Hey guys! My name is Drew (he/him). I am a sociology and philosophy major. I competed in LD for 3 years-I ran primarily larp positions, but dabbled in phil debate. Most of my 2nrs were Cap, collapsing to a DA, turns, or T. My aff's were primarily big stick plan affs, but I've debated pretty extensively with soft left affs (my favorite was hegemonic masculinity on the nukes topic). Yes, I wanna be on the email chain, beckerandrew292@gmail.com. Feel free to send me some memes afterwards, too.

- Novices: Don't worry about the points presented below. Do whatever you're most comfortable with, I'll try to adapt to your style.

O/V

1. Tech > truth, but don't read impact turns to racism, etc. Dropped arguments are true, but are not weighed unless extended. For personal reasons, I'd prefer if you didn't read death good in front of me.

2. Condo is good, but my opinion can be changed on this.

3. K debate is fun

4. I love disads/counterplans

5. (for idaho) I'm totally chill with speed, check with your opponents.

6. Don't be a jerk.

7. If your strategy is tricks, strike me.

Idaho Trad LD stuff

-I love framework clash. Explain why your value outweighs their's and why yours is met throughout your case. Actually engage with their value and vc, treat it like an external contention (with that said, I much prefer a standard/rotb as opposed to v/vc debate)

-Tell me why you weigh under their framework AND why yours is better. That's not specific to me as a judge, it's just general debate advice lol.

- I don't mind if you do or don't do voters. If you do, meta-weighing and link-strength arguments should be one of them. I'll evaluate everything through the lens of the winning framework, so keep that in mind (ie. if you know you're losing to deontology, your time would be better spent extending arguments that weigh under deont) If you don't do voters, that's cool too.

-Speed: I think spreading is a natural side effect of complex debate, but I think it makes debate more ivory tower and elitist if both sides aren't on the same page. Check with your opponent before you spread, especially if spreading isn't the norm in the circuit. I've never had an issue with speed, but I will yell "clear" if you are going too fast, and I will not penalize someone for being unable to flow an argument. If I don't flow an argument in the speech that the argument is presented in, I will not weigh it. Slow down on taglines, make sure that interps are included in the doc.

PF Specific stuff

-I prefer line-by-line over crystalization

-Run whatever you want, I'll listen to any Ks or Theory, but ask your opponents first. It's the nice thing to do.

-I'll boost your speaks if you run a unique politics or econ argument that I haven't heard on the topic before.

Long form (Circ LD and Policy)

Affs: I love big stick affs and soft-left affs, but I'll vibe with anything. I think that the 1ac should be your best speech. I am a firm adherent to the belief that the best aff strategy is to force your opponent to engage with the substance, whether that be through framework or preempts, so take that as you will.

-Solvency matters the most to me, if you can win that your impact is larger and that you solve the impact, you will win the round 99/100 times.

-If your impact is something incredibly large, like nuclear war or extinction, i'll be less forgiving about the internal link. Link defense would be your best 1ar strategy

Disads: I love disads. I think that it becomes tricky to weigh between two equally large impacts, so do meta-weighing when against a big stick aff.

-I don't think uniqueness controls the strength of the link.

-Internal links are important to me and should be clearly warranted (if you have to question whether you have enough warrants, you don't. add more).

-Well-executed turns are the most persuasive and fun arguments to judge.

CPs: CPs are a great truth testing mechanism.

-I think international/private actor fiat is bogus, but if you theoretically justify it, I'll let it slide.

-conditions cp/consult cp can be beaten by perm pretty easily, and perm do aff isn't an argument.

-I think pics are fun, word pics are cool, and pic bad theory is kind of dumb, but i'll vote on it if it is REALLY convincing.

-Have the text in the doc or I won't evaluate it.

Theory: go for it.

-RVIs end up being silly 9/10 times, but if you think the shell was egregious enough, chances are I do too.

-Again, I believe condo is infinite, good, and a logical consequence of debate's structure, but my mind can be changed on this (especially with a time-skew warrant).

T: I need strong impacts, limits, and grounds arguments.

-Impact calc is the absolute most important thing.

-You can't just prove that they violate your interp, tell me why that matters.

Phil: Read anything! I love philosophy so much.

-Kant affs are trite, but they're a pretty solid strategy.

-Bonus points if you read something fun and unique, like Sartre, Heidegger, Plato, etc. Make it interesting.

-Most of my phil background is in analytic phil (I'm doing research work with Symbolic logic, modality, and set theory if that matters to anyone)

-Because of my Phil background, I think about arguments axiomatically. If the argument cannot be proven to be logically valid, you're doing something wrong. Conversely, if you perform the entire proof, I guess you would win? idk

Kritiks: The link chain is the most important thing to me.

-Specific links are infinitely better than generic links, which are infinitely better than links of omission.

-You don't have to win the alt to win framework, and strategic use of framework (once won) to preclude access to impacts is a totally rad strategy.

-"reject xyz" isn't really an actionable alt.

For postmodern/high theory stuff, I have a precursory understanding, but still please explain. The K base i'm least familiar with is probably Bataille or Lacan.

K affs/non-T affs: They're cool, I'm just kinda dumb so explain everything thoroughly.

Tricks: I'm not your guy. I won't vote on them.

LD specific stuff

-going for nebel T in front of me is not a good strat, it's stupid and can be beaten by saying "plans are good lmao" and moving on.

-I read util almost exclusively in highschool, I think that util is the best framework for debate. (-0.2 speaker points every time you say "Util justifies genocide", it doesn't lmao)

-reading whole rez is chill, but I think they're harder to weigh (and subsequently harder to win), I will vote almost automatically on any pic that solves the aff.

-floating pics are stupid lol

-If anyone cares, I went through a skepticism phase, but i'm sort of predisposed to believe it is just an untrue argument, I think it is easy to beat by just proving another meta-ethic true-but read it if you want lol, i'll do my best to set aside my preconceptions.

