I am a parent judge, but I have had some experience in judging different debate events like CX, LD, and PF. When having me as a judge, hear are just a few things recommend for getting my ballot:

Spreading and Clarity

I know what spreading is, and I would appreciate it that you would try not spreading as it may be difficult for me to catch some key information. Please be clear, especially if a tournament is online.

Non-Policy Debate (Kritiks, Theory, etc.)

I have heard about different types of debating techniques, like Kritiks for example. Throughout my rounds of judging, those who ran arguments outside of normal policy debate were hard to follow. Please be concise about your information.

I would like to be part of the email change: chhaya.bhatnagar@gmail.com

Policy/CX Debate:

I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. The following is personal preference, but one thing that irks me as a judge is teams that kick arguments that they are winning or that there is good debate on, only kick arguments if you're absolutely sure the argument will have no impact on the round at all. Also, when you kick an argument, please be explicit about kicking the argument and don't "silent kick" an argument.

Style and Delivery Preferences:

I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.

General Paradigm

I am a parent judge who judged policy at Last Chance last year. With that being said, do not expect me to understand most of the jargon that is used inside of debate.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD ** - I believe that spreading and speed in general does not accurately convey what debate should be. I want to hear logical arguments that are well-explained. If you spread, I will not be able to understand you and will not be able to keep up.

I may take some notes while you are debating however, I do not know how to flow.

Please SIGNPOST so that you can achieve good speaks and so that I can follow along.

Be respectful in cross

Specific For Policy

K -- I most likely will not understand any of the literature behind K arguments, however, do not let that discourage you from running them (this goes for any and all arguments). If you can simplify it and persuade me to vote on it, feel free to run it.

CP, DA, PIC, T, Theory -- Cross-apply the logic used on Karguments.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

email -- hunti058@umn.edu

hi im syd (they/them)! i am a phil/cscl major at the umn.

spectators need to ask if every student is okay with being watched. same goes for recording rounds. i will double check before the round starts, and intervene if necessary.

please set up chains/get to the round on time, its a latent pet peeve (won't effect ur speaks, will make me grouchy).

i don't really care about speaks. i pretty much give out 28.8-30, although i don't think i've given out a 30 yet? the breakdown generally results in winning 2N/2A being the highest, winning 1A/1N second, etc. but i will lower for the usual reasons. mnudl kids i tend to follow the guidelines given by the udl for udl tournaments, this may result in slight discrepancies.

u need to be slower than ur top speed. tags+analytics need to be like an 8, fw/t like a 6 (which goes ESPECIALLY for k vs fw. i have the hardest time adjudicating these kinds of rounds if the debaters are flying through blocks). i flow speeches not docs, and i will vote based on the arguments i can flow. this means my decisions are better the more clear you keep your speeches.

stolen from rose larson's paradigm -- "An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. Don't test my limits - I don't care if words you've said were not answered by your opponent, they have not 'dropped an argument' until you have actually MADE one."

my policy knowledge is always limited on any topic, you need to explain your acronyms and internal link scenarios, especially on aff. i will vote on presumption (if introduced by the neg) if i do not understand the world of the aff by the end of the debate. usually also makes me bad for t debates, since i don't have enough knowledge to make global decisions on the topic. i leave that one to the pros and love to vote on reasonability.

condo is fine until the other team wins via tech that its not. perf con to a certain extent is fine, but if your k is premised on epistemological claims i will be super willing to vote for perf con.

very tech over truth these days. dead inside etc. i will read cards after the round if there is obvious judge direction to do so, but i don't like looking at docs during speeches unless i need to for more complex debates (or when i miss an author).

i like kritiks more than any other argument in debate. these rounds are always more fun for me than policy rounds.

addendum to this -- i am dissuaded by generic kritiks. to be successful in front of me you need to have specific and clear links to the affirmative. you should be including quotes from cards or cx, the blocks should be somewhat tailored. do not fiat your alts, i do not know how that became a trend.

another kritik addendum -- you should absolutely authenticity test your opponents, especially in rounds where the argument in question is pessimistic about the future of groups of people. i do not want to hear arguments about black people being ontologically dead from a nonblack person, i do not want to hear arguments about trans people being ontologically dead from a cis person.

i like all affs, but i am also as good for fw as any other off case. these debates should be slower toward the end of the debate, and kept very narrow if possible. please overexplain interps/we meets/counter interps, this is where i get lost the most. impact framing really matters in this kind of debate.

About myself: I'm a biology and environmental science teacher, while also an assistant speech/debate coach.

Email Chain: lizjames2010@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional style of argumentation that is well supported with evidence. Please try to speak at a pace that allows me to understand you and take notes about your case (quality of cards over quantity). Please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow.

Good luck and have fun!

Being involved in debate for the last 40+ years as a competitor to retired coach, I am one to believe in the reason for the activity. Thus, when it comes to judging, I follow the traditional routes. For CX it is all about stock issues with a hint of DAs, CPs, etc. I am not a fan of Kritiks or game playing so try to avoid it if possible. Solvency carries a lot of weight with me. Give voters at the end.

For LD, I love a great clash between values and criterions. Don't dismiss this aspect because to me this is where the original "framework" resides. CPs in LD will be judged based on the CX perspective and thus must be mutually exclusive and competitive. DAs must be presented to evaluate a CP. Give voters at the end.

