Tabroom.com

Southwest Championship CXLD

2014 — AZ/US

Varsity Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Chuck Ballingall Damien None

Miriam Barnum Los Alamos High School 6 rounds None

Brian Brantley Juan Diego Catholic 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 5, 2014 at 7:32 AM MDT

I debated 3 years in high school in Utah (2004-2007), and 4 years at Idaho State University (2007-2011). This year I am an Assistant Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High School. My preference is to see the best debate possible. To that end you should do what you are most comfortable with and I’ll follow wherever you want to take the debate. Most good 2AR/NRs will write my ballot for me, specifically highlighting the most important arguments in the debate and explaining why you are winning those arguments and why the consequence of that is that you should win. This process can come in many forms which would include impact calculus in a DA/CP vs Aff debate and a well-developed Role of the Ballot for arguments with a non-traditional impact structure. While I do my best to evaluate debates without involving my personal preferences, it is probably impossible for them to not subconsciously influence me so it’s only fair that I share those.

T: Well developed T debates are awesome, I love listening to them. Unfortunately most T arguments either are not committed to or are not “true” enough to ever reach that standard.

CP: Allowing multiple worlds probably improves the quality of debates. As the number of worlds increases past two I become significantly more likely to buy that it is abusive to the Aff. Process/Consult counterplans should have evidence specific of the Aff or I’ll probably be more sympathetic to solvency deficits to the CP.

DA: I want to know the “story” of the DA. Rebuttals should walk me through that story not just extend the impact.

K/Performance: This is the part of debate I am most comfortable with. I’ve found that that actually means that I have a higher standard for these debates and often vote for the “straight up” team because they execute simple arguments that undercut fundamental assumptions made by the other team.

Framework: I love that debate has no set rules. The consequence of that is that your interpretation should frame what should be allowed in the debate and/or provide a role of the ballot guiding what should be considered when I decide the round. Your justifications for your interpretation will probably center around what creates the best debates.

Theory: Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, they are uncontested. They still need to make logical sense and be properly impacted. Most theory is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team absent demonstrating significant in-round abuse.

The most important thing to remember is to have fun. If you are enjoying your time in the debate I will enjoy watching you debate.

Bill Brotherton Hamilton 6 rounds

Max Bugrov Phoenix Country Day School 6 rounds

Lizzy Canarie Hire 3 rounds

Jackson Challinor Juan Diego Catholic 6 rounds None

Peter Chotras Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 13, 2017 at 7:29 AM MST

October 2017 Update:

I don't judge debates very often anymore, so I may not be familiar with certain topic-specific acronyms. I will not be offended if you want to ask me about my familiarity with certain acronyms before or during a debate. Also, a note relating to the 2017-2018 NDT/CEDA Topic: I do work for a health insurance company, so do with that information what you will.

(Updated January 2015)

Experience

LD at Horizon High School, 2007-2011 (Susan Seep)

Policy at ASU, 2011-2015 (Adam Symonds, Izak Dunn, Em Parker)

Assistant Debate Coach at Tempe Prep, 2011-2015

General

- I think it’s very important to be courteous and respectful in a debate round. To paraphrase my high school debate coach, Susan Seep: I have a lot a respect for this activity, and I expect you to show respect for the activity. The way I think you show respect for the activity is by respecting each other.

- I also think it's my role as a judge to respect the debaters by taking their positions and arguments seriously by devoting my whole attention to them. For that reason, I've started a new experiment where I flow CXs. CX isn't a speech, so debaters aren't responsible for responding to it; however, it is binding, so I'll hold teams to CX answers that I have written down.

- Extending an argument means extending a claim, warrant, and impact.

- If you debate paperless, you need to have a viewing laptop for your opponent(s).

- I probably won't be familiar certain abbreviations or topic-specific jargon.

- Flex prep and tag-team CX are OK

- There is such a thing as zero-risk of an argument. I am persuaded by alternatives to the offense/defense paradigm

- Debate should be fun. Do what you enjoy, and try to learn something

Kritiks

I think the aff should be able to weigh the impacts of the plan against the kritik, but will vote for framework arguments advanced by the neg about why the aff shouldn’t get to weigh its impacts or why weighing those impacts is illogical.

For the aff, it’s an uphill battle to win that the K should be excluded from debate, but substantive arguments about the necessity of political engagement are persuasive arguments for why the alt can’t solve/net benefit to the perm.

The aff will have more leverage against the kritik defending whatever the negative criticizes instead of saying why those things don't matter (e.g., instead of saying "ontology doesn't come first," defend the ontology behind the scholarship in the 1AC).

I don’t like Floating PIKs and am also sympathetic to certain theoretical objections to different types of alternatives (e.g. reject alts or vague alts) - usually, these are not reasons to reject the alternative, but they do give the aff some leeway on the severance/intrinsicness arguments the neg makes against the permutation.

Non-topical Affs

I have been on both sides of the framework debate, so I wouldn't say that I have a heavy bias in either direction in terms of framework yes/no, but I do have some biases on particular arguments.

Neg arguments are more persuasive when they are substantive, not theoretical (although if the aff isn't germane to the topic/is in the opposite direction of the topic/doesn't defend anything, I'll find your theoretical objections more persuasive). Arguments about engagement being a better political strategy, or ontological defenses of engaging institutions will get you a lot of leverage. Theoretical arguments should both explain why the aff is bad for debate and why the framework interpretation is good for debate.

Arguments requiring the aff to have an advocacy statement usually aren't persuasive, unless the aff seems like it could justify aff conditionality (or it's not clear what the aff defends after the 1AC or CX of the 1AC). Often, I would just prefer that you go for framework instead.

The argument "no plan, no perm" has never made sense to me and seems like a terrible standard for competition. I tend to believe the negative has the burden of rejoinder, and the perm is the aff's enforcement mechanism for that. If the neg wants to make this argument against a planless aff when going for the K, it would be in their best interest to present a reasonable theory of competition that allows the aff to use the perm as a check against neg positions that are not at all related to the aff. I would prefer that a neg going for the K against a planless aff grounds its competition argument in a philosophical disagreement with the aff (incompatible ontological claims, for example), a trade-off argument, or a performative DA to the aff.

CPs

I lean Aff on most counterplan theory (e.g., Object Fiat, Consult, Word PICs, International Actor, Multi-Actor, 50 States, Agent, Conditions - in roughly that order), with the exception of conditionality. I am also more willing to deviate from the offense/defense paradigm the more illegitimate I believe your counterplan is, assuming the aff has advanced a theoretical objection (especially if the net benefit is not topic specific). For example, if the neg wins that an agent counterplan solves ~100% of the aff and is barely ahead on a generic politics DA, I'd probably vote aff, whereas, all other things being equal, if the negative has a nuanced, topic-specific counterplan with a more topic specifc net benefit, I'd probably vote neg (NOTE - that doesn't mean that I'm committed to offense/defense - although it does become more persuasive when there's a counterplan in the debate).

