument you figure out what it will be and without a brightline, I just go back to competing interps

c. I default to drop the team, competing interps, no RVIs, Fairness>education (tho ig it would depend on the impact justifications under this model I am assuming skews eval/truth testing as your fairness impact), Text>Spirit, Pragmatics>Semantics.

d. Abuse: I default to potential abuse is sufficient as CInterps would cause me to evaluate under a risk of offense paradigm comparing the two interps not necessarily what happened in a given round. Unless a very good argument for articulated abuse is given most likely with some sort of reasonability framework being won.

e. A “we meet” that is won is a no link to a theory shell even under competing interpretations unless argued otherwise and very clearly won in the debate. While you can weigh the risk of offense on some level of the we meet if they only meet part of your interp i.e. they don't fully violate like a no link on one of the potential scenarios on a DA. To achieve terminal defense the we meet would likely have to fully meet the interp, some framing claim as to why a partial meeting is sufficient to not evaluate the sheet, and/or the we meet is generated via an interp flaw which means they can't solve their offense given they wrote they're interp bad allowing you to meet.

B) IVIs/RVIs/paragraph theory/Kritikal Turns: I will vote on them if you win them and have clear links and reasons why I should vote on them, tell me how to vote on them and framing/sequencing. I will vote on an RVI but I probably have a slight bias against them. I default to no RVIs but if you win the RVI framing I will vote on it. Also, this is something I have noticed in parli it seems what an RVI is has gotten lost in translation from Nat Circuit LD to Parli, the way I understand it is how it is understood in nat circuit LD i.e. it is a framing claim with regards question of the directionality of offense if you win that something is an RVI you win that offense is Bidirectional, not Unidirectional as under a no RVI theory on framework so saying we get an RVI is sufficient to get an RVI but not sufficient to win an RVI as to win an RVI begs the question of whether you won the theory sheet in itself (when judges vote for bidirectional offense on a K they are voting for an RVI shhhh... don't tell them), if you do and you win you get an RVI and that theory is the highest layer you would then trigger a win condition most likely. The way they've become translated for the most part in parli is just IVIs saying theory is bad not RVIs.

4. Kritiks: Run whatever you want (yes, I know that these examples don't fit cleanly into each category and can fit into several just giving examples) be it more sociological like Cap, Set Col, antiBlackness, Psychoanalysis like Lacan (sidenote: Nietzsche Stan so like the implications of that are generally not the biggest Lacan/psychoanalysis fan in general though I will vote for it just not enjoy myself), or POMO like Nietzsche, Baudrillard, DNG, "eastern" philosophy (probably my fave tbh) like Taoism or Buddhism, your Deont 1AC/NC, and ofc your nailbomb 1AC, IDC I vote on the flow. Don't assume I know your lit even though I know a pretty big lit base and so your K should be clearly explained preferably. As for literature that I am particularly familiar with I mostly ran Nietzsche, Buddhism, Disablism, Anthro, Cap/Racial Cap, Set Col, and Orientalism. However, I am heavily biased against nazi literature please don't run it like Schmitt or Heidegger because ya know... I had family subjected to the Holocaust... K-Affs are fun I def ran them a lot but I probably err slightly towards FWT maybe 55/45 should the best arguments be made although (the best args are rarely/almost never made) so I actually end up voting at about 50/50 or edging slightly in favor of K-AFFs.

II Framework:

A. ROB/ROJ: I think that both are really just thesis claims for your framework and in themselves not necessarily arguments. i.e. a role of the justification for existence absent framework arguments and no function as to what it means and should you make an argument about framework regardless of whether you say the role Role of the ballot/Judge is ___ the function of how I evaluate the round stays the same so in the end whether you say an explicit role of the ballot text or not the end result is the same, therefore it follows that a ROB/J cannot be more than a thesis claim because it doesn't change the outcome of the round by default absent some sort of internal justification but then that begs what it means via the framework arguments rendering the whole thing circular leading back to the same place that it is in fact a thesis claim.

B. Framing: Your framework should preferably offer some explanation on how impacts should be evaluated in relation to other impacts and what should type of evaluation comes first, what methods ought be prioritized etc.

C. I default to epistemic modesty over confidence on frameouts and impact defense. That means without any in-depth explanation, I'll evaluate your frameout as a reason why your impacts are more probable than your opponents, and why your opponents have a lower probability of solving their impacts. If you want me to evaluate your frameout as terminal defense, or a reason the k is sequentially a prior question to the aff, you need to do the technical extensions of why that is necessarily the case. I also default to epistemic modesty when it comes to impact defense that means absent an explicit argument as to why that defense is terminal I will only evaluate it as mitigatory. When it comes to epistemic skew claims I functionally default to confidence as I believe they create new layers within the debate. Finally, stating that X is terminal defense if the claim is uncontested will cause me with regards to that particular impact to view that as terminal defense regardless of whether it is coherent as the implication will not have been contested however, if something is not explicitly stated to be terminal defense and there is not an explicit claim saying it is such or flipping my paradigm then I will view any defense as mitigatory as described.