Public Forum is more of a discussion for me and not necessarily based on card after card after card! Leave this for CX debate. Instead work on explaining and carrying the big picture in the round. No need to do line by line as time doesn't permit it anyway (unless you spread!). Plans and CPs have no role in Public Forum, so do not do it as I have no preference for this as an evaluator! Give voters at the end!

World School is relatively new to me as I have judge only about 20 rounds of it. However, I have judge many parliamentary debate rounds (high school and college) and they tend to relate as the same. I see it as a contest of teamwork to develop reasonable substantive arguments and this is where I will give all my attention to. Don't argue too much on the definitions and burdens as I will be made to select on my own experiences vs. yours (from the world issues). Since NSDA governs WS, I will look to their judges' training mechanism to evaluate every round so make sure you follow the guidelines set by them. Speaker duties are important to make the round what it should look like. Do not make this a CX round and with that, counter mechanisms should be NON-TOPICAL! Speak well and give plenty of eye contact to me as I will be the one to make a final decision as to what is "best" to either uphold/deny the proposition. Good luck!

email chain jimene39218@verizon.net

Email: Joshua.John1108@gmail.com

Add me to the chain

Tech > Truth

Speed: Slow down on tags that's it.

I've been out of debate for a minute now so it might take me a little bit to get back into the swing of things. Besides that tho:

I mainly did policy debate but I have a decent understanding of other events.

Honestly, just do you.

As long as you are not doing something or running an argument that hurts or oppresses someone else anything is game.

If you have specific questions ask me before the round starts.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, please send docs to: michelle.l.kelsey@gmail.com

My paradigm, at its core, is to judge the debate according to the parameters set by the debaters in the room. I am willing to decide the round on any arguments the debaters mark as the voting issues (including T, theory, and other procedural arguments, traditional policy affs, planless affs, performance, etc.). You need to be clear, your evidence should be good, and your authors should generally agree with each other (on solvency, Ks, etc.). If you are running critical and/or performance arguments you should clearly articulate what the role of the judge/ballot is in the round.

I don't especially enjoy reading cards after the debate to try to piece together what should have been explained more clearly in the debate. If you think the round hinges on the text of a piece of evidence, spell it out in the rebuttals. Alternatively, if the debate is really good and evidence must be read, I'm perfectly happy to do so; I encourage you to provide me the context necessary to read for you.

Speed is great, just be clear. With online debating, I would encourage you, as good practice, to reduce your speed to 85% or so. Also, know that I flow on paper and need pen time--slow down on T, Theory, perms, CP texts, etc. If I ask you to be clear and you ignore me, I'm probably not going to be able to follow you on the flow. I keep pretty detailed flows (of course, not perfect), if it's not on my flow I'm not voting on it.

Overviews are a great rhetorical tool but if you speed through them I'm not sure how useful they are. Similarly, if they are 5 mins long, you are probably going to lose the LBL. Speaking of rhetorical tools, humor and personality are also a delightful addition to rounds, especially with everything being virtual. :-)

Needless hostility or defensiveness is intellectually--and just at a human level--crushing. Please don't. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, abelist, etc. please strike me--you will lose the debate.

I have coached Policy debate for 23 years in Indiana, but my "National Circuit" experience is limited. I do not like speed and spread. Philosophically I do not consider these persuasive speaking, rather training to be an auctioneer. If you choose to speed and spread, be aware that I am liable to lose some of your points in the clutter, and that will be your responsibility, not mine. For teams that say "We had to speed to respond to them because they were doing it first" -- if you slow down I will cut you slack in not responding to everything they spew out, assuming it is not a major issue.

I would like to hear a debate about the Resolution. I do not like Affirmative K's that throw the topic in the ditch and go elsewhere. If you do that I will likely be responsive to a framework argument that says the most basic obligation of the Affirmative is to present a topical case that affirms the resolution. Without that the debate often becomes a stream of arguments based on personal experience and anecdote for which the Negative has had no opportunity to prepare, and there is no educational value.

I am somewhat more amenable to Negative K's, but I would like them to have some relation to the topic and the Affirmative Case.

Topicality and Counterplans are of course acceptable. I do have something of a dislike for dropping arguments late in the debate which have previously sucked up much of the time, and I may hold that against a team.

I am a parent who has judged for 5 years. Please be civil and respectful in round. Speak at a reasonable speed, and make sure to have organization in your speech.

My paradigm as a judge is heavily influenced by my practice as a civil litigator. In policy debate, I see competitors as making a record before me. It is my job to evaluate the record in front of me and then reach a decision as to whether the affirmative team successfully affirmed the resolution. If I cannot reach that decision, then I must negate, because presumption is a thing.

It follows that if you're an affirmative team that wants to show up and do something other than affirm the resolution - by all means. I'm happy to listen to your advocacy, offer you as constructive feedback as I can or engage with your advocacy the best I can, but you aren't EVER going to get my ballot if you don't affirm the resolution. This holds true in CX or LD (which, let's be honest, is most regrettably a bad version of one-person policy in many places these days).

It also follows that I find discussions of the role of my ballot to often be tedious at best and outright pointless at worst. I will take under advisement what you think I should do with my ballot, but know that if you make an argument about the role of my ballot, and the other side drops it, I reserve the right to (and might well!) disagree with you anyways.

If you affirm the resolution, then I will evaluate the evidence you present and the negative's evidence. I'm willing to participate in the fiction that X plan -> Y nuclear war. I'm also willing to consider critical arguments, BUT I'm entirely open to the idea that answers to the K are not just new links to the K. Affirmative teams: you can safely defend more conventional ideologies and ways of thinking in front of me, and your answers to Ks need not "out-left" the K. Likewise, Negative teams: if the aff is basically designed to avoid linking to Ks, then I'm likely to find your links on politics to be a lot stronger, all else being equal. I offer the above examples not to be comprehensive, but illustrative.