I'll reward debaters who slow down on counterplan texts in the 1NC, especially if it's multi-plank or complicated in some other way

I will not kick the counterplan for the negative, unless explicitly told so (either in the 2NR, or at some point during CX if the aff asks the status of the advocacies). Additionally, if the neg wants me to kick the counterplan for them, they should spend some (not necessarily a lot of) time comparing the SQUO with the aff (this can be a cross-application of a lot of net benefit outweighs analysis from earlier). If the neg doesn't tell me to kick the counterplan in the 2NR, presumption flips aff.

DAs

Try to stick to the line-by-line instead of grouping “the uniqueness debate,” or “the link debate,” when you’re extending the DA in the block. The better the line-by-line in the block, the less leeway I will give to the 1AR (and worse line-by-line = more 1AR leeway).

A bad disad can easily be beaten by smart, developed analytic arguments. The aff does not need offense to beat a disad, especially when there's not a counterplan in the debate

Case

I think it’s strategic to spend a lot of the 1NC on case. It puts a big time crunch on the 2AC, and makes it easier for you to weigh the impacts of your off-case arguments against the Affirmative.

Good, smart analytics can beat a bad advantage, and I am willing to vote negative on presumption.

Topicality

I love Topicality and am disappointed that judges aren't more willing to vote for it. I would prefer that you go at about 75% of your top speed, especially on the standards debate

My default is competing interpretations. I also think that T is about what you justify, and potential abuse is a voter. This doesn't mean that I don't find aff reasonability arguments un-persuasive, but that they should be reworded in the rhetoric of competing interpretations (e.g. instead of saying "competing interpretations is an arbitary race-to-the-bottom," I'm more persuaded when someone says "arbitrary interpretations are unpredictable, which precludes effective clash over the topic, even if they're winning their limits/ground arguments"). That being said, if you are making a reasonability argument (and these are fine and good to make in the 2AC), tell me what it means for how I should evaluate the debate (e.g. "if there's a negligible difference between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation, vote aff"). In-round abuse and topical versions of the aff are good but not necessary.

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive aff argument for me - I am persuaded by negative arguments that it leads to aff conditionality and doubles the number of arguments the negative has to win in the 2NR if they want to prove counterplan competition.

I prefer that specification arguments have reasons to prefer that are related to the topic over a generic "90% of policy is implementation" card

Theory

Please go at about 75% of your top speed. I’ll listen to any theory argument with a clear interpretation and impacts.

I default to reject the argument not the team for all theory arguments except conditionality. Even if the other team does not say, “reject the argument not the team,” I will probably just reject the argument absent an argument from the debaters why that isn’t sufficient.

Leah Clark Head Royce 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 17, 2015 at 7:43 AM UTC

Leah Clark

*** Update: In light of our current political reality of fear mongering racists targeting ethnic groups as terrorists, either foreign or domestic, and the very real mortal danger to which that rhetoric leads, I will evaluate terrorism scenarios and impacts as tantamount to hate speech. Thus, expect me to vote accordingly... #debatenolongeragame

Howdy All,

Below are a few general guidelines that help me adjudicate, and by extension, help you debate in front of me:

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me. If I have to call for cards (which I rarely do), unfortunately, that situation becomes open to my interpretation of the evidence (underlined, not underlined, context from what I know of the author—or don’t) and is never satisfactory for either party.

Ultimately, debate is an educational activity and a ton of fun! Please try to have a good time in a respectful, inclusive and meaningful way.

Topicality— I will vote on it. Such debates should be a clash between two competing interpretations and impacted. Tell me why I should prefer one interpretation to another. Saying ‘T is a voter for blah, blah, blah…’ won’t do much to convince me it is important to evaluate. Use answers on other flows to prove things like ground loss, in-round abuse etc. It is pretty unlikely that I will vote simply on potential for abuse.

Dis-Ads— every argument in the round should functionally operate, in its own way, as a disad-- specific link/internal link/imapct story is key and explain to me how it turns case.

Counterplans— I like ‘em. Win the net benefit, explain how it operates as a disad to the permutation, win answers to perm/theory.

Permutations-- Slow down! There are few things I hate more than tests of competition that unfairly morph by the end of the debate because nobody in the debate really caught the text/concept of the perm.

Explain to me what ideas or actions you propose testing and how it functions-- I do not buy glib perms like 'perm all non-competative parts of the alt'. Describe to me what that world looks like/how they are compatible.

Theory— Tacked on, unreasoned, un-warranted theory arguments will not be evaluated. I am happy to vote here but you have to do some serious work to make it impactful. Slow down—I want to catch your analysis!

Critical Arguments/the ‘K’—I really enjoy these debates, and truthfully where I focused my attention as a competitor--both on the Aff. and Neg. However, please do not operate under the assumption that I am familiar with your authors or your interpretations. Please be clear in identifying your links and implications. I especially dislike kritik debates that devolve into generic disads. Specificity is key and tell me a story! Always a good choice to slow down! Also a great choice, cut the jargon.

If your strategy when confronted with a critical argument is to rest solely on your Framework laurels, you will have a lot of difficult winning in front of me. I like to see arguments engaged directly— more on Framework….

Framework—Thus far, observing framework arguments, I am not a fan. I am not of the opinion that debate is the wrong forum and that arguments should, on face, be excluded. A more sophisticated argument, and one that I am definitely willing to vote for, is one that identifies how the argument operates as a disad to the K/critical case, provides impact comparison, and warranted analysis how they cant capture/access x advantage.

Roger Copenhaver Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 19, 2017 at 2:45 PM EDT

2017-2018 Season

Background:

This year will be my 12th year in the activity. I debated for 3 years in high school at Puyallup High School (2006-2009) and 4 in college at Idaho State University (2009-2013).

I have not been involved in college policy debate since the 2015 NDT. I am currently working with The University of Washington on a part-time basis. Gonzaga will be my first tournament, and I am a little bit behind on topic research as a result. This just means I may need a little time to catch up on key topic discussions and acronyms. As a judge, I think it is important to work hard to make the best possible decision in every debate I judge.

---

How I decide debates: I evaluate debates holistically, however I also try my best to keep a good flow of the debate, and use the flow for the basis for my decision. What does this mean for you? The best way to win my ballot is to frame the debate around central questions for the debate. I think both tech and truth is important, so winning larger thesis level claims , and then executing technically on the line-by-line are equally important.

