If you are unable to come up with a better name for me, then you should just call me Andrew.

I debated for the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I have coached for Kansas State University and the University of Pittsburgh. I am currently a Visiting Lecturer in Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies at Bates College. My undergraduate studies were in Philosophy and Political Science. My graduate work has been in Communication (MA) and Rhetorical Studies (PhD).

I am most familiar with critical and performative approaches to policy debate. I have no problem voting on framework, topicality, etc. in clash debates. I am comparatively less skilled at adjudicating traditional policy debates.

In a bygone era of debate (c. 2013-2017), I wrote a judging paradigm that you can find at the bottom of this page. In retrospect, it appears quaint and mildly amusing. In all likelihood, it is not all that helpful any longer. Below, I have provided an update for your consideration. Oddly, this update is less specific but perhaps more useful for determining whether you would like to have me adjudicate your debates.

Generally speaking, I hold the following presuppositions about debate:

(1) policy debate is a mode of inquiry that uses competition to motivate participants to develop divergent lines of argument in their pursuit of knowledge that is related to a predetermined resolution

(2) the intellectual, social, and civic benefits of policy debate accrue primarily through sustained engagement with dynamic points of clash that emerge from the articulation of conflicting propositions and/or performances

(3) the outcome of any individual debate only reflects the extent to which a judge can justify the claim that the winning team was able to establish the persuasiveness of their arguments relative to those of their opponents; such decisions do not determine whether any particular argument reflects the truth of some matter

(4) the value of a proposition and/or performance is not intrinsic to untested arguments any more than it is tied to the outcome of a particular debate; it, instead, emerges as a consequence of its iterative development and refinement through practices of research, revision, re-articulation, and revaluation

(5) your value as a person and your contributions to this community are not determined or measured by your ratio of win to losses; much less does either of those things have anything to do with the way that a judge casts their ballot

As such, I tend to judge debates with preference for the following:

The affirmative should provide and defend a proposition and/or performance in support of the resolution. I would prefer not to judge debates that have nothing to do with the topic.

The negative should provide and defend compelling reasons to reject the proposition and/or performance advanced by the affirmative. I would prefer not to judge debates where negative strategy does not involve direct engagement with the affirmative.

Competition between affirmative and negative arguments should develop by way of clearly identifiable points of clash. I would prefer not to judge debates where the primary inclination is to avoid or eliminate clash.

Participants in the debate are responsible for identifying the points of clash that they would like me to evaluate. I would prefer not to judge debates where clash is assumed, embedded, implicit, unstated, or otherwise unclear.

The quality of a debate is largely correlated with the ability of its participants to identify and address the most significant points of clash by developing reasonable lines of inference in response. I would prefer not to judge debates where it is unnecessarily burdensome to track the ways that the participants determine and interact with divergent lines of argument.

The use of evidence to substantiate a claim or resolve a point of clash is often the best way to qualify the persuasiveness of arguments relative to those of an opponent; as a bonus, establishing reasons why argument evaluation should be guided by appeals to supplemental experiences, perspectives, expertise, and/or external standards of methodological rigor is pretty neat too. I would prefer not to judge debates where little-to-no value is placed in the use of evidence to substantiate arguments.

While I’m at it, here is some thinly veiled advice in a couple of ineloquently formed conditional statements:

If you would like to have me read the evidence that you have introduced in the debate, the likelihood of that happening increases dramatically if you include me in the email chain (aallsupgmail.com).

If you include me in the email chain with the presumption that I will read the evidence that you introduce in the debate, you should also know that the chances of me reading said evidence decreases dramatically when you include an unreasonable number of cards that end up not being read in your speech.

If you make me stare into the abyss (e.g., a “card doc” including cards that were not referenced by name in the rebuttals), I will entertain the possibility of letting the abyss star back at you (e.g., my blank stare when you ask how I evaluated x piece of evidence; I probably didn’t read it).

If you are worried that you are speaking too fast or that your words are too unclear for me to understand, you’re probably right. If you never question whether you are speaking too fast or whether your words are unclear, you should probably give questioning it a try.

If you consciously and willfully use discriminatory, prejudicial, and/or bigoted language to characterize, substantiate, or advance an argument (including, but not limited to, those pertaining to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, disability, class, income, language, heredity, etc.), you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.

If you attempt to leverage the competitive nature of this activity to try to justify some right to express and/or advance arguments that create to a hostile or otherwise discriminatory environment for members of a protected class, you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.

If your strategy relies on the expectation that you ought to be evaluated favorably for cruelty, humiliation, threats, or otherwise demeaning remarks that you’ve directed toward other debaters, judges, coaches, directors, etc., you shouldn’t expect me to recount much from the debate because I probably stopped listening and found a better use for my time.

Since nobody asked, here is a long-winded series of remarks on flowing, adjudicating, and RFD’s.