General Stuff Regarding Conduct

-Don't misgender or deadname your opponent. I will drop speaks, and then drop the debater.

-Conversely, if you ever feel uncomfortable at any time during the round, send me an email and I'll act accordingly.

-Again, don't read any blatantly offensive positions or engage in violent, targeted rhetoric, it makes debate an inaccessible place.

-Don't read shoe theory, you're doing the debate space a disservice. I'll drop you.

-if you explain L'insu que sait de l'une-bévue s'aile à mourre to me, I'll buy you coffee or something.

1. I ask that your argument be specifically related to the resolution for me to consider it as a strong case. If your points, contentions, etc., could equally be applied to a hundred other resolutions, I will generally consider you to be running a generic argument and to not have done any specific research on the resolution at hand. Of course, you are welcome to run such general contentions; I am just less likely to see them as strong points if they're not specific to the resolution.

2. Likewise, you are welcome to speak too fast and get out of breath if you feel it will help you make your case. However, I don't have your notes and it's neither my job nor your opponent's job to decipher what you are saying. So, if I or your opponent can't make out what you're saying due to speed, that's on you. If you can combine speed and clarity, I'm fine, but I have found that combination is generally rare.

3. In LD, I would prefer to see contentions clearly tied back to values etc. as much as possible.

In short: keep contentions specific to the resolution at hand as much as possible, make clear the relation of contentions to values, and speak clearly.

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them. A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Debaters should time themselves so they can stay in the allotted time. Clash should be done civilly, please never attack your opponent. Remember it is your job to convince me to be on your side. Evidence should be cited, arguments/evidence should extend the v/c, and signpost – make it easy for me to follow. Let me know you are going off case - be sure your very clear in your delivery - slow down and make sure I'm understanding your case.

Hello friends.

I'm Skye, any pronouns are fine.

I prefer traditional debate based on framework, however, I am open to any style of case. I also like progressive debate and appreciate creative arguments.

I am three years into a philosophy undergrad degree so I'll be interested in any writers you want to run.

I did LD in high school and currently do parli, and coach at Seattle U's debate camp if you're interested in my 'experience'.

Abolish prisons, give back the land, reject the ivory tower.

<3 <3

jdawson4646@gmail.com

I mainly debated policy for four years in highschool. I also did PF at a few tournaments. I went to GDI twice and went to state 3 times.

I am mostly a policy judge but have judged plenty of LD and PF over the years as well.

LD & PF:

Speed is always fine. Make sure that you are respectful to eachother. I have no specific argument preferences. Impact calc is always important. Tell me why your impact matters more/outweighs. Make sure that you cover both your opponents and your own case. Please make sure that if you are making good arguments that you extend them in your following speeches so I can vote on them.

Policy:

Stock issues are voters, T is especially a voter. I thoroughly enjoy K and T debates, and theory is fun.

If there is a theoretical violation, my threshold for voting on it will probably be pretty low. During theory debates, for the love of God, don't spread through every standard in 4 seconds.

I dislike almost all colonialization debates and colonization K's...

Don't run a counter plan unless you can do it right.

Make sure that you are extending arguments and cards.

When in doubt, do impact calc/outweigh work. It's always nice when I have an easy and clear way to vote.

A drop is a concession

I do not flow new arguments in rebuttals (very rare exceptions)

I allow tag team cross ex and flashing doesn't count as prep. I am a flow judge, so responding to arguments and offense is very important

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

IDAHO/TRAD/NSDA PARADIGM

Hey y'all! I'm Taylor (she/her/hers). I'm currently a junior at BSU. I was an LD debater but I usually competed on the national circuit towards the end of my HS career so I'm suuuper progressive- if you debate progressively WELL in front of me you're in a good place. I also did Congress for 2 years, I'm state champion in that, and I've been to NSDA nationals 3 times.

SEND ME THE SPEECH DOC taylorjepson@u.boisestate.edu

If you do not send me the speech doc, I'll flow what I hear but I guarantee I'm going to miss quite a bit and that's on you.

I expect respect for everybody. Debate is a game but it's also a real place and what you say and do has real impacts, so be kind, respect pronouns, don't be sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. or I will drop you and then report you both to your coach and tabs :)

I generally disclose and prefer to give verbal feedback so unless the tournament has a specific policy against it that's what I'm going to do.

Also if you have any questions pre/post round feel free to reach out.

GENERAL STUFF

LD Paradigm

That being said! Things I like:

- Progressive arguments! K's, plans, disads, counterplans, T, theory, etc. If you don't know what those things are, don't worry about it :)

- Being polite

- Clearly explaining v/c and IMPACTS- I will vote on impacts far more readily than framing alone, but if your impacts are dependent on framing you definitely need to be extending and explaining that throughout the round.

I will NOT penalize you for kicking out of arguments IF it's done correctly (that means you have to answer offense on it first!)

Things I don't like:

- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it. It's rude, so just be nice.

- Philosophy cases: if you spend more than 2 minutes of your constructive reading framing, a) I probably won't understand it, and b) I'm going to get bored and might zone out a bit.

- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls

Congress Paradigm

- USE. EVIDENCE. You CANNOT just go up and spout claims for 3 minutes with no cards and expect me to believe you. PROVE what you're saying.

- Show me that you're involved in the chamber by speaking on every bill and asking good questions as often as you can! I also like to see that you understand parli procedure. I know it and will step in if I need to but I'd like you to run the chamber yourselves.

- I go by Nationals standards so don't try to mess with anybody by trying to enforce Idaho standards, your rank will drop so fast I swear your ears will pop. Same thing if you are POing and I see you trying to screw someone over- I was a Congress debater. I will know. Don't do it.

Policy Paradigm

Spreading is fine as long as everyone has the doc unless there's an accessibility issue, tag teaming is ok by me, and I want to see all the parts of your case clearly please! (ie. inherency, solvency, etc.)