C. MISC.

1. Will vote on Skep triggers if they are terminalized and explained and I think tricks belong in parli but IG that's up for debate tho.

2. I default to theory is Apriori however, I will vote on K before T if the argument is made/won. Or they are on the same level if arg is made/won.

3. I have no idea what "vote for the best/better debater" means.

4. Not as experienced with Phil tho I do enjoy it and have def learned a lot from former Phil debaters and understand a decent amount of it.

5. Role of the ballots/Judges are really just thesis claims for framework arguments imo from what I have seen though i.g. if you want it to be more binding then that you need to probably make that argument although I will probably all things being equal be more receptive to the claim that its a thesis claim.

III. Impacts:

a. Have them and terminalize them. As stated above don't just say nuclear war or poverty and expect me to do the work for you.

b. full disclosure I probably find the proximal impacts bad for debate highly persuasive. Not to say that I won't vote for proximal impacts if they're won on the flow (I def ran them occasionally when I did debate) and that you've won that they're good but due to personal experiences and the ways I have seen them utilized I have a bias against them. I also think there's a distinction between proximal impacts that occurred in the debate round i.e. someone did something violent in which case I think those proximal impacts are probably persuasive versus proximal impacts brought into the round that your advocacy or alt solves for you or other debaters in-round which is where I find my bias against proximal impacts probably comes in.

IV Alt/Advocacy:

a. Preferably have one and tell me which way I should vote unless its part of your FW, solvency, performance, or something I guess that you don't need one.

b. If it has a really complex idea and philosophy explain what the terms mean either under your alt/advocacy or in your solvency ideally.

V Solvency:

a. You should have it and clearly explain how it solves the impacts you have provided at a minimum. Don't just say we solve you should state the mechanism and way in which you solve.

VI: Perm: Refer to 2, B), II. the perm section under counter plans.

5. Evidence Debate specific:

A) Carded evidence: it is very important for Evidence debate but you must also make arguments not just cite sources. Analytics theoretically can beat cited cards if you do the better debating. Also please don’t get into your source is bad arguments unless they cite the most biased source like Breitbart (obviously evidence comparison is encouraged though) I more so mean the "wahhhh no u, debates) for the evidence chain please send to Joshua.alpert (AT) berkeley.edu

B) Power-tagging/cutting: don't... Please Don’t... I’m very probably pretty receptive to some sort of theory shell against it if it is won... please don’t lose it if you do run it or I will be sad. A drop the argument claim made by the team calling it out at the very least probably has a good chance of winning in front of me.

C) No clipping!!! this shouldn't have to be said but apparently, it does.

6. If you have any further questions feel free to ask me before or after the round or if you have questions about a round I judged feel free to email me or send me a Facebook message.

7. My Uniqueness rant.... feels like half the time I am judging HS rounds with two linear impacts pitted against each other and like some rough uniqueness so I am gonna put a RQ rant on how uniqueness works so I don't have to keep repeating myself

a. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link: I.e. if the uniqueness is headed in one direction things bad the link should be things get better or vice versa on a DA. This means that thumpers/uniqueness overwhelms the links arguments aren't particularly responsive more so mitigatory as there is still only a risk things get worse as such in order to really control the link debate its ideal you control the uniqueness debate as well. (side note: generally case turns also need uniqueness too otherwise they're pretty linear which makes it easier for the opposing team to handwave away with "try or die".

b. Uniqueness positive v negative v flux: Uniqueness in terms of directionality follows one of three types Positive v. negative v flux Positive uniqueness indicates the squo is headed in the right direction (squo good) this is the uniqueness you generally want on a DA, negative would indicate the squo is bad and is what you want on an advantage, and in flux would indicate that it could head either direction it is dependent on a "singular action" it can go in either an AD or DA and generally, requires strong control of the Link/Internal Link debate while strategic in some instances it is generally high-risk high reward.

c. Predictive v Descriptive Uniqueness: Uniqueness can either be predictive or descriptive what I mean is uniqueness can either state what is happening "right now" or in the "past" (descriptive) or it can be predictive describing what is expected to happen in the future look to an econ debate descriptive uniqueness would state that unemployment is at an all-time high with X unemployment and the investor confidence is low at ___ versus predictive would be unemployment is expected to drop ____ because of ___ and investor confidence is headed towards a free fall as X bubble bursts.

d. Uniqueness as a spot for internal links: uniqueness can be used as a spot to place internal links instead of having separate internal links sections you can embed that X type of thing is the internal link i.e. you can have a section that says soft power is the internal link to Heg or investor confidence key to Heg to save you some time from having to flesh out a whole separate internal link section.

e. Brink Scenarios: Please for the love of god have brink and/or flashpoint scenarios in your uniqueness i.e. some event or location that is heading in the wrong/right direction think if you have a war with Russia scenario isolate someplace like the Baltics, arctic, cyberspace, etc. rather than some vague place and isolate why now is key and what is going to happen if we don't do this otherwise it kind of makes your uniqueness linear and a nightmare to evaluate and of course to leverage tbh.