Framework: While I used to have a higher threshold for framework, this is no longer the case. I think framework is an important tool for negative teams to use vs. non-topical/non traditional/non-fiat based affirmatives. If you have read this type of affirmative and don't have a good defense of it, you should lose. Reading an AFF just because it is important in the abstract is not a good enough reason to not talk about the topic. On the flip side, if you are going for framework, you should still be responsible for engaging the content of the affirmative. Also, having tangible impacts to your framework arguments is necessary to win these debates.

Counterplans: What is theoretically legitimate is open for debate. I try to enter the debate without any biases for what debaters should be allowed to talk about. With that being said, I probably still think that counterplans should have solvency advocates, compete in some capacity, and provide and opportunity cost to the affirmative. I think judge kick is stupid. I will do it if I am told to, but I am persuaded that 2N’s should have to think strategically and should be held accountable to their 2NR choice. AFF’s should exploit the difference between the CP and the AFF.

Disadvantages: I prefer to hear DA's that are specific to the AFF or that are a central to the topic. I think DA's paired with large case debates can be some of the most fascinating debates to watch. Controlling spin and having great evidence are two key factors to winning these debates in front of me.

K/Performance Debate: Controlling meta level questions for the debate is necessary. This is the type of debate that I have the most experience with. I rather see a debate where people are willing to defend something specific and generate offensive arguments from it rather then saying they are everything and nothing. You should be able to justify what you do. AFF’s should get permutations regardless of the type of debate that is happening (although like everything, I am open to hearing arguments on the other side. It just may require additional work to win this argument in front of me). Debate is a competition and negative teams have the burden of meeting some standard for competition. I don’t think the alt has to solve the AFF. I think the alt needs to at least resolve a substantial amount of the link to the AFF. I am less well read when it comes to high theory, especially psychoanalysis, so explanation is critical for me in these debates.

Other miscellaneous things:

Flowing and good line by line debate is a lost art. You will be greatly rewarded if you do good line by line debate.
Bad embedded clash is almost impossible to follow and I probably won't get arguments where they should be.
Most of the time I keep a pretty good flow and I have typically found that my flow reflects the quality of the debate in terms of efficiency and debate technique.
Framework vs. framing – to me, framework is what should be allowed in the debate, and framing is what impacts should come first. I think these two things often times become conflated. To me, unless otherwise stated, the role of the ballot, judge, etc.. are all just impact framing issues.
Aff framework vs. the K is silly and neither team is going to generate traction in front of me spending substantial time here.
I am a strong believer in high evidence quality. Research is one of the most important parts of debate. This is tricky for me because I don’t read a lot of evidence, however I do think that high evidence quality should be rewarded. If I happen to read some of your evidence or you are really trying to get evidence in my hand, you should make sure it is good.
Debate is fun. I hope that you debate because you love this activity. I also like judging debates when debaters are intelligent, witty, funny, and engaged. I have zero tolerance for people that destroy the pedagogical values of this activity or that make this activity an unsafe, violent, or unpleasant space for other participants.

Cade Cottrell Green Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 12:58 AM PDT

cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated February 2024

Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.

For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards being of use to high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.

Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.

***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***

I debated in high school for a school you've never heard of called Lone Peak, and in college for UNLV. I coached Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.

Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.

My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):

- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards

- Quality and Quantity are both useful.

- Condo is generally good

- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's

- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)

- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC

- #Team1%Risk

- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough

- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached.

- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.

***

A Few Notes You Should Know:

Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.

Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)

Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.

***

Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.

DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.

CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates.

T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact. Do the additional work.

Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.

Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a successful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "A.I. to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.

K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).

Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:

I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neoliberalism, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).

I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.

ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.

***

Aff:

Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.

Last Notes:

I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.

Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)

- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions

- Politics disads that turn each advantage

- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.

- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.

- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)

- Red Bull/Monster/M&M's (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy generally correlates to higher speaker points)

Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!

- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents

- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.

- Being unclear

- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)

- Toasted Coconut

Stephanie Garrett Kent Denver 6 rounds None

Gerard Grigsby II Lowell High School 6 rounds

Sukhi Gulati Saint Francis High School 6 rounds

Nitin Gupta Hire 6 rounds None

Joshua Hone St. Pius X High School 3 rounds None

Brian Ko Hire 1 rounds

Debate for me is ultimately about comparing advantages and disadvantages to some course of action. The best way to do so is through discussing impacts That doesn’t necessarily mean I’m all for policy impacts, but there should be a consequence to an action and you should be debating the merits of those consequences. The way each team frames those impacts is how I will end up evaluating the round, so that means each team not only needs to make impact comparisons but that both sides should be justifying its use. You should be telling me why your framework is the best way to evaluate the impacts in the round.

I believe in warranted arguments, which to me means that you should be able to justify every argument you make, either with evidence or logical deductions. Leaps of faith and assumption will usually get you nowhere with me, and I’ll end up not ignoring the argument.

Speaking of evidence, I’d rather not spend time after the round rereading evidence you read in round unless I have to. It’s your job to tell me what the evidence says, not just cross-apply a card and expect me to remember what is said. You should be spending a little time saying the actual argument, it’ll get you further. I do like to see evidence comparison in speeches, and by comparison I don’t mean the whole ‘we said/they said’ thing that everybody does. I’d rather hear about how the evidence interacts with one another, whether it refutes a claim or supports it, stuff like that.

A pet peeve I have is poorly underlined evidence. Oftentimes I’ll read cards that are basically disjointed words cobbled together to kind of maybe say what the tag says. Any cards you read need to have warrants in the actual evidence. If it’s not clear or poorly underlined, I’m just going to disregard it.

I sort of talked about framework above, but I’ll go into more detail about it here. I’m generally a fan of the race to the middle. I tend to hold frameworks that purposefully limit out everything but your own point of view in a negative light. Both sides should be allowed to discuss and bring their impacts to the table. Policy consequences and discursive or representational consequences should be evaluated. I’d rather be listening to teams debate and comparisons about the types of impacts rather than framework. On the more theoretical side of framework debates, I hold fairness as the key standard to evaluate ‘abuse’. I’m not going to disregard an entire team’s arguments just because its ‘unfair’ though. Most importantly, regardless of what kind of framework you are reading, I firmly believe anything you bring into the debate must relate to the topic. I cannot emphasize topic-specific education enough. As long as you are able to justify how you relate to the topic and the advantages to the type of framing you advocate, you should be fine.

Perms are tests of competition. Net benefits are important to have. If you don’t have them then the perm’s probably not competitive and you should try something else. If you are aff, you need to emphasize 2 things on the perm for me. (1) what are the net benefits and (2) why the links are irrelevant where the alt solves those impacts. If you are neg, then you need to have (reasonably) specific link arguments to the aff or the permutation. It’ll be to your advantage to prove that the aff plus the alternative creates a worse world than just the alternative. I would suggest attack the net benefits as a place to start.

