Greetings debaters, coaches, and old friends. My name is Alex Acosta. I debated 1996-2000 in high school at Gulliver Prep, Assistant coach at Carrollton Sacred Heart from 2000-2002, debated at the University of Miami from 2003-2007, and was an Assistant Coach at Berkley Prep 2007-2008. I got back into debate this year judging for the Boston Debate League.

I have some familiarity with the topic, I still flow fairly well (if debaters or coaches would like them after the round they are available), and you never really forget debate theory.

Here are some thoughts on debate theory and arguments:

Counterplans: They should compete. I am fairly ambivalent on conditionality, however the affirmative has the right to challenge it. I can be persuaded on impacted and developed theory arguments.

Topicality: When I was an active participant I loved winning rounds on potential for abuse, in hindsight I do not find this as persuasive as I thought it was. Regardless, I will vote on it. Detail out the abuse claims, impact the reasons to vote (education, effects , or extra )

Critiques: I used them often, I find them more compelling debated with an alternative. If you explain your impact like a disad impact, then I think you open yourself up to have it attacked as a disadvantage. A counterplan with a non-unique net benefit sounds non-compelling.

Competing frameworks can be debated and defended but the onus is on the debaters to provide reasons why their framework is more beneficial.

Generic Theory: If you can prove abuse and give me a reason to vote for it I will.

Finally, this is an educational activity that by its very nature will have winners and losers. So while I will try to rationalize my ballot in that way, I will also look for the easiest reason to vote. If I have to ask to read your evidence, you are asking me to intervene. If you have any questions please feel free to ask before the round. If you or your coaches have any questions feel free to email me at Alex.m.acosta@gmail.com. Also use that email for the round chains.

I am formally a policy judge however I love all arguments I am well versed with K debate CP and all formalities of debate my paradigm is simple convince me why your argument is valid and makes sense and should be weighed above the other team and I will vote for you you be it policy, kritik, E.T.C. I mostly look at the rebuttals, this is where you should be able to sell your point, bring everything together and convince me that your arguments outweighed the other team's.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO SPREAD PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GO SLOWLY ON YOUR TAG LINES AND YOUR PLAN OR ELSE I CANNOT FLOW THEM AND IT WILL END UP HURTING YOU!!! IF YOU DO NOT, AND I MISS KEY ARGUMENTS IT WILL BE ON YOU

More details, take notice.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and education of the round. If you plan to go for topicality I want to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the aff swindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLID alternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives neg some credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weigh their case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am not against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the aff team - Take good care of your aff throughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

Hello! My email is mosieburkebdl@gmail.com - Please add me to the chain!

I debated for six years, high school and middle school, in the Boston Debate League for Boston Latin Academy, attending national circuit tournaments for four of those six years. I graduated from Haverford College in 2021 with a degree in Philosophy and a minor in Statistics, and wrote a thesis offering Deleuzian (and related) readings of data visualizations. I received a Master's in Accounting/MBA from Northeastern University in 2022 (despite loving the Cap K).

I began coaching the Boston Debate League's Travel Team, which is composed of teams from multiple schools in the Boston area, in Fall 2022. I coached for Boston Collegiate Charter School during the 2021-2022 season.

Short version:

-I lean K, and I will know your K's lit base. This increases your burden to explain your theory well, and I will not do theoretical work for you in my RFD

-I was a 1N who took T in 95% of my 1NRs and I will understand and appreciate your tricks

-Evidence comparison will get you much farther than 15 new 1nr cards

-Solid development on the case pages gets great results

-Speed and tons of off-case positions are okay. Read the important warrants in your cards.

-I'm not the judge for your condo 2AR, though i'm sure it's great, no really

-This paradigm has not been adapted for virtual debate, but I will gladly answer any questions about how this applies to virtual debate

***********************************************

As of the 2024 Urban Debate National Championship, I have judged 8 tournaments on the fiscal redistribution topic including outrounds on the national circuit. I actively coach and write arguments of all styles on the fiscal redistribution topic.

***********************************************

Full paradigm:

***I follow NSDA guidelines for evidence violations, including card clipping and misrepresentation of evidence, in the absence of guidance from tournament admin***

Style:

Speed is fine. Card-speed and non-card-speed should be different. If you blast through 8 arguments in 15 seconds, I won't get them all, it won't be my fault, and I don’t want to get post-rounded because I didn’t catch that they dropped the 6th of 8 2AC permutations. Don't bury your best arguments!

Strong, direct CX is great! (However:)

Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. This is especially true if you are more experienced/knowledgeable than the other team. If you're a senior with 4 years of national circuit experience and 3 summers of camps, don't be a jerk to sophomores at their first varsity tournament. This doesn't mean you should go easy, it means that you should take your opponents and their arguments seriously.

K (and K affs):

I am well-versed in a bunch of K literature (and you should ask if you'd like to know about my familiarity with your specific K author), but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain things. Pedagogically, it's important to communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments. “Ontology means we win” isn’t a complete argument, even though I know how to connect those dots.