F: Non-Case debate

I K's: The alternative generates uniqueness in a K debate: i.e. all the framing, links, and impacts are generally nonunique until you have created a way to solve them via your advocacy/alt.

II: Theory: Your interp/counterinterp is what generates your uniqueness in a case debate in a similar fashion to how the alt does as you have established an "advocacy/rule" for an interpretation of how debate should functions in order to resolve impacts isolated in the same way that if the alt on a K has terminal defense to resolving its offense making it nonunique and thus not a reason to vote against the AFF it means that should an interp have terminal defense on it it is not a reason to vote down the opposing team as its offense can't be resolved, it also means that absent a counterinterp you don't meet or a we meet/interp flaw that even if you have offense of why the interp is bad you have no way to resolve that offense so the interp is automatically preferable (unless you've impact turned/framed it out ofc).

e. Example/outline:
Advantage Heg:
uniqueness:
1. heg is low right now because ___ (this should be related to the type of power on uniqueness 2 and the location on 3 otherwise you will thump your own offense)
2. __ type of Power is key to Heg
3. ___ Flashpoint is Key to ___ type of power and something bad is happening there rn

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

Ryan Corso, He/Him/His

Ph.D. Student, Graduate Assistant at Wayne State University

Email: ryancorsogonzales@gmail.com

Updated Fall 2023

About me

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California and a one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji Lange and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville; I was previously the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, where I coached LD, Parli, IPDA, and Speech. I'm now a Ph.D. Student my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Neoliberalism, Assemblages, and Post-Dialectics. I am a Graduate Assistant Debate Coach at Wayne State coaching NEDA and Policy. I have competed in Parli, LD, and IPDA. I am comfortable with policy, speed, kritiks, and theory.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow-centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, or fascists args tho) just be prepared to justify your actions and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran every policy arg in the book, just as much as I ran Kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links, and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple world's paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Theory:

Theory should consist of a clear interp, and a unique violation (that explains the operative nature of that specific interp), standards that frame the offense and impacts. I don't default to theory being A Priori anymore and will evaluate it under either DTD or DTA, you tell me. RVI's are always illegitimate.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link for me to even consider voting for it. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities. I view speaker points as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. I give speaker points based on the idea "Whoever did the best debating".

Final notes:

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. ex: religion based kritiks

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person. This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will for an in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible.

*DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Good Luck, Have Fun!

My views about debate have changed fairly radically since the end of the 2019/2020 season. I will give a detailed explanation of these changes here, but if you want a TLDR dos and don'ts list, I’ll put that at the end of my philosophy as well.

Accessibility note: I suffer from carpal tunnel. This means that on a good day, flowing high speed rounds involves minor but mostly not distracting discomfort. On a bad day, this means flowing high speed rounds is exceptionally painful to the point that the pain absolutely acts as a distraction from the round and significantly slows my flowing speed. If I am having a bad day, I will let you know before the round and I seriously and sincerely ask that you consider accessibility concerns and slow down in that round or if you are cleared by me. I will not vote on arguments I could not get on my flow as a result of debater disregard for accessibility.

Overview: My position for years has been that NPDA debate should be a technical exercise in which the content of an argument is largely insignificant. I have generally been of the opinion that the role of a judge is to bracket out their own views and preferences and to vote based on the technical execution of a strategy regardless of the pedagogical or ethical validity of said strategy. I no longer believe this, and I am adapting my judging paradigm accordingly.

I believe that NPDA debate is a unique format that has many benefits which cannot be derived from other forms of debate, and I believe the preservation of NPDA as an event should be a central goal for all participants in the activity. NPDA provides scholarship opportunities, travel opportunities, and intensive pedagogical development that many students might not otherwise have access to. Debate is not just a hobby we participate in on the weekends, it is a gateway into academia, politics, and a longstanding community.

My concern is that I believe the proliferation of certain pedagogically vacuous trends within NPDA constitute an existential threat to the continued existence of the event, and I feel personally that being a responsible judge with a commitment to the activity and community means no longer facilitating the spread of these trends. My philosophy has changed in order to account for this shifting understanding of what it means to be a good judge.

Theory: Theory has become my main site of concern in terms of proliferation of vacuous strategies. I vote on theory a lot, based on my judging record, and that will probably not change, but there are certain theoretical arguments I am fundamentally opposed to and will not vote on.

1. I will not under any circumstance vote for NIBs (Necessary but Insufficient Burdens) read by affirmative teams.

2. I will not vote on specification arguments which demands specification for anything other than funding, enforcement, and actor.

3. I will not vote on theory positions with a violation derived from the formal behavior of competitors in the round (as opposed to violations derived from the argument choice of competitors). What I mean by this is theory such as “The affirmative must read their plan within X amount of time” or “The negative must take at least X questions during flex” or “The affirmative must pass us a copy of their plan text”

4. I will not vote on disclosure theory or any theory with a violation which occurs outside of round.

5. You should not include more than 2 new theory sheets (defined as independent interpretations and violations) in any constructive speech.