I will evaluate cards and evidence carefully and critically. "Power tagging" cards is a good way to earn a 'L' and low speaker points. Your credibility matters. If your evidence, in un-highlighted parts, undermines or contradicts highlighted parts, I will consider that, even if unprompted by the other team. I don't expect omniscience or clairvoyance from debaters in-round, and I will evaluate evidence independently. If you cut a card to splice sentences together across paragraphs, I'm going to be really suspicious and likely ignore that evidence, unless the un-highlighted portions plainly supports your reading. If you splice a sentence together across two sentences, I will scrutinize your editing decisions.

I reserve the right to look up your authors' credentials and backgrounds and weigh them as I deem appropriate.

I see theory debates as equivalent to "equitable" arguments in the legal world. If you cannot demonstrate clear in-round prejudice, then your theory won't be persuasive, even if conceded, and you said "it's a voter." With that said, in-round prejudice can happen in any speech, so if the 2NR does something inequitable, the consequence of that strategy is the 2AR can introduce new theory arguments with no 3NR. Be strategic, but don't let gamesmanship cross the line into sharp or inequitable in-round actions.

I may frustrate you, because my paradigm is decidedly not "mainstream" for the activity. But I have tried cases in front of outstanding state and federal judges, and I do my best to treat you like I want them to treat me. I will do my best to fairly and dispassionately evaluate your arguments. I will do my best to reach a decision that is informed and that is logical, consistent, and based on the record you create in front of me. It is true in the law and life that a judge or jury or your peers will interpret facts and evidence and argument differently than you. It is both frustrating and an opportunity for growth and gaining perspective. I might frustrate you. If I do, I am sorry there is no appeal from my ballot. But, I hope you at least will come away thinking that I was fair.

Other things - I will ask an occasional question to clarify an author's name or a word I heard and did not recognize. But if you're going to read a K that involves terms of art in a literature, you should take the time to slow down and describe those words, their meaning, and what I am about to hear. I am not omniscient or clairvoyant. I may also ask a question that goes to the merits of an argument, but I rarely do so, and I only do so if I feel I must have an answer in order to reach a fair decision. If I do so, I may give your opponents a brief opportunity to respond.

I will also, on rare instances, consider facts in my personal knowledge, even if the other team does not raise them. While this is very rare, I have had to do so in this context: Aff team reads inherency cards "Legislation A on verge of passing." and a Plan: "Do opposite of A." That week I read (and cut) inherency answers that post-dated the inherency evidence by nearly a year and that were dispositive: "Senate Majority Leader says Legislation A not on agenda and will not be considered by Senate anytime soon." In such an instance, I cannot vote for a case founded on evidence that is not factually accurate, even if unargued by the other team. I gave the Aff team a chance to refute me and provide evidence in their possession that would prove me mistaken. They had none. Neg ballot. Brutal, in some regards, but correct in my view.

Finally, common sense goes a long ways with me. If the Aff runs some sort of "judicial modeling" advantage, and in cross, they can't provide concrete examples of US cases that were modeled abroad or explain how the judicial systems of the countries they're claiming the modeling benefits in work, then their high-level evidence asserting the effect just got a lot weaker. Likewise, if a Neg runs "States" as a CP, and the Neg can't explain why R/D controlled legislatures would pass the plan, then you've opened up the door to either a solvency deficit or Neg fiat abuse. If they don't know generally how many statehouses/governor's mansions are R/D, or how the plan is going to be perceived politically, their credibility is going to take a hit. Whether a case, a CP, a disad, or a K...if you advocate for it, be informed!

I hope this is illustrative. Again, ask me any questions you want, and I will be honest in answering them.

Hello Everyone,

I have been volunteering as a parent judge in S&D tournaments for the last 5 years. My personal beliefs border on moderate philosophy. I am very open to listening to arguments on either side of the spectrum and I especially like the ones that are logical and convincing. I don't like it when people speak too fast since most of them are trying to scram in a bunch of arguments at the same time which otherwise don't stand on their own.

I also like the flow of the speeches, a simple and easy to understand structure, and, the ones that follow the time requirements.

I am a new judge to this LD debate format.

I prefer debater not to use acronym that a typical person on the street does not know.

I prefer you speak at normal speed. Speaking too fast is useless because you goal is to pass your idea if you speak too fast, I will have trouble to understand you.

You want stress your key argument or resolution. This helps you to convince your listener. Do not speak like a computer with monotone.

I am a parent judge who has had experience for the past 3 years. Please don't spread.

Policy:

I would prefer it if you debate using stock issues (harms, solvency, DA, etc). Please make substantive arguments that can win you the debate.

LD: 

I am looking for clarity of thought, structured and substantive arguments (where you keep track of and rebut your opponent's argument), and effective cross-examination.  

Please explain why the reasons you have won at the end of the debate. 

Good luck to all competitors.

No Spreading

I prefer no Theory and K's but if you're confident in running those arguments logically then that's fine I'll flow it.

You can use CPs but I'm a little less likely to vote for those. 

I am a parent judge who prefers debating by the five stock issues (but not a must).

This includes inherency, significance and harms, solvency, topicality and the disadvantage. (and counter-plan)

As long as you speak clearly, stay on topic, be more convincing than your opponents, handle yourself well during cross-X, I'll vote for you.