I debated a lot of theory when I debated and it pisses me off when no one is responsive on theory debates. Often these ‘debates’ devolve into shouting matches where one team spouts 20+ reasons why X is bad and the other responds with 20+ reasons why X is good and all the blocks are in different orders to everything is all over the place. If you’re making theory arguments and see that I’m not writing anything down, it’s probably because I have no idea where you are and gave up. A couple well explained arguments will take you further than blippy tags that don’t really say anything. While I am more sympathetic to the aff on theory debates, most rounds that come down to theory have resulted in my voting neg. Just FYI.

Michael Kurtenbach Desert Vista High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2018 at 9:35 AM PDT

put me on the email chain: mikekurtenbach@gmail.com

coach @ Brophy College Prep.

experience: 10+ years

tldr: i have minimal predispositions - all of the following are my preferences, but good debating will always change my mind. i arbitrate debates purely based off the flow - i don’t read evidence unless 1) i was told to in reference to an argument or 2) the debate is incredibly close and evidence quality is the tiebreaker.

topicality: it’s okay. i think limits are the controlling standard. reasonability is probably a non-starter unless it’s dropped.

framework/k affs: let me start off by saying i would prefer if the affirmative defends something contestable. affirmative teams should not rely on “thesis-level claims” and should engage the line by line, mostly consisting of defense and impact turns. as long as the negative wins that debate in and of itself is good (which shouldn’t be hard), fairness is a legitimate impact. i think decision-making is silly. negative teams shouldn’t be afraid to go for presumption. same goes for performance affs. i don’t think a poem necessarily solves unless tied to tangible advocacy; convince me otherwise. *on the education topic, i’m especially persuaded by the tva*

kritik: it’s okay, but i’d prefer a more technical line-by-line execution by the neg over three minute long overviews that are repeated on every single argument. that being said, i think the ideal 2nc for most k’s should focus less on reading new evidence and more on contextualized analysis to the substance of 1ac. i think most k debates are lost due to lack of explanation or contextualization of the link or alternative. blippy extensions won’t do it for me, unless you can explain your advocacy in tangible terms. i will probably default to letting the aff weigh its impacts, unless you convince me otherwise. affirmatives, this is probably where you should invest the most time. losing 2ar’s either miss offense embedded on the link debate, lose the framework, or let them get away with absurd broad generalizations (or drop a pik). winning 2ar’s buckle down on case outweighs, mutual exclusivity, or well-analyzed impact turns.

da: love them. politics is my favorite argument. case-specific da’s are the best. aff don’t drop turns case. in the absence of a counterplan, impact calc/framing is incredibly important for my ballot and should be introduced earlier rather than later. in the presence of a counterplan, negs should weigh the da to the risk of a solvency deficit. specific internal links always beat general framing pre-empts.

cp: also love ‘em. pics are my second favorite argument. condo is probably good to an extent. decide what that extent is for me. i enjoy watching a well-executed process counterplan so long as you know how to defend it theoretically. unless told otherwise, i default to judge-kick.

case: please bring this back - it’s a lost art. highly encourage re-hilightings of their evidence, specific advantage frontlines, etc. i love impact turn debates. if an aff can’t defend why economic decline is bad, why should it win?

cross ex: i appreciate when you can answer every question straight-up in cross ex, instead of dodging them. cross-ex is a great time to build ethos. i think one of the greatest mistakes i see debaters make round after round is not carrying concessions in cross-ex into their speeches. cross-ex is binding.

Tim Lewis Damien 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 7:32 AM CDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Liu McClintock Independent 6 rounds

Lily Luo Desert Vista High School 6 rounds

Ryan Marcus Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 22, 2014 at 4:37 PM UTC

am affiliated with Los Alamos High School (New Mexico) and Catalina Foothills (Arizona).

Any judge who says they aren't predisposed to one "camp" or another is a liar.

The most important thing in any debate is reasons. "This BECAUSE that" is far better than "this." Have warrants, and better explanation of those warrants than your opponent, and you will likely get my ballot. See section marked "reasons."

I debated for 8 years. I've read Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and a whole lot of case turns. During my last two years of debate, I read a critical affirmative (no plan text) and mostly Ks on the negative.

I've completed a bachlor's degree in computer science and gender studies.

Specific questions can be asked before the round, but also feel free to email me:ryan@rmarcus.info

THE LIES YOU'VE BEEN TOLD ON JUDGE PARADIGMS:
Tabula rasa: I am not "tab ras." No one is "tab ras." What a blank slate looks like is relative to one's understanding of a blank slate. I believe the flow is important, but I am open to arguments suggesting I disregard the flow. I believe that some arguments (like "rape good") gain 0 traction and lead to a speaker point deduction, if not a ballot for the other side. Some judges believe that the K has no place in debate but still consider themselves "tab ras." I think the K has a place in debate.

High/medium/low threshold on theory: as with all arguments, the ethos and pathos used to present them is relevant. I'll want to vote for your theory arguments more if there is actual abuse, and less if it seems "dirty" or "dumb." For me, dropped theory is almost always convincing, as long as it is a reason to reject a team, not an argument. "Severance perms bad" is a reason to reject a permutation, not a team. "Condo bad" is a reason to reject a team. You should try to prioritize substance over theory when possible.

Absolutely anything involving "the K": to some people, the K is a "strategy bad" argument. For others, it is a utopia CP with a linear DA. For me, it is a particular criticism of an epistemological ontological, or axiological system and a proposed alternative system. Examples: Heidegger (ontological), feminism (epistemological or axiological), Marxism (epistemological), psychoanalysis (epistemological), Irigary (ontological), Queer Theory (epistemological). More notes about the K are below.

I am/am not an "offense defense" judge: everyone has different standards for "0 risk." For me, this is wildly round dependent. A conceded link is probably a link. I say probably, because it could be really dumb. If a CP solves 100% of the aff, I need to hear why an unlikely net benefit deserves my ballot. This should not be difficult for the negative to accomplish.

Reasons
I cannot believe how many high school debates I've seen that included little to no warrants. Most debaters seem to have an idea that a warrant is some mystical creature that lives inside of their cards, and that I, as the judge, have a responsibility to wrangle these rare unicorns out of their hiding places post-round. This is not the case.

Example: "Econ is recovering -- business confidence up, Pew poll." This is statement has both a claim and a warrant, but it isn't a very good explanation. This is a perfectly acceptable TAG, but it is not very good rebuttal-level analysis.