Theory should indeed be about establishing ideal debate norms through a competing interpretations framework as opposed to being about correcting in round abuse, but there is a limit to the scope of what we can consider legitimate norm setting. I will still be evaluating theory under that paradigm, but parli has clearly passed this threshold to the point that particularly inane instances of theoretical debate has become particularly harmful to the pedagogical value of the activity.

Criticisms:

I believe that critical debate is highly valuable and when well executed can offer some of the most interesting rounds in debate. My stance here remains largely unchanged. This is the type of debate I have judged the most of, and it is the literature base I am most familiar with.

It is, however, important to me that your criticism makes sense. I won't vote on a criticism that I fundamentally cannot understand, and even if you win the formal and technical components of a criticism, if I cannot explain in non-technical terms to the other team why your criticism wins, I’m not going to be comfortable voting for this. Basically this means that your criticism should have a core thesis summarizing the central components of your argument. This also means that your links should be contextualized to the other team in such a way that it is clear how their rhetoric, ontology, epistemology, etc in particular reproduces the impacts that you isolate.

Non-Topical Affirmatives:

I think that it is best for the affirmative to be topical unless the topic is flawed to such a degree that the affirmative is at a thorough disadvantage. That said, I am not so strongly committed to this that I am unwilling to vote for non-topical affirmatives. If you want to read non-topical affirmatives in front of me, you should have a clear reason why you ought to be exempted from upholding the topic.

Counterplans/Advocacy Status:

There are no forms of counterplans that I have an a priori opposition to beyond delay counterplans (which you should not read in front of any judge). I believe that conditionality is important for the negative flexibility and encourages more dynamic negative strategies. That said, I do not believe that an unlimited amount of conditional advocacies is a tenable norm for debate. As such, teams should not read more than two conditional advocacies in front of me. To make this concrete, you may read 2 counterplans/alternatives as a part of your LOC, but I believe the MO should always still have the option to kick both and defend the status quo.

Tech VS Truth:

I previously held that only the technical dimensions of debate mattered, and I was fairly antagonistic towards arguments in round that truth ought to be weighed over and against technical debate. I no longer hold this position to be true.

Technical debate can be utilized as a way of beating down teams in a manner which reproduces various forms of social violence and marginalization. For example, I have seen and voted for utterly vacuous critiques that were read as a means of dodging a grounded discussion of anti-black violence in debate purely on the basis that these criticisms won on small technical concessions and extensions despite offering no read pedagogical value to the debate round.

I’m not going to be auto-dropping all arguments I see as vacuous, because that would be utterly subjective and unpredictable in a way that is not fair to competitors, but I am significantly more open to tech vs truth arguments that claim that the use of technical debate can be an instance of violence in round, and I am much more willing to consider claims that flow centric debate ought to be de-emphasized, either in a specific round or as a broader norm.

Summation: I think this has hit on the major changes to my judging philosophy and the bright lines that I have drawn and am willing to enforce. I know these bright lines will make me a worse judge in the eyes of many competitors, but I also believe many competitors have a short sighted view regarding the future of NPDA and that some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary.

TLDR Dos and Dont’s

1. Don’t read NIBs

2. Don’t read spec besides A, F, or E spec

3. Don’t read disclosure or out of round abuse theory

4. Don’t read theory about the conduct of debaters as opposed to their arguments

5. Don’t read more that two conditional advocacies in the LOC

6. Don’t read more than two theory sheets in any constructive speech

7. Do make arguments about why truth ought to be weighed over tech if technical debate is being used as a form of violence

8. Do slow down if I ask, it's a disability thing. I will not vote on arguments I could not get on my flow as a result of debater disregard for accessibility.

9. Do include a clear thesis in your criticisms and make your links contextual

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Things I believe: Debate is methodological, debating is a method. Arguments are epistemological. Arguments, situated in the context of debates, justify an ontology. What this means for winning my ballot: I expect a good debate to justify the method is uses to find the truth and identify how the truth should be evaluated. Arguments are our tools for "knowing". Debate is our tool for comparing "what we know" to find a truth.

Also, your evidence should be high quality. Your evidence should have a clear warrant that relies on more than a strong assertion. If you could make the same argument on a wordpress you should find better evidence. If you cut evidence from a lit review I'll be disappointed. If you misrepresent evidence I'll be disappointed. If you compete in an evidence based event your use of evidence should justify your "research skills" framework argument. 

My email for the email chain: maxgroznik@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with questions. 

Opinions about arguments:

Evidence: Please use good evidence practices. Don't misrepresent your evidence. Quality > Quantity. More contextualization > more cards. Evidence exists outside of the vacuum of the card.

The Affirmative: Affirmatives should defend a strong reason to vote aff. Debate as a method relies on the affirmative defending a topical plan and the negative responding to the affirmative. Therefore, if the affirmative departs from this method they should have a strong methodological and axiological justification. Methods need to be improved and the aff should defend a methodological perspective that allows for the best method. In other words: defend something and I'll vote for it. Any aff you read is an aff I'll listen to. 

The Negative: The negative gets to defend the status quo - this is a methodological and material moment. The negative will always get to defend either the state of debate's methodology or the state of the world. This means a few things for other arguments.