Cheers!!

tldr:

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument (details below but basically this means tabula rasa with complete claim-warrant-impact arguments &a premium on logical analytical work - quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence)
• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit of things right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv0i8YasmEM
• adaptation to panels + doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing,& analysis, not just a card & block war)
• if you do fast policy debate, i prefer the depth and clarity of an 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [happier with the depth in a 4 or so off situation] but you do you
• but please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (needs initial claim-warrant-impact to be a voting issue)
• everything below mainly includes background info, advice, and predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you hone in on the basic ideas above

about you:thank you for being here and for your commitment to this activity! before we even meet, i already have so much respect for you - for your time spent working on this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies! i'm here to listen and respond and will put 100% effort into that for you during your debate / performance! please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain

• current policy debate & spontaneous events speech coach at Leland High School in San Jose; have coached policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats

• former head coach for all speech & debate events; experience coaching all of them

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the mid-to-late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i judge 50+ practice rounds a year for our team

• coaching areas / experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-present - policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

most general paradigm for all debate events (please see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)

• i'm a critic of argument open to most arguments you might want to advance (see exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or seem to create harm) with more policy strat experience than K experience and very little high theory experience.

• i used to run Ks on the neg but my experience as a competitor was before K affs really hit the scene, so though i'm open to hearing K affs and have judged some K v framework and K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. i'd say 90% of my judging experience - just based on types of tournaments judged and the timelines for those - lines up with either policy strats or Ks on the neg as opposed to 10% K affs / clash rounds. see details below for more of my thinking on K affs & framework debates.

• unless persuaded into another vantage point and role, i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

• If you're not familiar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, it’s probably most helpful to interpret it as a tabula rasa judge who is open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up but who defaults to the side with the overall best-warranted logical argumentation (with well-substantiated analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the side with the best control of clear comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

• i think this is not much different from what a lot of coaches a few decades into the activity are saying except that i flag it as what we used to call it (critic of argument paradigm): yes do line by line, yes tech > truth, but also get out of your blocks and compare stuff; it's not just having a solid line by line or having more arguments or flagging that they dropped more than you did...but saying why your line by line is better and why your arguments >>>.

• Typical concerns about a critic of argument paradigm are: How do we know the judge won’t intervene? What are “quality” arguments? Is this just a strategy contest comparing the first constructives? Nope. Here are some other core beliefs which check against those concerns and provide more information on how i judge argument quality:

• tech > truth: i vote off of the flow guided by your comparisons of argumentation strength and your assessment of the significance of arguments extended or dropped… with the caveat that the tech (right out of the gate, not just by the final rebuttal) needs to have clearly articulated substance (claim-warrant-impact) to be a voter. dropped arguments are true, provided they were originally presented as a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

• evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence automatically being weighted over analysis: Quality evidence (breadth and strength of warrants, relevant source with expertise for the claim at hand) is important to me. So is analysis. Contextualized analytics with clearly isolated warrants demonstrating logical reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, argument by sign with clear justification for the link, or other clear categorical reasoning) easily beat vague evidence missing clear warranting other than having a source. Evidence with more warranting > evidence with no warrant other than the source. However, source quality is persuasive as a separate metric. The basic point here is that arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Warrant breadth, isolation, and application via analysis is persuasive. Flagging fallacies also moves you up the believability spectrum.

• the best stuff as far as i'm concerned (highly rewarded w/ speaks and tipping me towards your side before you apply any other particular structure or goal to the round):

  • demonstrating strategic thinking in speeches and cx

  • in-depth discussion and comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

  • detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

  • clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

  • cross-ex as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;

  • a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos - which breaks the speaker / audience barrier a bit, generating audience goodwill and communicating empathy which elevates your speech acts / projects

  • See below under particular event paradigms for specifics according to common argument categories.

• i love comparative overviews telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus, starting some of this party BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS
  
  

Other General Points Across Debate Formats:

• rate: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate [see special note below - command F Debating for Panels - about mixed panels / local lay tournaments though! i want you to include / consider the whole panel!]

• for online debate, a caveat to the above: due to the special constraints of judging online (home wifi issues, multiple windows / programs to manage on the computer while tracking the debate, etc.), i really prefer a moderate rate of delivery at most - what i view as about a 7/10 vs. full-speed TOC-style rounds. feel free to run a quick pre-round calibration w/ me to get a baseline as i realize this is subjective.

• If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. You can be assertive, authoritative, and forceful without being dismissive or rude. Be inclusive and respectful of others' expressed concerns. Consider the assumptions behind your claims and arguments carefully as well as their impact on all involved. Ad hominem and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior that seems intentional or that's repeated without apology / recognition after an objection is raised may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i am not going to vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round. this includes any flux time before or between rounds at tournaments. this is not to say that you can't use examples about what a team has *run* at other tournaments to substantiate T or theory or credibility arguments or to add pressure about a team's authentic advocacy during cx based on their prior arguments; feel free to do that

POLICY DEBATE SPECIFICS

the commentary below isn't meant to be prescriptive but instead serve as guideposts - the thinking i'll tend to apply absent specific guidance on an issue; you can always make a push for me to see it from your perspective! in that case, what i wrote about my default paradigm (critic of argument) comes into play for how to best persuade me into a particular vantage point

Fiscal Redistribution / 23-24 topic experience:

• some policy-focused strat familiarity and experience: i led a middle school policy debate workshop this summer on this topic. we focused on policy strats and the NFHS / NSDA novice case areas.
• i spent some time reviewing various summer camps’ literature and doing personal research; this was mostly policy-focused
• year-long involvement with our team's policy strats in lay and mixed judge pools

Style / Approach: Your rate, style, and argumentation are your own decisions (with the caveat above about mixed / lay panels as well as thoughtfully considering any expressed concerns for access and content). i'm happy to hear about whatever you think is important. i do especially enjoy thorough case, theory, and T debates, but i'm no more likely to vote on them vs. other positions.