Tbh I don't have hardly any experience with policy so minus the stuff about V/C I'm probably going to evaluate it like I would a progressive LD round. Ask me if you have questions.

PF Paradigm

Disclaimer- this is the only form of debate I am almost completely unfamiliar with, so it might be a bit of a learning curve for me.

That being said! Things I like:

- Being polite

- Clearly explaining IMPACTS and WARRANTING- if you don't tell my WHY x causes y, you're leaving me to decide whether or not that argument is true and you don't want to do that because it's unlikely I'll agree with you unless you've given me a concrete reason to. Also, I will have a very low threshold for arguments that your impacts won't actually happen from your opponents if they're not warranted.

- Unique, fun cases!

- Team players- you're a member of a team, so act like it. Both partners need to be active participants in the round. Tag teaming is fine by me.

Things I don't like:

- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it. It's rude, so just be nice. In PF, this also means letting your partner speak :) I've heard of some teams where one partner reads everything, does all of the rebuttals, and answers all of the questions. Don't do that, you will lose in front of me. If you want to debate solo, go do LD.

- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls

___________________

If you made it this far, congrats!

Things that will boost your speaks (applies to all forms of debate):

- Going for a K in LD (+.5 speaks bc doing progressive debate in Idaho is hard)

- Making me laugh while making a good point (+.3 speaks, the best speeches are the entertaining ones!)

- In-person tournaments: bring me food, an energy drink, or hot chocolate :) (+.3 speaks for helping me stay awake)

CIRCUT PARADIGM

Hey y'all! I'm Taylor (she/her/hers), I'm a Junior at Boise State rn. I was an LD'er but I started on the Idaho circuit doing Congress for a couple of years and only have one year of experience competing on the national circuit. I did a lot of K's, LARP, pretty standard stuff for the most part, you can check last year's wiki if you want more detailed info.

SEND ME THE SPEECH DOC taylorjepson@u.boisestate.edu

If you do not send me the speech doc, I'll flow what I hear but I guarantee I'm going to miss quite a bit and that's on you.

Also please don't send me cards in the body of an email, it's really annoying and hard to read.

I expect respect for everybody. Debate is a game but it's also a real place and what you say and do has real impacts, so be kind, respect pronouns, don't be sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. or I will drop you, give you 0 speaks, and then report you both to your coach and tabs :) I am going to be VERY strict about this y'all- I literally quit competing February of my senior year because I was sick of people being awful. Be a good human.

Also if you have any questions pre/post round feel free to reach out.

LD

A lot of this is copied from my former coach, the wonderful Nethmin Liyanage :) but my stuff is slightly different so even if you know her style it's still worth a read preround

Prefs Cheat Sheet

1 – Good/inventive Ks, performance, standard policy stuff (I appreciate cool new disads and fun advantage CPs). I'm a really good person to run K's in front of (I did a lot of these as a debater, specifically reps k's, fem killjoy and sick womxn theory, stuff like that). Just don't be abusive with it, I'm not going to hack for you so run and argue it well if this is your plan.

2 – Generic k's (cap, security, etc.), generic policy cases, good trad debate (traditional format but does line-by-line, is not violent, engages in actual clash/argumentation). Like I said, I was on the Idaho circuit for a long time so trad is what I'm most used to. If in doubt, I'm honestly not a terrible judge for this so feel comfortable going for it

3 – Theory (that's not frivolous) is around here in terms of whether or not you want me as a judge. I am far more receptive to “condo bad” against 3+ conditional CPs than I am to 4 theory shells against a whole res aff just because you felt like ROBspec was what we needed to experience at that moment in time. I'm a much better judge for you if you read good theory and theory isn't your primary strat.

4 – Theory/procedurals (if your only strat is theory), Phil is also around here IF you're willing to explain/warrant args and not assume that I know Every Single Thing you're saying, otherwise I'm a 5. I don't have a lot of experience with phil and if you choose to read these in front of me keep in mind that if you spend more than 2 minutes of your constructive reading framing, a) I probably won't understand it, and b) I'm going to get bored and might zone out a bit.

5 - Tricks. This is both because I'm the least experienced in this style of debate and because I enjoy it the least.

General thoughts

I will give +0.2 speaker points if you add a significant portion of your analytics to the speech doc and organize them such that they are easy to follow. I think this makes debate more accessible, and also just makes everyone more happy during online debate. On a related note, if someone asks for analytics and you say something rude or condescending along the lines of “it’s your job to flow,” your speaks just dropped by 0.3.

Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. If your opponent concedes something, that means you get access to uncontested warrants/I consider those warrants to be true. It does not mean I will vote on an argument with no warranting. It also does not mean your extension can be sans-warrants.

I believe in disclosure :)

I value technical debate. However, I also think that truth matters. I do not default to dropping a team that reads untrue arguments (either for strategic value or out of lack of knowledge), however, I am receptive to this being argued as a “reject the team” issue by the opponent. Use your judgment on this – a novice with a bad politics disad is probably not the same level of egregious as someone who read 8 untrue disads because disproving an untrue DA takes longer than reading one.

Similarly, I think that independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they sequence before everything else. This isn’t to say I won’t listen to args about reps or other independent voters. I made these args. Reps matter and I value these debates. I also value warrants, sequencing, and ballot analysis in these debates. Independent voters are arguments and they need a claim, warrant, and impact, along with a justification for how they sequence (just like any other argument). Calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Please clearly link V/C or ROB/ROJ to your impacts. If you win framing but can't prove that you win the impacts under that framing, you're not in a good place. That being said, if you have explained to me why an argument/ind voter comes before framing, I will weigh that before V/C and impacts.

Relatedly: sequencing saves ballots!! Tell me which layer comes first and why. I will buy things like “case comes first because it has a value criterion and those are good for debate” as long as you warrant your argument. Just tell me why your offense comes first, give me a warrant, and tell me why your offense sequences before that of your opponent. If not … it’s up to me and that’s not good for you.