Framework: Reading framework on the negative relies on the neg winning a methodological argument - debate is always as fair as it is. I care about why a model of debate changes or results in a more or less desirable relationship to methodology, axiology, epistemology, and ontology. The way fairness, education, etc. manifests effects this but does not de facto implicate this.

Counterplans: Yes, please. Smart, well researched counterplans are something that makes me happy. 

DA's: Yes, please. Strength and specificity of link are my key evaluative component.

Topicality: Clever, well justified theory arguments make me happy. Standards debates should move beyond your blocks. My threshold for theory debates is high: this works for and against you. I will reward you for a well executed theory collapse and look poorly on a sloppy response. Vice Versa.

The K: Strong specific links and a well contextualized K has consistently made for some of the best debates I've ever seen. Similar to the DA, the link debate is very important for me here. 

Testimonials:

"Max's brain is like a game of chutes and ladders" - Fiker Tesfaye

"When I was a freshman in high school Max was a senior and I was afraid of him. Now Max fears me." - Gabe Graville

“Hello, Max is a smart cookie who writes really fast and thinks pretty well. He will hear your words and think about them and maybe you'll win.” - Eliana Taylor

“Maxwell is a pumpkin pie connoisseur who harbors unusual amounts of knowledge in three important categories of information, in order of how much they warm his soul to reflect upon: (1) the Daring Doggos and other mascot ideas for struggling 2A high school football teams, (2) instructional communication and other academic oddities like debate, and (3) risk reduction techniques for avoiding severe injury, a common threat that airport-based People Movers pose to people. ” - Maria DeMarco

“Max's life goal is to eat every animal.” - Alex Li

"Max Groznik is an absurd bird. And I think birds are neat. Also do not feed him bread." - Adeja Powell

email chain cody.gustafson@dallasurbandebate.org

tl;dr: do what you do best, at whatever rate of delivery you can be clear at. My paradigm was previously much longer for no reason at all, so i shortened it. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have, but I kept what I thought were the quick hitters:

- Read whatever set or style of arguments you would like, my job is to evaluate the round through an offense/defense lens and vote for the team that makes the world a better place (i.e. won the debate, ya know). I frequently judge all types of debates (from policy v policy, k v k, and k v policy to world schools, parli, policy, LD, and college debate to middle school debate, etc) and am more interested in seeing good debate rather than any particular style of debate.

- Warrant & evidence comparison, impact terminalization, historical examples, global context, and 'telling the story' of the round late in rebuttals are typically the content choices that help sway my decision when a clear winner is not decided by the flow.

- I don’t have any predispositions regrading the content, structure, or style of your arguments. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm absent a team winning an argument for me to evaluate it another way. Clear impact weighing in the rebuttals and evidence/warrant comparison are typically what I notice in teams I enjoy judging.

- I attempt to be a ’technical’ judge in every round I watch. I try to keep a detailed flow, and use my flow to evaluate the round that happened. If the flow doesn’t decide a clear winner, I will then look to the quality of evidence/warrants provided. I tend to find I’m less interested in where an argument in presented than others. While clear line-by-line is always appreciated, some of my favorite debaters to watch were overview-heavy debaters who made and answered arguments in the debate while telling a persuasive story of the debate. I would rather you sound organized and clear than following a template throughout each flow.

- Instead of framing debates through ‘body counts’, I am much more persuaded by framing as ‘who saves the most lives’, or who has the best advocacy for change. Sometimes debaters talk about claims of very real violence and problems for various communities with little regard to the real world implications of their political advocacies.

- I tend to prefer specific plan texts over vague plan texts. I also like specific internal link claims and impact scenarios. Specific instances of war are more persuasive to me than ‘goat power war’ claims.

- In reformism v revolution debates, I prefer explanations that pinpoint why the conditions of the status quo are the way they are, and can best explain casualty for violence. This is where historical examples become especially important, and where warrant comparison becomes paramount.

TL;DR: Do what you want, but I have a high threshold for theoretical defenses in favor of rejecting the topic (although I'm very in favor of creative ways to endorse the topic), and I tend to hold proximal impact framing/proximal solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard as well.

While I'm open to arguments about debate being a "training ground" for personal advocacy and political change, I view debate itself as a game. This means that I view arguments very impersonally, and I care more for the strategic aspect of the game than the emotional or truth-based appeals. Those things are obviously still important, but that just means I will very likely vote for arguments that are "winning" even if I don't necessarily like them (just because of how I understand the utility of debate). For impact weighing, I probably default to magnitude>probability>timeframe unless told otherwise, so do in-depth impact comparison that includes weighing of the different metrics. I tend to hold proximal impact framing and solvency mechanisms to a pretty high standard, and while I'm down to vote on proximity you should just keep in mind that I think of all of these arguments as pieces to a game, so I'm not more persuaded by proximal impacts than magnitude-based impacts absent a clear reason.