Number of off case / depth vs. breadth:

• it’s your call, but as a critic of argument who values argument development, i'd say you'll generally fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments.

• if your shell is undeveloped and under-highlighted, you will have a lot of catching up to do in the block and i won't be filling in conventional blanks for you on missed steps in a disad or K shell. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in fewer quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility

Overviews - love them! i think impact calc and setting a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues you're going for is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing arguments, so please clearly articulate criteria for how you believe clashes of advocacies should be resolved with strong warrants as to what level of impact / implication comes first and why. tagline advocacy won’t be enough. cross-x will matter. escape your own perspective enough to make comparative claims

Theory - enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on *tagline* theory debates, even if conceded; not inclined to revert to status quo / judge kick unless 2nr advocates it but sympathetic to 2ars if that happens and definitely open to advocacy shift arguments on that; please warrant any "drop the team" arguments heavily

T / framework

• i default to competing interpretations with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation

• i REALLY dislike the trend toward underdeveloped standards and warrantless voters. i prefer instead to hear distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists and articulation of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, and the *importance* of the ground you've lost.

• i have no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments so long as you warrant them.

• i think a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is a pretty straightforward approach as long as you are articulating why this outweighs

• perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 80s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Framework specifically:

• K affs which focus on impact turning education args have been pretty compelling to me

• both sides can provide a lot of clarity for me by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve

Case debate

• yes please; i love a good case debate (not to say that a K cannot access this love...but i enjoy hearing about the fundamentals and nuances of a case)

• yes i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should) and case defense can be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk, forefronting your own arguments)

K affs: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear articulation of method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot

Performance specifically: i've judged very few rounds of this; you'd have to be pretty specific in telling me how to evaluate it and the role of the ballot and judge

Off case generally

• no real preference for what you run (Ks, DA/CP, whatever else) but looking for strong analysis of the evidence and well-developed overviews clarifying your impacts / implications and overall position starting in the 2N

Disads:

• yes zero risk is a thing; i heavily lean towards the link strength of your evidence + analysis (critic of argument lens here is relevance + significance + proof)

• love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency

• strong uniqueness and link specificity explanation > giant uniqueness walls

Ks

• yes, no problem, excited to hear these but i'm not steeped in high theory lit so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those particular arguments for me

• the link story and overall reasoning of the position need to be clear, as well as your suggested role for me as a judge and the role of the ballot

• love and reward debaters who do the work to contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links

• i really prefer a structured debate here (clear sectioning of framework, perm, link debate, implications, alt, etc.)

• long overviews are fine and probably most helpful in resolving the ballot as long as you get to the line by line to justify and substantiate the overview work

• in a pretty balanced debate, aff probably gets to weigh their plan and neg probably gets some offense from their discourse

• i need to hear details about what your alt is and does to give it much weight; evasiveness is hecka bad for your ballot odds

Counterplans

• if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with something like how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency given affs should have solvency

A few args i'll admit to not liking:

New affs bad isn't usually persuasive to me. i don't reject it out of hand but it's an uphill battle. i value research and innovation. T, significance / impact weighing, and args against the evidence quality are probably better ways to go if you think their new aff is abusive or bad.

Disclosure theory is similarly uphill; as a coach who believes in the life skills of debate, i believe you should have a generic strat and some confidence in your analytical skills. i will vote neg on analytics or logical application of general evidence to a specific case, so you're not disadvantaged in front of me by not having case-specific evidence. i don't think there's information you're definitively owed before the 1ac speaks...nor are you owed time to prep with a coach before your round given that your opponents may not have that opportunity...though i do think reciprocal agreements should be respected and any disclosure misdirection i can verify / observe will result in low speaks at a minimum.

SPEAKER POINTS

• i try to fit into the rubric of a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i tend to defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust accordingly; in circuit, certainly i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (because i’m here for you and you can be a little here for me - and i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• Generally, i think the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric from above so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet

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

OTHER DETAILS & DEBATE FORMATS:

Debating for Panels:

State Quals / NSDA National Quals / Panels with Lay Judges: i'm an educator who believes in access and participation. If you go warp speed, choose a hyper-technical style, and / or present esoteric arguments and in doing so exclude a lay judge, i will be peeved and your speaks will be low. i'm fine with you picking a moderate rate and trying to hit the middle most of the time by occasionally getting more technical, but i'm a proponent of including all your critics. i also see a value in lay debate and stock issues, so if you do that, i'm not going to be bored or think you're not a smart debater. This isn't to say i believe you must take a stock issues approach to mixed panels - just saying i'd recommend you err towards what includes the panel's understanding of debate.

debate events besides policy: i primarily coach and judge policy but have coached and judged all debate events; my paradigm below has sections for LD, Parli, & PF; you might want to read the Policy section above to get more insight about particular positions; ask if you've got questions...but i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument

for LD Debate:

• i've most often judged traditional "California style" LD but i'm open to other styles

• my default is to look for contentions which are clearly impacted to the criterion based upon warranted, high quality evidence and / or analysis

• will listen to theory arguments and consider them if they are substantiated and impacted...but also...i will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules such as "no plans" / "no counter plans") in those particular settings if a student raises an objection regarding event rules

for PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework / objective / goal for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• my rfds - absent guidance otherwise - tend to hone in on how the debaters resolve the framework of the debate and the relative weight of their impacts

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to directly / indirectly or enough vs. not enough - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions)

• can you pls just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests? pls???