Instead, consider: "The economy is recovering now -- a Pew poll indicating increased business confidence means that capital flow is increasing. A record number of mergers and acquisitions this year show that CEOs are starting to think long-term again. When the bulk of business leaders begin to look long-term, spending is unlikely to decrease, and the economy is likely to grow." This is much, much better analysis. If a team says "econ is recovering -- we have 5 cards!" and the other team says "econ not recovering -- we have 7 cards!", I will not really have any basis for comparing the two claims and will likely reach a decision that seems arbitrary.

If the affirmative team gives the improved explanation I gave above, and the negative team says "econ not recovering -- we have X cards," I will vote affirmative for any value of X.

This is extremely important. I have seen smart debaters beat teams that were far more technically adapt than they were by simply giving reasons and explanations for their arguments.

"The K"
When you advance an epistemological K, I need to understand why their knowledge production is (a) bad and (b) WRONG. Everyone seems to forget about the "wrong" part. The feminism K might identify tropes of terrorism as "masculine" (bad) and "a product of a system of hypermasculinization that told us Mexico would invade California in 2005" (wrong). I also need to know how the alternative resolves this.

When you advance an ontological K, I need to understand what the "subjects" of the affirmative's system are, and why that selection of subject is wrong. The Heidegger K might argue that the affirmative ignores Being by revealing the world as a purely knowable entity. One might argue that a concealment of Being's infiniteness occurs when the affirmative reduces racism to "a mere issue of transportation." I also need to know what the ontology of the alternative is: what subjects does the alternative consider?

When you advance an axiological K, I need to know what about the affirmative's moral system is bad. The capitalism K might argue that the affirmative "puts more power into the hands of high-speed rail manufactures" as part of a "substructure of exploitation." I then need to know how the alternative resolves these issues, either axiologically or epistemologically.

Other information / Cliff notes:

Humor is fine. I love puns. I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS. If that's your style, strike me, because I'll drop you. More below.

I really like how Adam Symonds and Omar Guevara approach debate and judging. Tim Alderete has a special place in my heart -- I really like his thoughts on the debate community and debate space in general, as well as the K. Of course, he's a great judge as well.

Rudeness:
Not OK. I agree with Omar Guevara: debate requires professionalism. Calling your opponents stupid or "tools" will likely result in you losing. If you are on the receiving end up the rudeness, don't complain, that'll just sound like whining. Ignore it and get to the relevant issues.

I'm a feminist, I enjoy long walks on the beach, and I'm a strong supporter of man love. Even with women.

J McGougan Vashon High School 6 rounds None

Anna Moe Hire

Last changed on Wed January 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM UTC

I debated policy for 2 years and PF for 1 year in high school, and have been debating college policy for 3 years at ASU.

I will listen to anything, and try to be as open minded as possible. My experience is primarily with running straight up, policy arguments, but I do have a fair amount of experience with K's as well, because, well, people run them and so do I, but am naturally more comfortable with policy arguments. This just means that you will need to explain your high theory to me, as I will not have read your authors before.

When speaking, be sure to be clear. I am generally fine with speed but I like to actually listen to cards and write down warrants when I can, especially during rebuttals, so BE CLEAR! If I don't understand what you are saying I can not write it down, and if I don't write it down there is a good chance I won't remember to evaluate it when making my decision.

Do not be offensive, use sexist/racist/homophobic language and such. I will pay attention to cross ex, and generally take that into account some, but I do expect you to bring what happens in CX into speeches if it is a game changing argument. Also higher speaker points for those that are witty/clever/funny, but fewer to people who are mean/crass. Be sure to explain things really well, with comparative impact calc. Let me know why I should care about something, with the whole claim, warrant, impact structure to your arguments.

Do that, run what you are familiar with and comfortable with, and we will have a fun round. Below are more things for if you need some more specifics.

Performance: I am fine with performance/K affs, but I think that you need to be able to have a good defense of your performance and why it is particularly important to debate and the round we are in. It seems that people who run these affs also run the same argument on the neg. I am a bit of a stickler for relevancy, so have a link, or a really good reason why we should just completely ignore the entire 1AC when running your performance on the neg. Have an impact as well, discuss why your performance makes a particular difference to debate and/or society.

K: Similar to performance. When you run a K, it is important to me that you have an actual link, preferably to the 1AC or at least to the way that debate exists. Specificity is great, so talk about things that the aff team/argument itself is doing and why your argument is particularly transformative. Obviously if you run a K with no alt, I will evaluate it as a linear DA to the affirmative.

Framework: I tend to be sympathetic to the framework against highly unpredictable affirmatives. I think that debate is a game that we all agree to participate in, and when we all decide to participate in debate we agree to the rules that exist, like running a topical aff and such. But I also enjoy discussions of how debate can be more inclusive by changing the rules, or by ignoring them all together. Debate provides countless opportunities for education and self-growth that are unavailable elsewhere, and framework debates are often able to discuss why the rules that attempt to uphold fairness and education are or are not effective.

Topicality: Again, as someone who primarily runs policy arguments, I am naturally sympathetic to the idea of affirmatives needing to be topical. But I think that T debates are very good discussions of what certain words and terms do or should mean, and how we should define the topic area.

DA: I dislike non-unique DA's, or ones that are very generic and don't link. Be sure to explain the story to me--why is the impact of the DA bigger or faster or more terrifying than the impact of the aff? Does the status quo solve all or parts of the affirmative and sidestep the impact of the DA?

CP: I think that these should be functionally and textually competitive, and should solve the affirmative with a net benefit. Again, be sure to explain the story, with specifics of how the mechanism of the CP is different from the mechanism of the plan.

Condo is good, but don't be a jerk about it and read like 6 conditional alternate worlds that all contradict one another. It's nice to have a cohesive strategy that does not contradict itself too much. Especially once the block ends.

I will probably call for cards that have been heavily contested during the round, but in a perfect world debaters will do that work for me.

Kurtis Nielsen River Valley High School 6 rounds

Desaray Odekirk Copper Hills HS 6 rounds None

Scott Odekirk Copper Hills HS 1 rounds

Em Parker Phoenix Country Day School

Last changed on Wed January 15, 2014 at 5:04 PM MST

A little background:

I graduated from Chico State in May 2013, where I debated for 3 years and studied International Relations. I am currently working as an assistant coach for ASU and Phoenix Country Day School. Given that I am a new judge, I will likely have to update it regularly as my approach to judging changes.

As a debater, I ran almost exclusively heg & politics & framework & the like; HOWEVER – that does not mean that I am automatically predisposed to vote against different kinds of arguments. The drawback here is that I am significantly less familiar with the literature, particularly "high theory" literature (such as Baudrillard), although my interest in it has grown over time.

That being said, I will address important questions here, as they arise:

CPs - I really love specific CP's that make a concerted/evidenced attempt to subsume some specific aspect of the aff. Like, if you go and cut one of your opponent's solvency articles and made a CP out of it, I'm gonna think that you're at least relatively badass.