I am sympathetic to arguments about ivory tower positions/armchair philosophy. I debated in a UDL, on a small team, and in a program that often lacked funding. Don't aim to win arguments by virtue of your opponents not having the resources to engage them. If you do this, you're causing direct harm to the activity and to fellow debaters, and that's an impact scenario I am happy to vote on.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance as part of your aff's methodology, I will evaluate is as I would any other methodology - so please incorporate it in later speeches and make sure I know why it's important to relevant perm/framework/T/etc debates.

T:

I was a 1N, and there wasn't a single neg block my senior year where I didn't take the T flow. I LOVE good T debates, and this is where all of your clever tricks will be appreciated. Make strategic concessions, go hard on "they don't meet the counter-interp", do fun things with internal links. Defense usually won't win by itself.

Compare interp evidence! This comparison can win you debates. 90% of interpretation evidence sucks enough to give the aff the edge on reasonability.

RVI arguments on these flows won't win you any rounds.

Theory:

If it's a time suck and it works, nice job.

I am rarely a judge where the 2AR should go for theory, and I’m a particularly hard sell on conditionality bad.

I think the neg gets to run multiple conditional advocacies with the exception of abusive cross-application of offense between contradictory positions.

I default to reject the argument, unless you have very strong reasons I should reject the team.

FW vs K Affs:

Run it well. You should have good reasons why your interpretation matters. Fairness is an impact.

Don't throw in arguments about "small schools" to get the moral high ground if you don't care about accessibility absent a ballot, please :)

DAs:

Links are almost always a sliding scale as opposed to Yes/No. How much of a link is there? How does that effect the impact debate?

"We win on magnitude so vote Aff" is not impact calc, nor is it an argument.

CPs:

I was not a counterplan debater and I’m probably a little behind the times on whatever tricky counterplan strategies have made their way into the meta, so give me the more detailed versions of why those arguments solve. Give me warranted sufficiency framing starting in the Block, please.

The likelihood of a PIC 2NR winning is proportional to the scale of the link to the net benefit.

Please slow down on the warrants and impact debate for counterplan theory debates.

Alt cause arguments on case > re-cutting aff solvency evidence to make a PIC to solve alt causes

Case:

Yes please. I don’t need lengthy overviews or underviews. Strive to put more on the case debate against K affs than state good.

For email chains: aus.essex@gmail.com

I'm not going to read your cases/evidence unless there are audio issues online or there's a dispute about evidence or maybe cutting. So still send them if you'd like, but it's your job to make sure everything gets said within your allotted time and that when arguments are extended in the round they're fully articulated.

Background:

I did Lincoln Douglas at Burleson High School (2007-2011). I have judged LD around North Texas at various national circuit tournaments, but seem to wind up at UIL tournaments more than anything. More recently I have been introduced to Policy debate via the Boston Debate League.

Policy Debate:

As mentioned, Policy is not the format I've spent the largest amount of my time judging. In lieu of many years of knowledge and familiarity with Policy, I find myself very reliant on my flow and seeing ink on the flow (organized and developed responses to your opponent in a line-by-line or sensible order).

I will ultimately vote on just about anything in a round, but that argument needs a paper trail. Extensions, full development, claim, warrant, impact, etc. Blippy underdeveloped arguments make it extremely difficult for me to evaluate a round.

I'm fine with theory, speed, and generally more progressive elements of debate. But, that may stem more from the enjoyment of experiencing novel argumentation and my own nostalgia rather than an ability to properly evaluate those things in round. If you're spreading too quickly or mumbling I'll yell clear a couple of times to let you know I'm not following. If the round is occurring online I generally think you should speak slightly slower given skips in audio etc.

Crystallization or voters are extremely helpful as a judge. Tell me where you're winning the round on the flow and why it matters.

Etiquette:

I often judge students who are very new to debate or quite young. I do not enjoy rounds that feel overly combative or snippy. Personal attacks are not cool, and CX is not a time to try and control the opposing teams personal autonomy by being overly aggressive. Do not discourage your opponent from enjoying the activity because of your etiquette. You don't win by acting more aggressive.

I'm pretty laid back. I don't care where you sit, I don't care if you stand, what you wear, etc. I'm here for the verbal content of the round. Before the round tell me if you need help with something, time signals, whatever!

*****TL;DR******

I did LD in HS and judged a while, I've judged a few Policy tournaments recently. I flow. I like progressive debate because it's entertaining, but you might have to handhold me through it. Be nice, aggressive ≠ winning. Give me voters make my job easy.

Debated for the Boston Debate League.

I will vote on anything as long as its well articulated and you outline the voters and impacts very well.

Speed- Fine when it's done well -- be clear or I won't flow. I will usually tell you if you are not clear once.

Evidence & Arguments- I want a comparative analysis, I prefer debaters that explain the warrants within the evidence and that have good line by line.

K's- Make sure that the link is very well articulated. Also clearly explain the story of the criticism, don't assume I'm familiar with the philosophy you utilize.