Framing is important. If your opponent concedes your ROB but reads theory, use the ROB to exclude their offense. Don’t concede framing.

Finally, as someone who didn't have access to massive team block files or ten coaches, I am very sympathetic to small school and independent debaters. I will not reward you for just reading a massive team block in your rebuttals. I want actual debate, not just regurgitation of what your coach wrote for you.

Things I don't like (IMPORTANT):

- Interrupting your opponent. This is a HUGE thing for me, it's highly likely that I'll drop you just for this if you do it multiple times. I'm not kidding and will not tolerate it. It's rude and it's demeaning, so just be nice.

- Nuke war impacts: not EVERYTHING will cause a nuclear winter, people! I get so so so sick of these cases; I like a good LARP case as much as the next person but I would definitely prefer a different impact scenario if you have access to one pls

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Winning my ballot comes down to a few things.

First and foremost this is a game. While I understand doing everything possible to try and win rounds, insensitive/hateful comments or actions towards your opponents or anyone for that matter are not tolerated. They don't contribute to the case and if necessary I have no problem getting tab involved.

To get more into the specifics for LD...

I prefer traditional LD debate. Progressive is fine but I believe that Value/Value Criterion are key pillars in the LD format and that additional level of moral debate is what makes LD different from the other forms. Ultimately, the more work you put into debate the more you can expect to get out of it. Most of the time, the debater that has done more research on the topic will come out on top.

For debate in general...

If a framework is brought up and defended that will be used as the weighing mechanism for the round. Flow is important and typical NSDA rules as far as dropping and new arguments apply to my flow/judging. Anything that has evidence can be ran, I will flow any argument as long as it is well supported (no matter how crazy the idea may sound). At the end of the day my vote should match any reasonable person in the same position. Winning should never come down to a coin toss or a personal preference, simply argumentation. That win should be apparent even if it is not the outcome wanted. Remember debating has nothing to do with convincing your opponent that they are wrong and everything to do with convincing the judge that you are right.

** Please try your best to avoid suicide related topics. If you have anything you need to run to win the round at least give me a trigger warning **

I need education impacts to justify going against fiat, I do not believe that neg can go against Fiat without this.

So I guess since this is an online debate now this kinda stuff would probably be more often read (if you are reading this during prep super don't worry unless I'm told to not give paradigms in online debates)

I did LD for four years so I definitely get the format, I definitely get at least the base level debate style of value-value criterion debate, so def don't worry on the point of making sure I'm lost or worrying about me not understanding how to flow those kinds of arguments.

However, I found myself (and still find myself, as it turns out) extremely more into contention level debates and will almost never vote off of value value criterion debate solely unless there is no possible way for the winning framework to go the other way (which to me is extremely difficult to do). Because of this, I find myself increasingly more compelled towards contention level debate and feel that this does better for clash and for overall productiveness of debate in that in general I feel that philosophical value debate gets pretty vague when focused on for more than a small (but important, mind you!) portion of the flow.

At the end of the day what I look at for end of round decisions are solid contention level debate and flowing those contentions through whichever value won the round (and I am totally fine with flowing through the opponents value, if it works better it works better, or if you have just that solid of contention level debate than you might still win even if you hard dropped your own value).

TLDR: Think of me as a PF judge that understands and goes with value and value criterion debate.

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

A few times now there have been T debates where the aff does not explicitly answer the argument "no truth testing means assume all their claims are false = presumption indpt. of if we lose the interp" and I didn't vote for it, and am not sure if I should have. Now, many things that the aff says implicitly respond to this, I think, and there are plenty of "nuh uh" style answers that are easy to think of and make. (Assuming it's competing interps and not "you are racist for reading T, in-round violence, VI.") But in other areas I am quick to vote on stupid blips and in general I don't like making cross-applications that don't occur to me involuntarily/without straining. So from now on I am voting neg if that happens! You must answer the argument directly, even if it just means explicitly making a cross-application. Be warned! It's right at the top! It's above the email! Just answer it and there will be no issue!

sposito@umich.edu

Above all, tech over truth--to this, there are no realistic exceptions. Fairness in evaluation is most relevant for arguments which are disreputable, and it is my intent to be fair. I will evaluate every argument I have on my flow, and refuse none. It's an argument if I understand it*, which includes most blips but excludes some K things. My opinions about content that follow are the equilibrium provided teams make the best available arguments, so far as I understand them, which means that when the best arguments aren't made, I'm liable to vote exactly opposite of what I've said here.

Although it hurts to say, I am not the best flow, and will likely miss some arguments. I can't be trusted to make the right decision in situations when such a decision hinges on a single, unemphasized argument. To be clear, I will try to do that--and vote remorselessly on, say, dropped one line intrinsicness if I got it--but I may not succeed. I will try my best to be fair, and care about making the right decision, even when it may be inconvenient or for something I find distasteful. I have made the wrong decisions in the past--I am not a relativist, and decisions are right or wrong. Students have a duty to be intelligible, but they do not have a duty to be persuasive beyond the line-by-line. Instead, it is judges who have a responsibility to have to render correct decisions (who is paying versus being paid? Among other asymmetries). Corny as it, numbering 1NC case/2AC offcase arguments, and then adhering to those numbers, helps me a lot and will increase the likelihood I render the most correct decision. Generally I start flowing at the 1NC on case, so I will probably miss ASPEC too....

I am not an educator! In my ideal world, I tap tap tap on my little laptop everything you say so as to correctly record the winner of the competition for which you volunteered... Educator implies a level of partiality and moralism of which I disapprove (ironic I know) and think has run rampant, to everyone's great loss. Similarly, I am not evaluating "who did the better debating"; that's what points are for. Exactly what question I am evaluating in a debate varies across and throughout debates....

I am very sensitive to judge instruction: About when an argument is new, about what evidence I should read or under what circumstances, about how strictly or literally I should take what was said, so on. My default is that I shouldn't read any evidence unless it's a subject of contention and that tags start at 100% risk. (I wish this weren't the standard....)