Disads - I love them, but think it's kind of silly that they've turned into a "who can read more cards" contest. I think smart analytical arguments are incredibly valuable/underrated and, although I do not read evidence if I can manage, would prefer to hear two pieces of wonderfully specific & warranted link evidence than six cards with one word in reference to the aff somewhere at the bottom.

Framework & Topicality – To me, this is simply/should be questions of what we should do when we enter a debate round, why that version of the activity is a good one, and how your methodology is the most effective/productive. If you are able to answer those questions, you’re in a good position. I will not on face reject a non-topical affirmative, but for goodness’ sakes, please have an answer to topical version of the aff. Topicality requires deep and warranted explanation and I am definitely not familiar enough with your literature critiquing topicality itself to comfortably vote on it unless you really flesh it out. (What does the phrase "flesh it out" really even mean? Weird.)

I believe that the affirmative should defend a topical plan action taken by the “USFG,” however, I do not think this is the ONLY thing that the affirmative can or “should” necessarily be held to doing. If the affirmative chooses NOT to defend the implementation of a topical plan, they must also explain to me how voting aff achieves something in the context of your arguments (i.e. an explicit explanation of how my ballot will do anything besides signify the winner and loser to the tabroom).

If a negative team reads topicality or framework against a non-topical affirmative, there MUST BE SOME ENGAGEMENT of the affirmative’s argument in order for me to justify voting neg… I believe that topicality is an a-priori issue and comes first in almost every instance, and I absolutely do not think that reading topicality is wrong or EVER a reason to vote against the negative (unless it’s explicitly offensive, of course); however, if the affirmative is making arguments about why their ethics precede topicality or something of the like, the negative will not be able to win simply BECAUSE they ran topicality.

Other things that are still quite important:

For better or worse, I am NOT going to call for a bunch of evidence after the round unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. My reasoning for this is simply that, given my inexperience judging, I want to avoid getting in the habit of potentially recreating different aspects of the debate in my mind. If a piece/pieces of evidence are serious points of contention in the debate and/or will have significant bearing on my decision, then I may call for them, but as of now that will be limited. If you want me to call for something you should make a big deal about it/why it would be important for me to do so in your speeches.

I really enjoy a hefty & comparative case debate in the block.

If you are rude to your opponent in cross ex, I will be so distracted by your attitude that I will probably not want to listen to your answers or give you good speaker points. People who make smart arguments & are KIND to their partner/opponents will get really good speaker points... as far as I am concerned, that's an important indicator of how speaker points should be distributed. In light of the community-wide discussion of speaker point distribution, I will also just say that I am still trying to figure out the way that I deal with these.

If you want to flag an argument as important (place emphasis on it, ask me to call for it, or if it’s something you’re going to be asking me about after the round) then you should do so explicitly. It's really strange to me that debaters say things like, "but what about when I said XYZ?" because, quite frankly, it almost always makes more sense/is more substantively articulated when you describe it after the round than it is in the speeches, and that's what I'm evaluating, so...

Prep time ends when you take your flash drive out of the computer. I will probably be lenient for novices or during paperless blunders but if I get the feeling that something shady is happening I will start prep.

I have recently learned that I think Wipe Out is a very frustrating argument.

Regarding discussions of sexual violence, I am not comfortable with extremely graphic imagery. My evaluation of such arguments are no different from any other, but explicit descriptions are something that I would appreciate being slightly moderated in front of me. Thank you.

Alisa Partlan Desert Vista High School 6 rounds None

Nisarg Patel Hamilton 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 15, 2017 at 11:42 AM MST

9 years of policy debate experience. Currently at Harvard, previously coached Chandler High School and Hamilton High School (AZ).

Quick Pre-round Notes:

Speed is fine. Distinguish between tags and cards.
Tech > Truth.
Don't read stupid arguments.
"Extend XYZ" is not an argument. Give clear explanations and contextualizations of prior evidence.
Tag-team CX is fine, don't dominate your partner.
I don't count flashing as prep unless I notice you stealing prep (probably also not great for your speaks or street cred).

Speaker points:

Be aggressive, but kind and pleasant. Just because you have X number of bids doesn't mean you're excused from being respectful. Don't be condescending.
I will pay attention to CX and reward fantastic ones.
Clash. Many high school rounds come down to "who dropped what?" rather than "who debated best?". I'd rather hear you engage the other team's arguments rather than blindly blaze through a prewritten overview.
- On that note, I've found that hearing large prewritten overviews is rarely helpful.
Jokes poking fun at the Seattle Seahawks, Los Angeles Lakers, the University of Arizona, and good puns are a plus--but don't overdo it.

Arguments:
Case --- I highly value research and love seeing well-researched case debates. Some of the best debates I've judged have come down to nuances in policy implementation, internal link chains, and fights over root causes. I like strategic 1ACs that pre-empt frequently encountered negative arguments and continue to leverage their case throughout the debate. That being said, the 2AR is not a constructive. I won't flow new arguments or ones not developed in the 1AR.

Disadvantages --- Great. The more specific, the better. That being said, I still love a good Politics debate. Focus on quality over quantity: If it’s in the 1NC, it should be worth going for in the 2NR.

Counterplans --- Great. Most of my senior year in high school was spent cutting case-specific PICs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're theoretically legitimate and I can be convinced if they are/aren't in a debate round. I don't think most consult CPs are legitimate (or any CP with an artificial net benefit, for that matter).

Kritiks --- Cool (if you know what you're doing). Don't assume that name-dropping a dead German guy means I'll automatically vote for you. Assume I don't know the literature beforehand and give me a case-specific link story and why I should care.

Things I've seen in good critical debates include, but are not limited to:
NEG

2NC/1NR link contextualization specific to the aff.
A simple, but effective alternative overview (if you also claim to solve/turn the aff, tell me how in the context of the 1AC). Why does it solve your impacts? Why does it solve/turn those of the 1AC?
Impact comparison in the context of framework
Framework: Why shouldn't I weigh the 1AC against the alternative?

AFF

Permutations should be explained in the context of the K (At the least in the 1AR + 2AR). If the 2AR is solely "extend perm do both", you're fighting an uphill battle.
Some negative teams are pretty terrible at explaining their alternative. Win a substantial risk that the alt doesn't solve and/or a strong link turn and the ballot's probably yours.

Topicality --- T should probably be all 5 minutes of the 2NR. There needs to be a reason that your impact is a significant hindrance to the debate (e.g. "we lose the spending DA" isn't a substantial enough reason to vote neg because it's a terribly generic argument). Affirmative's don't necessarily need to win that their interp is best for debate, but they do need to win a framework that allows me to believe that substantial defense is enough to vote aff.