Don't disrespect anyone in the round

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

Jake LoRocco

Updated 1/10/2023

-

About Me

I did policy debate for four years in high school at Dallas Jesuit. I did not debate in college but judged throughout and stayed involved in the community.

Currently judging/volunteering with the Boston Debate League.

-

General

I'm good with any type of argument (as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc...) in any form (K, DA, CP, etc...). No matter the argument though, tell me why it's important and why I should vote for it. And please make it aff specific.

You can talk as fast as you want (and I will let you know if you aren't clear).

I don't think new affs bad is a legitimate argument.

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

I am a policy wonk and NSDA trained Adjudicator. For history, I competed from high school through college in debate. I have worked with Boston Debate League judging for several years.

My pronouns are I/she/hers. Please let me know what yours are as well as your preferred name if it is different from what is on tabroom.

On the issue of speech: you are awarded speaker points. Your speaker points are comprised of rate of speech and clarity. I should not have to refer to your cards to understand your speech. My focus as an adjudicator is on you, not your cards the entire time.

The policy mapping I use: rate of speech, clarity, pre-round prep, evidence sharing, flow, in-round strategy, audience adaption, and thinking on the fly. Things I look out for: evidence distortion and non-existent evidence. When you give me all your evidence know that I will read it to check for distortion and non-existent evidence. During the debate you have my full attention.

Policy is my favorite section to judge. Remeber the question and present a solution. This is not LD, although I also judge LD. Please do not try LD K's in policy. I want an evidence based debate that addresses the proposed question. KNOW YOUR EVIDENCE! I like to hear theory and substance. You must have a strong theoretical framework to warrant deontological or consequential arguments. Who provides the best value and criterion? Giving me an "end of world" solution does not belong in Policy. We're here to solve a problem.

Be prepared. Pat attention to time because I do. Be polite at all times. The point of debate is the civil exchange of opinions. Clash is good! If you find yourself getting nervous, stop and take a breath. Above all, you should have fun and always use this as learning process.

Strong argumentation begins with the topicality, harms, inherency, framework and solvency. Hit each of those.

A thread of logic is required throughout the argument; meaning you cannot begin with one aff and veer off onto a completely different aff simply because your opposition is forcing you to. It is imperative to stick to your aff; be prepared to argue it, defend it in the neg, and have good, solid counterpoints prepared.

Debate is an inherently competitive event. Having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event provided the jargon does not become the event. However, they should not replace substance and do not automatically add impacts. Words matter. Choose them wisely. You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I could rattle off all the terms, but really, they add nothing and from a National Debate Champion and former trial lawyer, debate is not won or lost on terms. It's won or lost on topic knowledge. Know your stuff. Know the purpose of your 1AC and 1NC. Your NR's are only to make your final points and address last arguments; by that time all heavy lifting should be done.

Your NR's are your summations. Lay out your argument, EVIDENCE, and reasons for a decision.

My ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it). Speaking quickly is fine; as all things in debate, please be clear about it. Please have your camera on when speaking.

hey, you found my paradigm. good job.

Hi! I'm Camille and I'm a 3rd year coach at the Henderson in the Boston Debate League. Add me to the email chains - cportermcavoy@bostonpublicschools.org. I graduated from UCLA with a degree in political science and communications.

I debated in high school for four years as a varsity parliamentary debater (class of 2016), so I'm relatively familiar with all types of arguments (Ks (including K affs), theory, T, etc). I am happy to evaluate anything read in the round. I believe in judging debate tabula rasa, aka blank slate. If aff tells me the sky is green and neg does not contest it, then the sky is green for the purposes of the debate round. But also please don't blatantly lie or misrepresent your evidence. I won't vote against you solely on this but your speaker points will reflect this. This also does not apply for arguments that are causing obvious harm in the round, like if someone says something blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

To me, the best debate rounds have a lot of clash. Don't just throw cards at me - explain to me what the card means, how it negates what the other team is reading, and actually weigh those things for me in the round. Impact calculus goes a long way for me in rebuttals. Use your rebuttal speeches to truly compare arguments and tell me why you have won the round. Don't leave anything for me to evaluate on my own. Above all else, do your best, be respectful, and have fun!

Spreading - I don't mind it, but make it clear. If you are trying to spread unnecessarily, your speaker points will reflect it. Just tell me where you want me to put things on the flow and make your taglines super clear. Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before the round!

I coached policy debate between 2019-2022 at Prospect Hill Academy, a Boston Debate League school. I debated LD many years ago in high school, mostly lay debate with some national circuit experience on the West Coast.

I do my best not to intervene as a judge and make a decision based solely on the arguments and evidence presented in the round.

Theory/Topicality - I am not confident in my ability to evaluate theory. Run it at your own risk.

Plans/Counterplans/Disads - I have become more comfortable with these style of arguments since I've started coaching. Make sure that links and solvency impacts are super clear and weighed.

Kritiks - I think there's a valuable space for these in debate. Again, establishing a clear link is key if you are making this argument

Overall, I want a clear story and crystallization in rebuttals in which you choose the most strategic issues (whatever that means to you) rather than trying to win everything via spreading