I enjoy villainy, and things generally hated: scandalous impact turns, process counterplans/neg terrorism, competitive personalities, egregiousness and trickery. My preference is for inserting cards over reading them, until it's like a ton of 1AC cards.

(*= requiring claims to have warrants strictly is impossible, because all warrants are claims which would then require warrants and result in an infinite regress. What is the answer to this argument?)

K affs and framework:

The aff should go for impact turns. I think that K arguments are almost uniformly awful, but will still vote for them. Go for "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models--only in-round 'violence'" or whatever else. Moderate-seeming or 'compromise' approaches often do not make sense; K teams are better off when they take aggressive stances. I have an essentially unlimited tolerance for stupid claims, but none for incoherent claims. Cynical and tricky K teams should easily reach competitive parity with top policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal, but they must then use those tactics in a strategic way... The ability to do so is usually follows from understanding that the K shouldn't ever win, because it emphasizes exactly why it still does, the fruitful exploits.

There is behavior sufficiently objectionable to sideline competitive concerns. That is easy to establish. The rub is whether or not the object of the dispute (often, reading T) constitutes that behavior. Truthfully, it does not, but policy teams can lose this argument, and do.

DAs do not generally link to K affs, unless the aff catastrophically fails in cross-ex. If they do, then even a negligible risk of the DA clearly outweighs and turns the case. The neg should probably go for T, or maybe a PIK (will the aff successfully execute competition?). High theory Ks can also be good against typical K affs, and mostly now lose, I suspect, for ideological reasons which I will not replicate. I am worse for identity politics than other Ks. I prefer bad faith debating about identity to its moralizing, sincere alternative, and technical debating above all.

On T, the neg should go for fairness. I have a low opinion of the education that debate provides or even could provide, really, even in policy v. policy debates. Clash is not the point of debate--it is strategic to minimize it. I think most of what students pick up in K debates actually harms them (it certainly harms me), and I think that the exclusion of most K arguments would be desirable in and of itself, and wish more teams would argue for that. So, K "research" isn't worth learning about; even if it were, debate wouldn't teach it; to the extent that it does that, gamesplaying still outweighs.... Of course, you need to competently make this argument. But this is where my sympathy sits.

I have never thought skills was any good. I did think clash was good, but don't now. Even good policy teams going for T are liable to lose on "T is a microaggression, racism causes heart attacks, that outweighs the full magnitude of clash." The skills argument that "debaters solve existential risks, small coefficient * a massive value is still massive, outweighs racism," is fine, but as easily defanged as the idea that T is racist at all.

Ks on the neg:

The best Ks are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is a concrete (if utopian) alt with framework-type reasons why "do both" is illegitimate. Without some way of overcoming the uniqueness problem, Ks don't make sense and wouldn't outweigh the case if they did. Alternately, the K should be a vehicle for tricks: "If we're right about the incurable racism of the academy, assume that all social science is false and vote neg on presumption" is the kind of thing I would speedily vote on when dropped by the 1AR, perhaps because it was overstretched having to answer several other tricks. Those are the three main 2NRs I am looking to vote for. "Link, impact, alt" is incoherent and factually defeated by the perm double bind. The problem is not me--the emperor has no clothes. To be clear, that excludes "links to the plan," which are bad, non-unique DAs. Even when they are unique, they likely will not outweigh the case without considerable attention paid to framing. Of course, the aff still must minimally extend the perm and non-unique and so on in situations that call for it.

One implication of this is that you really probably don't need more than one link, and it doesn't matter at all if it's specific. Whether or not an argument rejoins the plan does not depend on its novelty to high school debaters.... Similarly, the 2AC really probably does not need much more than "2AC 1 is framework"....

To reiterate, I think the fiat K that moots the case and has the neg go for framework impact turns is very winnable, something on which the aff could reasonably get out-teched. Similar the other 2NRs. I believe debate is a technical game and don't want my feelings in truth about the K to be mistook for my belief that it's not at least sometimes viable. On the other hand, incoherent arguments are extremely unstrategic, because they can be easily beaten.

Obviously, I will only assess the aff's FW interpretation versus the negs. Middle-ground interpretations are fine, but you don't need them to win, and I will won't opt for one unilaterally. A neg interp that allows the aff to weigh the case but reserves uniqueness for links does solve some fairness offense and could be strategic if the K impacts get to extinction (say, security or cap), but I think the aff should probably go for no Ks.

There are some teams and persons who inspired me in the K world--Izak Dunn, James Mollison, Ani Prabhu--who made me believe that more creativity and alternate models were possible and worthwhile. At the moment, it's hard to reconstruct exactly what they were. But I mention them here to curb my cynicism and to break from my narrow prescriptions up until this point. I was a K debater in high school (high theory, Buddhism, anthro).

For policy debaters: If an extinction impact is dropped, it needs no further elaboration.

Topicality:

Reasonability is about the threshold of necessary offense before the the penalty for substance crowdout is outweighed. It is wholly irrelevant of whether or not the aff is popular or easy to debate or if the neg read multiple positions in the 1NC.

It is far easier to win a giant limits DA and 'debatability matters most,' than that precision in the abstract outweighs, and I will vote on that. But my true belief is that there really is a 'best' way to read the resolution in context, and I care about this 'precise' reading immensely. I don't know how pertinent that will be in really-existing debates. I highly, highly recommend Scalia's Reading Law for thinking about topicality.

Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true, and better than all competing standards by a great deal, with the exception of specification in 1AC CX. (It is only better than that by a lot.) Serious question: What would topicality be about, if not the plan? "Planicality" loses swiftly to an analytical PIC and a topic DA. PTIV is not the argument that the text of the plan can be considered in isolation (what could that possibly mean?). It is the argument that the "function" of the plan is determined wholly by its text (as it would mostly be under other standards, if they were ever clearly articulated, without other vague and capacious additions).