Theory --- I appreciate when teams utilize theory to justify/extrapolate key arguments to give them an edge on contested flows. I have a high threshold on using theory as a reason to vote aff/neg; give me a compelling–more than just a blip–reason why I should vote for you.

Non-traditional/Performance Affirmatives --- While these are fine, I do believe these should be somewhat related to the resolution. Arguing that "framework is oppressive" isn't a compelling argument on its own. In order for debate to function properly, there needs to be some point of stasis that debaters can come to. That doesn't necessarily need to be USFG or policy action, but it does need to be defined (hence the framework debate).

Rohit Rajan Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 5, 2021 at 11:08 PM MST

Updated for ASU 2021

I spent the first half of my debate career reading primarily "policy" arguments and the second half of my career experimenting with critical literature. Most of my 2NRs my senior year consisted of either psychoanalysis, politics (and CP/case), T, or framework. I've debated and coached both sides of the framework debate. I'm currently a lawyer. I have not judged any debates on this topic and have done almost no research on it either.

Contact info: rsrajan93@gmail.com (add me to the email chain)

Big picture:

-Each side should have offense (solvency deficits, DAs, etc.) to the other side's proposed advocacy (1AC, TVAs, CPs, K alts, etc.). In terms of impacts, however, I am comfortable believing that there is such a low risk of something happening that it is not a concern.

-Impact COMPARISONS frame my decision regardless of the genre of debate. Your final speech ought to provide some insight into why the strategy you are going for is a good one.

-While I care a lot about both evidence quality and spin, how you debate your evidence matters the most. Evidence quality will influence speaker points.

-Even...if argumentation is good because you're not likely to win every argument.

-Less is more. Final speeches ought to value breadth over depth. Fewer arguments that are better impacted out have a greater chance winning in front of me than hoping your opponent drops a poorly impacted one.

-I am quite good for impact turns, especially in Policy v. K debates.

-I have to be able to trace any argument that is in the 2AR to the 1AR. I will not reward aff vagueness or any attempt to obfuscate the debate up until the 2AR.

Note: Each debater gets one constructive and one rebuttal. After the 1AC/1NC, I will not evaluate what you say during your partner's speeches. This presumption can only be overcome with a very good and explicit reason.

Specific Arguments:

Framework: I judge this debate the most often. Fairness is far more persuasive as an internal link than it is as an external impact. The two most persuasive negative strategies are either: (a) an explanation of how the negative's conception of the activity promotes certain beneficial skills or a model of research (or engagement with the world) that links to some larger impact that outweighs and is mutually exclusive with the aff OR (b) a reason for why conceiving of debate as more than just a game structured by competitive incentives is bad. Negatives should still play defense to the substance of the aff via case answers, TVAs, state engagement good args, an SSD claim, etc. Such defense should also address aff impact turns to framework.

Affirmatives need a connection to the topic. Affs should also defend doing something and that advocacy should extend beyond the aff debaters. Otherwise, it's very easy for me to find that any impact on framework outweighs the aff. To effectively hedge against procedural fairness offense, affirmatives ought to have a vision of what debate looks like under their interpretation. I've noticed that I've been voting negative more often because affirmatives spend too much time describing the content of the aff and not enough time explaining how they grapple with the competitive structure of debate. Explain how you deal with the fact that debate is a competitive activity and how you would change our relationship to or channel the benefits of competition.

Lastly, I have a hard time completely separating "form" from "content." I am willing, however, to believe that one may be more important than (or control how I evaluate) the other.

Kritiks: Examples matter. While specificity to the aff is not required, specificity does influence how likely I am to believe the thesis of your K.

For the aff, if the negative critiques a methodological underpinning necessary for the aff to be true/function, the burden is on the affirmative to answer that critique. It behooves the aff to have a defense of their epistemology, ontology, representations, etc. or reasons why those considerations should not matter. The aff can and should make arguments about specificity, but needs to contextualize these arguments for the purposes of impact calculus or internal link takeouts.

When answering framework on the K, the aff should defend their model of engaging the resolution. I'm not too persuaded by arguments grounded in predictability or fairness.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability arguments should be phrased as reasons why the negative's interpretation is bad. I also believe that T is about what you justify so potential abuse is a voting issue. I'm not too persuaded by plan text in a vacuum type arguments. For both sides, it's important to contextualize any standards to specific arguments grounded in topic literature.

CPs/Theory: I heavily lean neg on conditionality. I lean aff on theoretical objections to CPs that compete off the certainty of the aff. The negative can obviate a lot of these concerns by having a topic-specific solvency advocate defending the value of discussing the CP. My default is to reject the argument and not the team.

I will kick the CP if I think it's worse than the status quo. A neg team does not have to say judge kick. Affs can make arguments about why judge kick is bad, but I'm a tough sell.

If you have any questions or would like a typed up version of my RFD, please email me.

Vjay Ramakrishna Chandler High School 5 rounds None

Chris Roberds Salpointe Catholic High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 7, 2023 at 6:50 AM CDT

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails. I honestly prefer speechdrop, but email is ok if that's your norm or what your coach prefers. My least favorite option is the file share.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2022-23 topic marks my 27th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

Update - 1/20 - a note about prepping your speech before you speak

My expectation is that you send out a doc BEFORE you speak that includes the evidence AND analytics that you intend to read in the speech if they are typed up. They should also be in the order that you are going to speak them. It is an accessibility issue. If you type them up in the round, that's one thing - but if they are your blocks (or your team blocks) they should be sent. This includes AT A MINIMUM the text of perms, the texts of counterplans, the text of interpretations of why you reject a team, etc. Also, if you choose to just randomly jump around in a document please know that it will dramatically impact your speaks. Nobody is as good at flowing in online debates as we are in person, having the doc and reading it in order helps improve the activity.

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

Please show up to the room to establish email chains/ speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, do tech checks, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after pairings have been released (read at least 20 minutes prior assuming pairings come out 30 minutes prior to round). The 1ac should start when the pairing says unless there is a tournament related reason. Once you get to the room and do tech check, feel free to use the rest of the time to prep, etc. If it's an in person tournament, please show up when the pairings get released, set up an email chain or speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, and then go prep - just come back to the room before the round is supposed to start. If you can't get to the room for some reason, it is your responsibility to email me and the other team to let us know.

Please know that if you don't do this, it will negatively effect your speaker points by .5. Choosing to show up late makes tournaments run behind and gives unfair advantages to teams with multiple coaches (I have to be here to judge and coach my team - if you choose to be late, I assume it's because you're getting extra coaching which gives you an unfair advantage over teams whose coaches are judging).