I'm fine if you want to reject the topic on the Aff, but I'll be very sympathetic to the Neg's theoretical objection to that. You can win the theory debate, but I'll have a pretty high threshold for your theory answers so just be aware of that. Impact turning theory out of the aff is fine as well, but I've found that if the Neg team wins that you shouldn't get to leverage the Aff against theory if truth-testing the aff is impossible, I'll usually evaluate the theory prior to the PMCs reasons that fairness and education are bad or impossible to access. I'm pretty indifferent about conditionality also, but will vote on theory saying it shouldn't be allowed if you win that sheet.

Also on theory, this has only mattered a couple of times, but if I'm not given a paradigm by either team I have a tendency to default to reasonability instead of competing interpretations. This is largely because (absent being told otherwise/as a default) I tend to evaluate theory as a check against abuse (i.e., should I penalize a team for doing something unfair), rather than evaluating it as the endorsement of the "ideal model" of debate, which tends to make a difference regarding how I evaluate the impact framing on the theory, but this has only ever mattered when neither team makes any of the arguments that would give me a cohesive story on theory and I'm left pretty much evaluating a non-functional/unclear interp with no voters.

I love policy debate, but I was also super into reading Ks and I dig janky stuff from obscure philosophical sources. In my opinion, I'm able to understand and follow pretty much whatever you want to throw at your opponent. On the flip-side though, that also means that you probably won't get very far with super ambiguous solvency. You need to have some kind of solvency that is (at the very least) a clearly explained mechanism that is preferably drawn from the literature that the K is based on.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in person! Good luck :)

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and I’ll always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments I’ve seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and I’m never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and I’ll come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1. Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine – I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If I’m flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

I’m going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because they’re just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each other’s flows and into each other’s speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

NPDA:

I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.

I've been out of the college parli world for a few years, so I do not know the current popular blocks/arguments being read. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them; just take the extra 10 seconds to explain why you are reading what you are reading, add some warrants that others might fill in for you in their heads, etc. I am also not as fast of a flower as I was a few years ago, so I may ask you to slow down (I want to get as clean and accurate of a flow as possible!). I've outlined some more specific preferences in the high school section below, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have!

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a somewhat fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.

Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.

Hello! I am Rebecca! I graduated from McKendree University (2017-2021) and debated all four years, mostly in Parliamentary Debate however I also did NFA-LD for two years on and off and have some limited speech experience (mostly extemp). As a debater I solely ran policy based arguments on the affirmative however I was more varied on the negative in terms of critical arguments however my experience is limited to mostly Marx, Nietzsche, Biopower, and some Thacker.

Advantages/Disadvantages: I love case debate, this was my bread and butter as a debater and am more than comfortable judging policy based rounds. I prefer these arguments to be set up as uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact however you do you in terms of how you want to set these arguments up. I am totally down for politics disads and love hyperspecific advantages and disadvantages to the topic.

Ks: I will be upfront and say I am not as comfortable in a critical debate as a policy debate, however I do not want to use this to discourage your teams from running these arguments, however I do need some top level thesis explanation of what the world of the K looks like versus the world of the affirmative (or if it is a K AFF what the world post-aff looks like) these will help me to better contextualize your arguments and how they interact with the rest of the debate. I am very comfortable with Marx or any critiques of capitalism but beyond this I am not aware of the literature.

Theory: In terms of topicality please run it, I need a clear interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters at the end of the debate in order to vote for it. Beyond that I am not a huge fan of spec but run it if you must, however be warned that I will not be happy if you go for it.

Framework: As it is my first year out I am not 100% sure on how I vote on framework vs K AFFs, however as I debater this is an argument I ran frequently and am familiar with the argument broadly. However the direction I vote in these debates varies debating on the strategy teams deploy and comes to a question of what the world looks like depending on if I vote for Framework or the AFF.

Speaker Points: 27-30, obviously don't be mean and do not say anything offensive.

Overall do you have fun, again this is slowly evolving and will likely change as the season goes on and I gain more experience judging.

If you're reading this, that's already a good start. You should continue to do so until there are no words left. I competed in parli for ~5 years at McKendree University, and did 4 years of high school LD before that. My partner and I won the 2020 NPDA. I've coached both NPDA and IPDA at McKendree University, San Diego State University, and currently coach at Mercer University and Denison University. All of these things mostly tell you nothing about my thoughts on debate, but they should tell you that I have quite a lot of them. I'll do my best to keep it brief here.

My thoughts on debate have changed a lot since my time as a competitor and my paradigm is the best way to find that out - your coaches/fellow teammates/others who knew me as a debater are likely not going to give you an accurate run down of who I am as a judge, so it's good that you're reading this.

I really do try to be as tabula rasa as possible when I judge. I don't have a preference for any type of argument and feel that I am a good judge for almost any strategy. I'm actually a sucker for a big stick aff vs a wide LOC. T, K, DA/CP LOCs with a clean MO collapse are my favorite debates to watch. I like K debate - but I like case debate even more to be honest. I'm highly critical of most K teams because I'm not generally moved by Ks that frankenstein literature together and aren't grounded in actual scholarly work. To me, this is what makes the K effective because it acts as a bridge between debate and the larger academic scholarship that it exists within. I also don't think that the K is some special form of argument that on face goes against "technical" forms of debate. I think the K is the most technical form of debate and I evaluate it as such, so it is likely harder to win a K debate in front of me. I just have a really high standard when it comes to these arguments.