Related: Normal means is a factual question. If the aff declares the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg should read contravening evidence.

Counterplans & theory:

Update: It is not 1954. Women have entered the workforce, we survived Y2K and this thing called the Internet has swept the world!. Consequently, it does not matter if the 2NC counterplans out of a straight turn. The "C" stands for constructive, even though it is preceded by a "2." Why can't debate be fun?

I like counterplan competition and find it interesting, especially its outer recesses. I agree exactly with Rafael: "I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste that many do for plan inclusive or process counterplans. I won’t think a net benefit is bad just because it’s ‘artificial’ and I don’t think a DA/Case 2NR is necessarily better than a counterplan that steals the aff." You should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory, regardless of whether or not it represents research as some people in the community may like. Clearer: It may be difficult to convey how unconcerned I am with a practice in debate being 'educational' or not. Debate is a game played to win, which has the incidental sometimes-benefit of teaching kids some economics and current world affairs, and maybe some philosophy. What I care about is whether or not the counterplan makes the game better or worse, more fun or too unmanageable. Of course, education matters, and I will behave like a normal judge insomuch as I won't go rogue and ignore that part of the debate, and I know it's a pain to adjust the blocks for some ideologue... But I will be quite receptive to teams making the commonsense fact-and-values claims that give me license to mostly ignore pedagogy and focus on the part of the game that matters....

Textual alone is a bad standard, but I think textual and functional or just functional are both OK. Process counterplans I think are key neg generics, certainly on bad topics. In CP debates, may we all drop the politeness that a K being a generic or a functional limit is a desirable state of affairs? I care most about process counterplans being fun, or, on the other side, word games before fun, or at least an idiomatic skill.

I am a little higher on theory than I used to be, because I realized that competition alone cannot elegantly exclude game-breaking counterplans, like those which fiat both the federal government and the states, or private actors. But I am still mostly in the "get good" school, and am fine for the neg on most questions. Then again, theory is a technical matter like any other, and in fact more susceptible to fatal drops, and so it's still probably worth the time.

Conditionality: Seven is clearly worse than two, but even seven isn't so bad. That said, the fashionable new answers to dispo are Russian misinformation meant to undermine Hilary Clinton: "Plank spam" is answered by selectively permuting, and the definition is not vague: An advocacy is dispositional if it may only be kicked once the aff reads a perm or theory against it.

RVIs: Stupid, but don't warrant suspension of the law of tech over truth.

Judgekick: Truthfully good, but no different than everything else in vulnerability to technical debating.

Text vagueness: Concern is overheated. The neg should write texts as vague as they can get away with, but counterplans should probably be policies. Normal means determines what the counterplan does; sufficiently vague ones may factually do something unrelated to neg solvency claims.

DAs:

Again Rafael: "I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it affects the substantive magnitude of the impact." And again, you should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory.

Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction, or expired uniqueness, or some sort of plan flaw. But even then, how can I be sure that I'm not only hallucinating it's not 2016? Or that the author of the card didn't accidentally cite the wrong bill? Truthfully, I think this logic is suspect, but the reasons why that are commonly discussed in round are unimpressive.

Case:

See the note on PTIV as well.

What fiat means is open to debate, but starts at durable, good faith passage. Circumvention is a theoretical, normative matter whose viability varies by the topic.

Presumption is the procedure for adjudicating a tie, not deference to the status quo through "least change." Of course, it may behoove the neg to advocate the "least change" standard.

Analytics can defeat many advantages (but probably won't get them to zero).

Soft left affs will likely struggle. The more the "framing" arguments are defense (even if not in the traditional sense), the more successful they will be. Strategies that grant that the plan causes extinction but plead that other issues matter more hardly even need to be answered... judges are licensed to do obvious impact calculus in almost every policy debate...

Impact turns/misc. arguments:

Debate is a voluntary, competitive game centered on disagreement, which means that, of all scholastic activities, it must be the most permissive in speech. I must be a responsible supervisor of high school students, but I also have a responsibility to ensure fairness between competitors, as measured by technical, openminded, and impartial judging to the best of my ability. Relatedly, skill in the art of debate requires the cultivation of mental toughness and the ability to countenance ideas that may be upsetting at first; it requires a philosophical tact and cognitive flexibility to take seriously a superficially ludicrous claim, or four. Debate should not be a place where scoffing is good enough, or where students are taught to run to an adult the moment they encounter something challenging--that is literally everywhere else. It should certainly not be a place where judges abandon logic and allow bad responses to defeat arguments they dislike. Not only would I undermine the fairness of the game were I to intervene against some arguments, I would also compromise the development of habits of mind that are sorely needed nowadays, and which, you'd hope, debate would provide....

If it's not clear: Yes, that includes the death good argument that all human life is worse than nonexistence on balance, so maximizing the number killed is good. It also includes spark and war good and liberal shibboleth bad and aliens and souls and libertarianism and yadda yadda. My views are no longer the in majority within our community which, although discouraging, has the silver lining that I am perfectly comfortable saying that if you would like judges to intervene on your behalf on those issues, you should strike me. You will still have the majority of other judges to choose from; I'd like to judge debates where teams have 'opted in' to the joy of nihilism.

(Also, it is not just that if you cannot beat bad arguments, you deserve to lose. Yes that, but not only. First, some 'bad' arguments are clearly reasonable, e.g. animal wipeout (conditional on utilitarianism). Second, and more important, bad arguments are what debate is for; the truth is self-promoting, and rhetoric, at bottom, can only beautify falsehoods. The point of debate is sophistry; it certainly isn't research, judging on what we churn out (or fail to) annually. Read Gorgias. Anyway, there is great beauty and richness and joy in the philosophical attitude, and the ability to try on different ways of seeing. The prevailing Stalinism makes me feel resentment and despair, or can you tell? It's OK, even good, that kids would end up with some bad ideas. I know that because, right now, they end up with more!)