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- I know that the last couple of topics don't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are three specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament or on a previous day and is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text before the round.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 4/7/23)

COVID and other diseases are still real. If I'm feeling at all under the weather, I will wear a mask. I ask you to do the same. All other things being equal, you are free to debate with or without a mask. However, if you are asked to wear a mask by an opponent or judge who is also wearing a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give. This is a safety issue.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

Steven Sander POLYTECHNIC 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 12:25 AM PDT

ssander@polydebate.org

Pronouns: he/him or they/them

Affiliations: La Reina (Thousand Oaks)

School strikes: Polytechnic School

Guidance for all debate activities:

Please be nice to each other. Be aware that disrespectful and discourteous behavior will result in me lowering your speaker points. I see speaker points as a way to discourage that kind of behavior.

I won't vote for you and will attempt to give you the lowest speaker points/ranking possible if you use hate speech *1 or advocate for nazism. So I guess you could say that I'm not a "tabula rasa" judge in the strict sense of the term.

Present a clear, convincing case for why you should win the debate in your rebuttal speeches. Don't expect me to do the work connecting the dots for you. Generally speaking, overviews before the line-by-line are a good place to do this work. Basically, if I have to do a lot of work to unravel who won the debate, I'm gonna be a bit displeased.

Please don't be cringe and try to steal prep time. Please keep track of each other's speech times as well as your own, as well as your own prep time.

Please don't hesitate to speak up and ask, if you have any specific questions before the debate begins! I usually like to wait until all the competitors are present before answering questions about my paradigm, so everyone has the benefit of hearing my answer at the same time, and can ask any follow-up questions.

Thank you and good luck!

Policy:

I consider myself a competent flow judge who is fine with speed as long as I can understand you. *2

When I flow, I'll typically write a summarized interpretation of your tag line, the author's name and the date of the publication, and any key warrants or words I hear you say. And when you make analytical arguments, I'll write a summarized version of it. If I think you're saying something impactful, and you're saying it slowly enough, I'll flow every word you say. Basically, I'm going to try my hardest to rely on the debaters' analyses of their own, and each others', evidence and warrants, to resolve the debate. If you force me to read the speech doc and compare evidence after the debate has ended, you did something wrong, and there's a good chance you're not going to like my decision.

If neither team presents framework arguments, I default to evaluating which team did a better job debating their side of the resolution.

I have a pretty high threshold for T arguments in the sense that I think the negative needs to present a convincing case of why they win the interp vs. counter-interp, violation, standards, and voters debates on T.

I typically evaluate most arguments in the debate using an offense-defense paradigm. I'm usually going to default to giving the aff a risk of solvency and the neg a risk of their DA if there are not any turns on the flow. It's gonna be up to you, the debaters, to do the impact calc. Basically, I want you to write my ballot for me. Let me take the easy way out!

LD:

Fine with speed. See the first paragraph above for more detail. Generally speaking, I'll evaluate the topic in the context of whichever side wins the value/value-criterion debate.

Endnotes:

*1 Not going to attempt to propose an all-encompassing definition of what constitutes hate speech. I will be relying on a "I know it when I see it" approach.

*2 If I can't understand you, I will say, "clear," once during your speech. If I can't understand you, I will not be recording any of your arguments onto my flow for the duration that you cannot be understood. If it isn't too much to ask, could you please start your first speech relatively slowly and gradually pick up speed? That allows me to get used to your voice and manner of speaking. Thank you!

You can view a prior version of my paradigm here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180503224814/https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sander%2C+Steven

Much of that is still at least somewhat relevant and applicable.

Joel Sannes Chandler Preparatory Academy 3 rounds

Chris Thiele Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:06 AM PDT

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.
When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.
Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).
I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.
I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).
Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.
I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.
You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.
By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).
Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.
For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).
If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.
“We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.
For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.
Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.
I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.
From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.
A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.
Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.
Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).
Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.
Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.
Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.
I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.
For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.
Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.
Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.
Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.
However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.
If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Delbert Tran Bellarmine College Preparatory 6 rounds None

Corey Turoff Head Royce

Last changed on Sat September 12, 2020 at 2:14 AM PDT

After a decade, I’ve now finally decided to update my philosophy. I’ve found that nothing I could say about each of the main argument categories would be particularly relevant because of one simple fact - my ultimate preference is to evaluate the round in whatever way you tell me to. I’m not saying you can call me a “tabula rasa” judge, if people even use that phrase anymore…I’m saying that my goal is to intervene as little as possible in the debate.

-I find myself evaluating every argument in a debate as a disad. This is obvious for actual disadvantages, counterplans, etc but for me, it's also true of theory, framework, and topicality. Did you read framework against a critical race aff? Then you likely have a predictability disad and a fairness disad against the aff’s framing of how debate should be. Did the neg read a conditional CP, K alternative, and insist the SQ is an option? You probably have ground and fairness disads to the CP/K. In those instances, you HAVE to make an impact argument that makes sense. Exclude the aff, reject the CP, reject the team…whatever. I will compare those impacts to the impacts the other side has (flexibility, education, etc.). It’d be a lot better if you did the comparison for me. If you don't, I will read into everything and make a decision for myself.

-Otherwise, debate like you want to debate. I no longer find myself voting against framework all of the time or voting for the K vs policy affs that are going for framework against the alt. I probably have voted the opposite way more often in the last year.

-Lastly, I flow but I also want to be on the email chain (cturoff@headroyce.org). I'm actually trying to model what you are supposed to be doing...flowing the speech and looking at the evidence the team is reading once I've written down what they said ALOUD. If you do this, guaranteed 28.9 or better (which is high for me). If you actually flow AND you are funny and/or efficient at line-by-line and/or making a ton of smart arguments while covering everything, guaranteed 29.5 or better (which is outrageous for me).

------------------------------Online Debate Update------------------------------

My computer setup is way better in my house than on the road. I have incredibly fast internet and multiple screens. But it's not enough to be able to flow full speed debates over Zoom without issues. Please keep that in mind. A few things will help, if you so choose - send out your full speech doc, not just your cards so I can follow along (I'm still going to flow what you say out loud but will cut you a bit of slack in the form of looking at your speech doc to fill in holes) and slow down on theory and analytics (I'm flowing on computer and not paper at home which is both faster in some respects and slower in others).

Nischay Upadhyayula Hire 6 rounds None

Michelle Vered Hire 3 rounds None

Ethan Wheeler Hire 3 rounds

Day Woodruff Hire

Pierce Young Hire 3 rounds None

Cyndia Yu Corona del Sol 6 rounds None

Joseph Yun Chandler High School 6 rounds None

Jake Ziering Head Royce 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Southwest Championship CXLD

2014 — AZ/US

Varsity Policy Paradigm List

Judges