Some specifics you might want to know:

NPDA

1. I think Condo is good, so Condo Bad debates would have to be very technically deep and well-executed for me to vote most of the time. I haven't seen one of these debates go well in a while (although I would love to). I also think reading a one-off unconditional strat in the LOC is pretty baller, too.
2. You can't win on the aff without going for the aff. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but it does implicate how I evaluate RVIs on theory or independent voters in the PMR. Most of the time, arguments that are reasons to vote aff that don't consist of actually going for the aff are probably things that shouldn't be happening in-round anyway, and you can trust me as a judge to punish teams accordingly without having to hail mary your entire round on them. This also means I vote neg on presumption - and I have been known to do this even if the negative doesn't tell me to. It's the one job the aff has and it is usually pretty clear on the flow when the aff hasn't done that. It also brings me joy to vote neg on presumption, so don't be afraid to throw the ol presumption block into your neg speeches. And no, presumption never flows aff and no one ever has or likely ever will be able to explain this argument to me in a way that makes any sense.
3. Topicality is a question of the words in the plan text, not the solvency of the aff. Idk man, I think we all have forgotten how T works. If you're gonna collapse to topicality in the MO please make sure the aff actually violates your interpretation on a textual level. I don't know what "the spirit of the interp" means and I don't think you all do, either.
4. I like theory debates. I like good theory debates more. Nothing wrong with reading it in the LOC and kicking out of it in the MO - but if the debate is gonna come down to theory just know this is a highly technical collapse to pull off as far as I'm concerned.
5. I take my role as a judge and arbiter in this activity very seriously, and the privilege that comes with that position means not putting the onus on the debaters to call out problematic behavior before I vote for it. I just think that's my responsibility and I don't really care about discourse claiming that my only job as a judge is to vote for the arguments in round. If you do or say something messed up, I feel pretty alright about using the ballot to show my distaste for that, even if you otherwise won the technical flow of the debate. If you wanna be able to get away with problematic behavior, please strike me accordingly I guess.
6. I like jokes and debates that are fun. You can still have fun while going for things like Anti-Blackness - I did. If you have a silly or whacky argument you've always wanted to read I'm the judge to do it in front of. I don't like feeling like the weight of the world rests on my decision cause everyone came in all intense. I'm literally just a little guy .-.
7. I don't give away free speaker points and if you ask for them don't go to tab about that 25 I gave you instead. I think it's disrespectful to all the national champion speakers in this activity to suggest that you deserve a 30 for no reason other than you wrote it into your shell as an argument. Speaker awards should be coveted and difficult to achieve in my opinion.
8. As far as speaker points, my average is somewhere around a 28.2 - I consider a 27.7 a "bare-minimum you did the thing" speech and a 27 is my floor. If I give you below a 27 you did something pretty bad/mean/not okay and the points I give you is indicative of my disapproval. I almost never give anything higher than a 29.7 unless it is well deserved. I don't think I have ever given a 30 - and if I have I know exactly who I gave it to (and they are a national champion speaker).
9. MG theory is fine, but the more sheets of paper you add into the debate the more grumpy I will be. I also think the only legitimate MG theory is condo bad, CP theory, and speed (sometimes. I have an incredibly high threshold for this argument and "they went faster than I wanted them to" does not meet that threshold).
10. My flow is not as tight as it used to be. This might be me being hard on myself or maybe its transitioning from paper to a laptop but please pause before sheets of paper so I don't lose you. This is a mark of a good speaker to me anyway - if you can't afford to pause for 5 seconds between positions then you need to read less/shorter arguments or you need to get faster. Either way, don't punish the rest of us.
11. I'll give a lot of feedback because I think that's my value as a judge. I don't care if the tournament is behind, no one benefits from a 10-second RFD. If it's that serious and I really don't have time to share my thoughts please come see me after because I will remember your debate and I will be happy to give feedback.
12. I like really deep and complex warrants and warrant comparison. An argument consists of both a claim and a warrant - so we should probably address those throughout the debate. A heg debate where the whole thing is "heg is good, I promise" v "heg is bad, we all know this" do not spark joy.
13. Telling me to extend a conceded argument is not enough and I will not do that work for you. To properly extend an argument it should be re-articulated in the larger context of the debate at the point of the extension. For instance, extending a climate change impact probably also means explaining why that matters in the context of the neg strat, even if there wasn't an explicit response to the impact from the neg. If you extend an argument that I still think is implicated by some other argument on another sheet of paper then that will factor into my decision.
14. I don't lean one way or another automatically when it comes to K Affs v Framework. I like K affs that do the work to explain why you get to reject the topic/defend your advocacy/etc. "The topic is vaguely bad/unethical/etc." is not enough - topics are normative statements and nothing more and it's possible to have a good defense of a bad topic. I like framework debates that engage with the K Aff in a meaningful way and are technically deep. I don't like debaters that run away from what makes them uncomfortable. I won a lot of debates going for K Affs. I won a lot of debates going for framework, too. So don't count on my ideological support to make a decision in your favor.