Nonetheless, there is something gorgeous about teams defeating impact turns, defending the truth. Successfully parrying a 1NC full of garbage would make very pleased to vote aff, if they did, and has historically afforded my best points.

D-rules are not answered by "case outweighs," nor uniqueness, and instead require a defense of some kind of consequentialism or criticisms of deontology/rights. My guess is that on this topic, coercion is often answered very badly, and in that sense underrated....

Other issues:

Whether or not an argument is "generic" or has legitimately no bearing on how much the other team has to respond to it. Similarly, the threshold for answering a bad argument is only low in the sense that there exists a short 2AC that wins---it does not mean that arguments other than those 'true' responses are somehow better. So, even a long 2AC against something "stupid" or "generic" may still be unrecoverably poor... in fact, I have seen such 2ACs... Anything else is unfair (to competitors) and illogical.

I do not think it is advisable to send analytics....

On the flipside, if you only need one or a few arguments to win, why say more? No need to waste speech time, if you're right.

The 2NC is a constructive, and so wholly new case arguments and positions (including counterplans) may be read in it. The 1NR and 1AR do not get unjustified new arguments, although justifications are easy to come by, and include the other team making any new arguments. Similarly for cards. When extending, say, dropped theory, the extensions should also be blippy, to avoid making new arguments to which the aff can respond, or at least careful to avoid them, demarcating which kinds of new arguments may be allowed. When an argument is truthfully new or illegitimate, you do not need to respond to it, other than to point that out.

Dropped arguments that make the other team's thing zero risk cannot be recovered from, assuming the team that made them doesn't own goal themselves. Sometimes there was nothing the rebuttals could've done! Focusing on improving your speeches is often a cope--the 2AC/block is generally more tractable and outcome-determinative....

Don't do the annoying echo thing--if you need your partner to say something, the ideal is that you type it in a Google Doc to which they alt tab when you tell them to. If it's not written down, then I will flow the speaking partner until it becomes excessive, after which I won't flow it at all. The only reason you should repeat them is if it wasn't audible. Obviously, this is bad for your ethos and you should try to avoid it.

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

I debated all through high school and I'm fresh out of the circuit so i remember the game. I care about debate being a healthy learning environment for everyone who participates so remember to be respectful to your opponent. In terms of debate style, I have a nostalgic love for both traditional and progressive LD, I don't have a preference. I am fine with speed as long as you're clear and your opponent can understand you.

As a debate judge, I value a few things:

-Signposting: Please tell me where you are at in the flow to assist in my ability to accurately judge the round. This will also be extra powerful in points of clash -- show me where your cases are in direct contention with one another and why your side should be preferred.

-Cards/Evidence: I get that evidence matters in a debate round. I honestly don't place a lot of value in a lot of a round being focused on when an article was published or when a study was conducted ... like I get that it matters and can be important to a round, but I much so value your wholistic arguments and ideas in your case over niche disputes on sources.

-Impacts: By making your impacts clear and concise, I am better able to understand the most important/essential elements of your argument.

-Voters: By the end of the round, you should be able to tell me why you won the round.

At the end of the day, I am not a very picky judge! I want to see you do what you do best.

Policy

I’ll start this off by saying that I don’t judge policy regularly because in my area I’m almost always working in Tab at a tournament; however, I have been a policy coach for over 20 years, so I am familiar with policy debate jargon and speed. It is important though that the speed doesn’t get in the way of the clarity and understanding of the arguments—if I can’t understand what you are saying, it won’t go on the flow. I prefer the tags to be slower so that I get the arguments on the flow correctly, but I rarely flow the names of the authors, so refer to the evidence by both the tag and author if you expect me to cross-apply or extend arguments on the flow.

I’m a true policymaker judge. I want to hear debate about the topic intended by the framers. I want to be able to weigh the end of the round by whether or not the Squo will be a better place post plan. Therefore, it is important to me that the Aff runs a case that is trying to solve the harms inherent in the resolution, and the negative should prove to me through the use of DAs and case attacks that the plan is a bad idea. In addition, the Aff must uphold the burdens by meeting the stock issues, so the negative is encouraged to run T if they believe that the Aff is not topical; however, the neg should not go for T unless there is a very clearly articulated and proven abuse story. The negative could choose to run a CP, but avoid getting into a serious theory debate by making it competitive.

I really hate theory debates, so try to avoid those things by running more substantial arguments. And while I’m on the topic of things I hate—I HATE Ks!!!!! I hate critical Affs and I certainly hate Negs who deflect from the true debate by running a K that takes the focus away from the merits of the Aff. I'm not saying that morality arguments aren't strong motivators, but they must be clearly applied to the resolution's intent--not just running the K because it's the only argument you want to discuss (aff or neg)

Best way to win my ballot is to stick to the Aff and its merits or weaknesses.

PF

I'm a flow judge, so whatever you want me to buy as a voter at the end, better be on the flow before the final focus. I'm a practical person, I like practical impacts. And with those practical impacts, I want to see quality evidence to back them up or to refute them. I want you to weigh the round for me by continually, in every speech, explaining why your arguments/impacts are better than your opponents. Also, I like strategy in the crossfire. Use your time to set up future arguments or catch your opponents in double binds. In addition, be nice! I do not want to see or hear rudeness during the round--debate should be about civil discourse, and as such, I expect to see that.

ncsoderquist@gmail.com

ALL EVENTS: I WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANY OTHER HATE SPEECH. Please do not use speech and debate as a platform to spread any type of hatred. You will not win my vote.

This is my fifth year judging. Past Asst. Coach at Middle School for Public Forum. I debated in High School. I have one child in LD.

DEBATE:

I like the clash, but keep it polite. My biggest pet peeve is poor sports-person-ship. I do not mind if you take control of your cross-ex. Argue your points, and refute your opponents. Back up with facts, quotes, stats. Use impacts and YOUR VALUE!!! Use your VC as a weighing mechanism. I am a flow judge and follow my flow and arguments made there. I am a tech over truth judge. Lead me through your evidence and tell me how to vote. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. Don't make me guess or make my own conclusions, as they may not match what you are presenting. In other words, impacts and voters.