• cross-fire / grand cross-fire are very important to me in terms of argument testing and argument resolution and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should carry these concessions or other components into speeches and weigh them out in the context of the round's framework / objectives / core claims if they want cross-fire content to be a voting issue

• theory - sure if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting such arguments without placing yourself significantly behind on clash

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me; i'm dismayed by the amount of paraphrasing i've seen in the event lately; paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names...these things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions; this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim. i am not going to go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round. you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (Feb. 2023 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

for Parli Debate:

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting as well as linking plan provisions / thesis to benefits or the agreed upon / debated out goal of the round

• will apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy and clash

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted

• either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse with demonstrable impacts

• generally no RVIs absent substantial work in justifying them

I appreciate that there is a certain speed to PFD, but that being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with a mile a minute spreading, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you drop those contentions and evidence.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Put me on the email chain: dustinrimmey@gmail.com

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Quick Background:

I debated for four years in High School (Lansing HS, KS) from 1998-2002, I debated for four years in college (Emporia State University, KS) from 2002-2006, Coached one year at Emporia State from 2006-2007, and from 2007 to present I have been a coach at Topeka High School (KS) where I have been the director of Speech and Debate since 2014. In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past decade, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagalogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarially be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

Background: 4 years at Baylor University, 1-Time NDT Qualifier. Assistant Coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, 2018-2022, Assistant Coach at Dowling Catholic High School, 2019-Present. Currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science and I work for the Legislative Services Agency in Iowa.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: Sheaffly@gmail.com. Also email me with questions about this paradigm.

Paradigms are difficult to write because there are so many potential audiences. From novice middle schoolers to varsity college debaters, I judge it all. As a result, I want everyone reading this paradigm to realize that it was written mostly in terms of varsity college debates. I think about debate a little differently in high school and a little differently when it comes to novice debates, but I hope this gives you a general idea of how to debate in front of me

== TL;DR ==

Do line-by-line. I do not flow straight down and I do not flow off the speech doc. I am a DA/CP/Case kind of judge. I am bad at understanding kritiks and I am biased towards the topic being good. Be nice.

== Top Level - Flowing ==

It has become clear to me after years of judging that most of my decisions center not around my biases about arguments (which I won’t pretend not to have), but rather around my ability to understand your argument. My ability to understand your argument is directly related to how clean my flow is. Thus, it is in your best interest to make my flow very clean. I used to think I was bad at flowing, but I've come to the conclusion that line-by-line and organized debate has become a lost art. Debaters who learn this art are much more likely to win in front of me.

You are NOT as clear on tags as you think you are. Getting every 4th word of a tag is okay only if every 4th word is the key nouns and verbs. This is never true. So slow down on your tags, I am NOT READING THEM.

I’m not gonna flow everything straight down and then reconstruct the debate afterwards. The 1NC sets the order of the debate on the case, the 2AC sets the order of the debate off case. Abide by that order. Otherwise, I will spend time trying to figure out where to put your argument rather than writing it down and that’s bad for you.

Another tip: Find ways to give me pen time. For example, do not read 4 perms in a row. It’s impossible for me to write down all of those words. Plus, it’s always first and you haven’t even given me time to flip my paper over. And then your next argument is always an analytic about how the CP doesn’t solve and then I can’t write that down either. So stop doing things like that.

== Top Level – Arguments ==

Basic stuff: I love creativity and learning from debate. Make it clear to me how much you know about the arguments you are making. I don’t think this means you have to have cut every card you read, but understanding not just the substance of your argument, but the tricks within them is important.

As I said above, the thing that will be a problem for me is not understanding your argument. Unfortunately, this probably impacts Kritik debaters more than policy debaters, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

I am probably a little more truth > tech than most judges. I believe in technical debate, but I also believe that debate is a place where truth is important. I don't care how many cards you have that say something, if the other team asserts it is not true and they are correct, they win the point.

== Top Level - Community Norms ==

1) For online debate, prep time stops when you unmute yourself and say stop prep. A couple of reasons for this. a) I have no way of verifying when you actually stopped prep if you come out and say "we stopped 15 seconds ago" and b) neither do your opponents, which means that you are basically forcing them to steal prep. I don't like it so that's the rule.

2) Debate is a messed-up community already. Don't make it more so. Be nice to each other. Have fun in the debate while you are disagreeing. If you make it seem like you think the other team is stupid during the debate, it's gonna make me grumpy. I love debate and I love watching people do it, but I hate confrontation and I hate it when people get angry about debates that don't matter that much in the long term. Be nice. Please.

3) This is mostly for high schoolers, where I see this issue all the time: If you are going to send a document without your analytics in it, making the version of the doc without the analytics in it IS PREP TIME. You don't get 45 seconds to send the document. Y'all are GenZ, I know you can send an email faster than that. You get 15 seconds before I break in and ask what the deal is. You get 20 seconds before I start prep again.