Not sure I have anything else. I'd add a recipe or poem or something here but I actually think my paradigm should be useful so I'll spare you. I really really like debate - when I said "burn it down" all those times I really did mean it heuristically (despite what others who have not actually read a single piece of afropessimist literature in their life might tell you). So, get out of this activity what you want - it's not my job to tell you what arguments to read. Just make it fun for me by doing whatever it is you do well.

IPDA

I didn't compete in IPDA, but I think it's a super cool format. That said, if you know I'm gonna be in the back of your room you might be advantaged by choosing one of the policy topics. That's just the debate that I will be best at evaluating. That said, I did compete in LD and I do coach IPDA so I feel comfortable evaluating other types of topics - but I will still see things similarly to parli on a technical level.

1. If you're gonna take the time to offer definitions then make them useful and strategic. Words can and do mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts so this portion of the debate can end up being really meaningful.
2. Case construction is really important and I think this is where most debates are lacking for me in this format. I need a highly warranted argument that builds on itself and culminates in an impact that I can vote on. A bunch of unrelated claims with shaky warrants make it harder to make a decision.
3. I don't mind speed at all in this format and will evaluate speed debates exactly as I do in NPDA. "They went faster than I wanted them to" is not enough. Maybe you went slower than they wanted you to. The debate has to be far more in depth than this to sway me in one direction or the other.
4. I mostly evaluate IPDA similarly to NPDA so it might be beneficial to read my paradigm for that as well. Ks are cool. Case debate is slightly more cool most of the time, unless you're really good at the K. I don't like excessive MG theory and if you don't collapse as the negative I will be very upset. Any other specifics you might want to ask me about before the round.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because you’re other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if you’ve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than you’d think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe aren’t really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they can’t wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear.

Do what you do best.

Couple of side notes:

I likely have a higher threshold on theory debates than some judges, but that also doesn’t mean you should shy away from it. I will certainly vote on abuse. If you just really like going for theory, I will also vote on a position that doesn’t necessarily have proven abuse, but proves some sort of standard that would set a precedent that you argue is bad. Just remember, it will be harder to get my ballot on theory for theory’s sake.

Extinction probably won’t happen, so you need to have really good link stories if that’s your style. Probability > Magnitude.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.

According to Rob Layne, I’m a point fairy. Basically, the way it shakes down is I give the top speaker in the round a 30/29 and then rank everyone. Don’t be an insufferable and rude human, I will dock your points.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m sure I’ve been called a “K-hack” at some point, but this is false. While I ran a lot of critical arguments, they weren’t particularly good. With that being said, I’d prefer a straight up debate, but am by no means to opposed to good critical arguments. My advice for critical arguments.

1) Name dropping/jargon are not substitutes for an argument. Example- “That creates a simulacrum.” That’s a tagline. Tell me how / why.

2) Rejection doesn’t solve. I’ve been rejecting patriarchy for years, but that doesn’t mean sexist people in debate stopped saying I vote with my emotions, that I just don’t get their arguments, or I’m not very smart. It also hasn’t stopped them from interrupting me, or leaving during my RFDs but staying for men’s. Point being--Tell us how to reject. Do we burn the system down by creating chaos? What alternative system can we use? Are there organizations that seek to dismantle the same system you’re critiquing? How does this function within realism? Do you give people a language with which to discuss a system? Is there are a counterplan text that could solve your K?

4) Explain your solvency, and tell us what the world looks like in the post alternative world.

5) Your framework should do more than attempt to exclude your opponents from the round. It should also tell me how to evaluate your position.

Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards. Couch your argument in the topic someway, even if that means you explain why the topic is rooted in an ism, and justify why that is aff ground and not neg. No, the topic is not just a springboard for you to talk about whatever you want. The cool thing about debate is you get to develop an argument/justification for doing/saying what you want, so do that. Additionally, don’t exclude your opponents from going for a policy with your framework. If you’re really frustrated with the ism that is occurring in the topic, your goal should not be to prevent the neg from participating. As far as “projects” (I hesitate to call them that because of the negative connotations), I’m down, but again, please tell me why the topic shouldn’t be discussed. If your argument is that debate is ableist, sexist, racist, etc, if possible, explain why the topic is also rooted in that ism and then use that to discuss the debate space. That way your opponents may have some more ground.

Performance based arguments…

I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Again, higher threshold. I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it. I love CP theory so read it.

Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

Procedurals. Framework, if necessary. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate.

How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true.

Other Things

Have fun, make me laugh, be nice. Care about what you do, your words matter. Feel free to pander to me with Tom Hanks references.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Make My Job Easy

A couple of key points:

- T arguments need to be actually abusive. I will listen to them and flow them, but they need to be solid.

- Spreading your opponents out of the round. Whatever. But I also recommend not spreading your judge (me) out of the round either.

- Critical arguments, outlandish plans, etc. go for it. If we pretend to be the USFG, there is equal room to be space pirates.

-Make my job easy. Signpost, explicitly tell me why to vote.

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.