Slow down on tags and contention tags. If it is critical to your case, slow down for that portion and taglines. Enunciation is key for me to understand your case. If I am trying to figure out what you said, I miss your case. Spreading is an art form that has guidelines, breathing patterns, and rhythm. Don't confuse talking fast with spreading, they are two different things. If I cannot flow it, I do not judge it. If I stop typing, you know I am not getting it.

I do not judge on cross-ex. I will flow it, because I have the memory of a goldfish, and if you bring it back into round, I want to have notes on it. But if you do not bring it into round, it flies away and never comes back again. If it is a good point, don't let that happen.

IEs:

I will count stutters/missteps and crutch words. If a round is close I will rank off who has less. Tone/Infection are important during any speech, use them. Work on not yelling to show all emotions in any speech. Anger/Sadness has many faces, explore these to rank higher. Those who have their presentation memorized will rank higher than those who do not.

Informative: You got to pick your topic. Make it FUN and INTERESTING to me. Show me your passion and excitement about the subject. Be a human in your speech, not a robot. Please do this by making jokes, puns, or using conversational speech to keep me hooked. Pieces with good transitions, hooks, and conclusions rank higher.

Impromptu: I look for a framework. If you set a framework for your piece, I expect you to follow it. You don't have to have 3 points if you have a strong speech with 2.

Have fun and good luck! :-)

I look for the following: eye contact, evidence, reference to the rules, and how you attack. I am not in favor of a speedy delivery. I prefer you use your voice to make. your. points. I would also appreciate knowing your voters.

LINCOLN_DOUGLAS UPDATE 1/7/2023

I am clearly a policy judge even though i have judged some LD before and have seen many topics and am familiar with the basics like value, criteria, resolutional analysis, etc. What i have been finding is I need a story in the final rebuttals to win the ballot. Please don't just start the top of your last speech digging into the line-by-line. Please tell me why the line-by-line matters. You will have to concede arguments, more than likely, to win a competitive round so keep in mind that no debater wins every single argument in every single round. I need a comparative explanation of why you should win the round despite the fact that you are losing other arguments on the flow.

JAN/FEB TOPIC: I am finding that you will need more than terrorism, trafficking, or narcotics to win my ballot on the negative. Not to generalize, (that's kind of what we do in our paradigms) the argument has not been very persuasive to me, especially when the data indicates that citizens here commit violent crime at rates far exceeding the immigrant/refugee community. I don't wanna say that it would be impossible to win with this case on the negative, but just know that it might be a difficult and uphill venture. It sounds and feels kinda nativist, to say the least.

UPDATED 1/31/2021

I have been in policy debate since the early nineties. I debated at Gonzaga University in the late nineties. There's not a lot that i haven't seen in this activity. I cant even calculate how many rounds I have actually judged. Speed is obviously fine, if you need to be clearer I will tell you to do so as you are speaking. I really don't do this very often but it is a small issue now with online debate.

I need to be on the email chain and I super prefer flashing your theory arguments (if you really, really wanna win the round on them).

I will vote on framework arguments (AFF or NEG) i have no biases here. I really don't have any biases against arguments like K affirmatives, multiple CPs, condtionality....you name it, its debatable. I will vote on topicality and definitely will vote on stasis based arguments against K affirmatives that are clearly outside the resolution. (this isnt to say dont run non-topical critical Affs, i vote for them frequently.) I really like policy based CP and net benefits VS plan debates. I love a good (or bad) politics disad with super fresh/recent evidence and updates. I will vote on case turns (if they are unique, of course) this is a viable strategy for my ballot. I also like in depth/heavy case debates.

The most fundamental part of my paradigm is this: The debate round exists for the participants, not the judge. The affirmative or negative strategy should be based on what YOU like to run, what YOU feel is important, substantial, or an issue of prima facie concern. I can be persuaded to vote on any type of argument (topicality, critiques, framework, counterplan and net benefits VS the plan, even justification arguments) as long as clear voting issues and/or impact analysis is provided.

One of the best ways to win my ballot is to use “because-even if-because” argumentation. Here’s what I like to see in the last rebuttals:

“The affirmative/negative wins the round because (fill in the blank.) Even if the other team wins their arguments, we still win because (fill in the blank.) This is an old school paradigm that I picked up in the 90s from the late great Becky Galentine.

Furthermore, I need to see issue selection in the final rebuttals. Very rarely will you be winning every argument. Winning one vital argument soundly is better than winning small risks of numerous different impacts or disadvantages. The ability to concede arguments and “collapse down” into the key issues is often the difference when making my decision.

When clear impact analysis or voting issues are not delivered, I often find myself “reading into” your evidence to base my decision. This may help or hinder your case depending on the quality of your evidence. In other words, if your evidence does not say what you claim it does then I may have difficulty voting on the issue. When I cannot come to a clear decision in my mind and “on the flow”, I often look into your evidence for further assistance. At this point I often base my decisions on verbatim text from evidence read, not just taglines. I typically read a lot of evidence at the conclusion of the round. I often find myself voting based on "a preponderance of the evidence." Please make sure you are clear with the authors for each piece of key evidence so I know what to reference in my decision. If you call out an author in the last rebuttal I will almost certainly read that evidence.

Please be aware that i take a long time to decide almost every round. I am typically the last (or next to last) judge to turn in a ballot just about every time. I like to go over all arguments thoroughly.

Finally, I like to see creativity in the debate round. I will vote as a policy maker when put into that paradigm. I have no qualms doing so. Again, the round is yours, not mine. However, I can also be persuaded to vote on “outside the box” types of arguments and usually enjoy those debates immensely.

**Reach out to me via email after the round anytime for further answers regarding my reason for decision. I always save my flows.***

jhyake@hotmail.com