== Specifics ==

Affirmatives...

...Which Defend the Topic - I enjoy creativity. This includes creative interpretations of topicality. You should also read my thoughts on DAs as they apply to how you construct your advantages. Clear story is good.

...Which Do Not Defend the Topic - I am likely not a great judge for you. I think I may have a reputation as someone who hates these arguments. That reputation is not unearned, I built it up for years. But over time I’ve come to become a lot more accepting of them. There are many of these affirmatives that I think provide valuable debate. The problem I have is that I cannot figure out an interpretation of debate that allows the valuable "K Affs," but limits out the affs that I think are generally created to confuse their way to a win rather than provide actual valuable propositions for debate. I will always think of framework as a debate about what you JUSTIFY, rather than what you DO, and every interpretation I have ever seen in these debates simply lets in too much of the uneducational debates without providing a clear basis for clash.

I realize this sounds like I have been totally brainwashed by framework, and perhaps I have. But I want to be honest about where I'm at. That said, I think the above makes clear that if you have a defensible INTERPRETATION, I am willing to listen to it. You should also look at the section under kritiks, because I think it describes the fact that I need the actual argument of the affirmative to be clear. This generally means that, if your tags are poems, I am not ideologically opposed to that proposition, but you better also have very clear explanation of why you read that poem.

Negative Strategies

Framework: See discussion above. Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Education > procedural fairness > any other impact. “Ks are bad” is a bad argument, “their interpretation makes debate worse and uneducational” is a winnable argument. Topical version of the aff goes a long way with me.

Topicality: Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Case lists. Why that case list is bad. Affirmatives, you should talk about your education. I love creative interps of the topic if you defend them. But for the love of god slow down.

Disads: Absolutely. Well constructed DAs are very fun to watch. However, see truth vs. tech above – I have a lower threshold for “zero risk of a [link, impact, internal link] etc.” I love Politics DAs, but they’re all lies. I am up-to-date on the news. If you are not, do not go for the politics DA using updates your coaches cut. You will say things that betray that you don’t know what you’re talking about and it will hurt your speaks. Creative impact calc (outside of just magnitude, timeframe, probability) is the best impact calc.

Counterplans: I'm tired of the negative getting away with murder. I am VERY willing to listen to theory debates about some of these crazy process CPs which compete off of a net benefit or immedicacy/certainty. Theory debates are fun for me but for the love of god slow down. Otherwise, yeah, CPs are fine.

Kritiks: Eh. You can see the discussion above about K affs. I used to be rigidly ideological about hating the K. I am now convinced that the K can make good points. But because I was so against them for so long, I don’t understand them. I still think some Kritiks (here I am thinking mostly of French/German dudes) are basically designed to confuse the other team into losing. Problem is, I can’t tell the difference between those Kritiks and other Kritiks, because all Kritiks confuse me.

Very basic Ks are fine. Realism is bad, heg is bad, capitalism is bad, I get. Get much beyond that and I get lost. It's not that I think you're wrong it's that I have always been uninterested so I never learned what you're talking about. I cannot emphasize enough how little I understand what you're talking about. If this is your thing and I am already your judge, conceptualize your K like a DA/CP strategy and explain it to me like I have never heard it before. Literally, in your 2NC say: "We believe that X is bad. We believe that they do X because of this argument they have made. We believe the alternative solves for X." I cannot stress enough how serious I am that that sentence should be the top of your 2NC and 2NR. I have had this sentence in my judge philosophy for 3 years and this has been the top of the 2NC once (in a JV debate!). I do not know how much clearer I can be. Again, I am not morally opposed to Kritiks (anymore), I just do not understand them and I will not vote for something I do not understand. I believe you need a good link. Yes, the world is terrible, but why is the aff terrible. You also need to make your tags not a paragraph long, I never learned how to flow tags that were that long.

Hi, I'm Grady!

I started doing debate in middle school and competed in policy, LD, and public forum. I was away from debate for awhile and have gotten back into judging this year, primarily in PF and LD.

I prefer substantive engagement in whatever form you prefer. I prefer line by line argumentation and I look for some kind of framework by which to evaluate a round.

I have the most experience in framework-heavy debates. I am open to counterplans, DAs, etc. as long as you avoid overly-using debate jargon when explaining the structure of the args. I'll happily evaluate a critical round, but don't assume I have a background in the lit you're reading and make the clash explicit.

I don't take myself too seriously; if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them before the round. Run whatever you have prepared and be nice to your opponent.

In CX debate I'm as basic as a stock issues judge can get, not much to it. In LD I wouldn't say I necessarily have an exact paradigm, so surprise me. One thing I always look for though is clash; clash I what makes a debate entertaining in my eyes, and as such carries huge weight. You win the clash debate, you just might win the whole round.

Whether you are in person or speaking virtually, public speaking skills stand out. Work for "eye contact" as opposed to reading speeches in debate events. Keep in mind that I need to be able to see and hear you clearly. Stand up and speak up. Speak with conviction and confidence. Perform with confidence. NO ONE knows your material better than you! (Even if you do not know your topic/material/case as well as you or miss a word, how would I know?! You need to sell me your side/piece/speech. Make me want to keep listening to you after the time has run out!)

As a congress judge, I will remind you that it is called Congressional DEBATE and not Congressional Speechmaking. Take time to refute the Representatives/Senators before you. Answer and ask questions with purpose and confidence. Be clear about evidence--in other words: HAVE SOME! Anyone that is brave enough to PO needs to know the procedure and must be able to be fair and unbiased.

For CX and LD, speed is not always your friend-- especially if we are virtual. Slowing down and articulation are the keys to a good debate. Also, Clash is not just a band from the '80s. I expect to be given solid reasons to vote for you. Perhaps use the last 30 sec of your last speech to crystalize the round for me. Tell me what is important. I may not be a fan of your K or CP, but if you present it well and defend it against attacks, I will vote on it.

Trevor Turner

He/them

Yes email chain: trevorturner2001@gmail.com

Rip my old paradigm - tabroom made me get rid of all my "profane language".

No camera preference.

Debated at Raymore-Peculiar High School for 4 years

Fifth year debating for Kansas State - 2x NDT Qualifier

MArch '24 - Ask me about the projects I'm currently working on!

Usual things - do whatever makes you happy, don't let my paradigm convince you otherwise. Feel free to ask questions if anything in here is nonsensical and you need clarification lol.

I'm not one for "wearing a poker face", so if it looks like I'm not understanding you/confused, that's probably the case.

Obviously any acts of racism, sexism, etc. will be voted down on face. My threshold for tolerating two white individuals running afrofuturism/pessimism is also really really high - as a POC it's pretty hard for me to sit through two white people trying to prescribe the implications of anti-black violence to me and telling me what I should be doing about it.

I don't judge LD or PF very often and I'm not going to make a whole section dedicated to them so sorry - some of these things will apply to you some won't.I find myself always telling debaters in these rounds that they need to spend more time expanding the depth of their impact calculus, so do that. Impact calc is not just a policy debate thing.

Truth = Tech (my coach clowned me for this but I'm sticking to it lol - good truth abilities is technical).

Onto the semantics-

K Debate: I decided to put this at the top because I feel like it's one of the first things teams search for when looking at paradigms. I do prefer sitting in the back of K aff rounds is opposed to policy aff rounds, but that does not mean I will vote for a K aff 100% of the time. I often think these affs lack substantive solvency mechanism, that allow for easy presumption neg ballots (though I always grown when signing a presumption ballot - more K aff teams need to spend time impact turning presumption as a concept). I'm far from an expert on K literature (throwing out random "woke" phrases or author names to seem smart does nothing for me or anyone so don't do it). So, if the debate turns into a high theory debate, make sure you're using the 2NR/AR to really pump the breaks and break it down - this should be an opportunity for me to go back through my flow and make sure I got everything that you were talking about. (Specifically important for the 2NR to isolate link(s) and impacts). I think judge intervention (though inevitable) is unequivocally bad, and should be avoided at any cost - which means I really want the last 30 secs of the final speeches to be the top of my RFD.

FW: Coming off the heels of that paragraph about how much I love listening to K affs, you can probably tell that I'm not super inclined to vote on FW. I don't think an aff is required to be "in the direction" (whatever that means) of the topic, but I'm not totally unsympathetic to those type of FW args. I totally get FW in the 1NC and even 1NR as a test of competition, but just get a little sad inside when it gets carried through to the 2NR. That being said, I'm not an "absolutely no FW" type of guy - if aff really fumbles FW coming out of the block, by all means go for it. But if you have something better and there is no damning concession, I really urge against going for it. Lack of a (quality) TVA makes me really sympathetic to aff arguments. I also really enjoy out of the box FW interpretations - it doesn't always have to be the Ericson evidence. What kind of models should debate allow for that don't always require the use of the USFG?

T: I'm a lot more willing to vote on T than framework, and I don't think I stray too far from the beaten path when it comes to T. Have all four components solid and ta-da you win. Obviously I'd prefer not to listen to a T debate but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I do need really really specific ground loss examples if you're going for ground though, and why the ground that you want to access is actually good ground (k/2 the core of the topic or whatever)

Theory: I think theory is often underutilized in debates - specifically condo. Condo is the internal link to a lot of different things and shields from neg blowing up dropping 2AC args. Undercover a sheet in the 2AC and drop some args? That's offense for condo being a voter, and condo justifies new 1AR spin. Neg caught in some perf cons? Condo is the internal link. That being said, voting for condo makes me a little sad but if they fumble it you can go all in in the 2AR I guess. Just make sure if you utilize it for the things mentioned above (or anything similar) you give it a light 15 sec extension in the 2AR. If you can somehow convince me that dispo is good, I might bless you with a few extra speaker points (that requires you to have a coherent interp of what you think dispo is). If you ask me to judge kick something, I will probably just laugh (see above, judge intervention bad)

CPs & DAs (And case lol): Again, not far from the beaten path here. I'm okay with them all. Have all the parts. Please do something on case. Case turns are fun. I debate for K-State so I'm a big lover of PICs. Also read a DA (or random case cards) to prove offense on T - makes for a more fun debate.

List of random gripes:

If you're reading unhighlighted cards please tell me if you are reading the whole card, just underlined, or just bold before you start reading the card.

I really distain underviews. I get they are useful for lay judges, but please don't do them in front of me. You should probably be using that time on impact calc instead :)

Read the theory section if you haven't already. What happened to teams running condo???

I am a parent judge.

My decision was based on logic argument with the support of relevant and verifiable evidences.

To avoid implicit error, such as speech order, I give scores to each categories (depending on events) and calculate the waited sum. Then I normalize the score through linear transformation to obtain speaker points.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, voted on, for a reason.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow down so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards, and roadmap, please.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.