I will do my best to fairly adjudicate debates based on the arguments that were presented in the round. I do so, primarily, by referencing the record of those arguments as they appear on my flows. I have been flowing debates since I started debating in 2004. I’ve been using flows to reconstruct and evaluate debates since I started judging in 2013. I still occasionally miss arguments that my fellow judges happen to catch on their flows. Sometimes arguments which seem unclear on my flows end up appearing completely transparent on those of others. There have been many times where I did not record the same connections between arguments that those presenting them believe themselves to have expressed in the debate. I imagine that it has often been the case I may have decided a debate differently were I given a full transcript and the leisure to evaluate every detail, so as to avoid the possibility of having missed or misinterpreted something. Nevertheless, a flow is not a transcript and even the sometimes-indefinite delay in decision times when Harris is assigned to judge a debate is not sufficient to consider every detail of a given debate.

This is all to say that you should bear in mind that I perceive your arguments by both listening to your speech and recording them in writing; the latter serving as the primary basis upon which I will reconstruct arguments in the debate and determine who has won. You should be constructing and presenting your arguments in a way that is fitted to the various processes that are typically involved in judging this format of debate: listening, writing, reconstructing, and evaluating. For those of us who flow debates, we are listening to a constant stream of new information while simultaneously attempting to efficiently record, in writing, what we can recall from our immediate and longer-term memory of the debate. In that same process, we are trying to manage a number of considerations: how different claims relate to each other, the quality of evidence and the ways it is being applied to the debate, we consider lines of inference as they related to those uses of evidence while also comparing them with those that were presented in other speeches, we look for strategic options and anticipate the consequences of those choices relative to others, and so on. The threshold between listening and writing involves a significant degree of information processing that can easily go awry when claims are unclear, speeches are disorganized, connections between claims are unstated, evidence is missing or unhelpful, etc.

This is all to say that, for me, the best thing a debater can do to maximize the likelihood of success is to observe the following maxim: debate in such a manner that you are directing how I should be navigating the threshold between the information that you have presented orally and the record that I am constructing on my flow in writing. In all the time that I have been judging debates, the teams that have been most successful are those who find ways to make these processes work for them rather than against them. This means resisting the temptation to convince yourself that you will win so long as you simply state “x, y, and z.” In addition, you should consider how to communicate “x, y, and z” in such a way that they not only find expression on the flow but, also, that I know what to do with those claims/arguments and how they affect the other elements of the debate. There is no formula to ensure that, in each instance, you will resolve every contingency that arises at this threshold between listening and writing, but there are basic practices that you can do to help me manage it in potentially favorable ways.

(1) The most important practice is to ensure that your strategic choices (including any conditional sub-strategies; e.g., “if we lose this argument, you can still vote for us because…”) are absolutely clear, preferably from the start of a speech and/or the top of a flow. If your strategic choices only become transparent when I’m being post-rounded, that’s obviously a problem. Thankfully, it is easily fixable.

(2) Next, identifying and defining the key points of disagreement or clash can establish the foundation for my decision-making. I would rather take directions from you when it comes to the key issues that require resolution in order to render a judgment about the debate. This is an extraordinarily underused technique, yet it tends to reap significant results when done well. There should be debate over the issues that I must ultimately resolve, the sequence with which they should be resolved, and how I should go about resolving them.

(3) You should be making use of clear comparisons between arguments throughout the debate. Speeches in a debate should involve, well, debate. If I’m comparing one monologue against another monologue—each of which contains some self-serving and otherwise incommensurable criteria for evaluation—my decision will likely be no more informed than a choice that is based on the flipping of a coin.

(4) Building on this discussion of comparison, you should be developing evaluative criteria to help me determine the way that I should adjudicate those comparisons. Refutation is not just about saying something that is different or opposite than your opponent but give clear standards for how to evaluate divergent perspectives, inferences, items of evidence, etc.

(5) Regarding evidence, I will typically only scrutinize or compare evidence when explicitly directed to do so in accordance with some definitive question about it that needs to be resolved. I won’t use your end-of-round “card doc” to reconstruct the debate. If you would like me to review pieces of evidence from the debate, there needs to be a clear reason for doing so. When I review it, what am I likely to find? Why is it significant? How should I use that information? What does it mean for the debate? Keep in mind, I’m not evaluating the arguments being made in the evidence that you provide. I’m evaluating the arguments that you are advancing, often with the utilization of evidence as support for them.

Alright, some final notes on RFD’s. In the event that you believe that I have incorrectly decided a debate, you’re always welcome register your disagreement in person or in writing. I only ask that you engage those discussions with the understanding that my decision reflects the best justifications that I could surmise within the decision time and based on the information on my flow (and, to a lesser extent, what I can reliably recall from memory). We may not see eye-to-eye on a decision, but helping me see the debate from your perspective may have beneficial effects that extend beyond the specific debate in question. Nevertheless, it’s worth recognizing from the outset that I will not change a decision based on a post-round conversation. I will, however, listen intently to your perspective with the goal of learning from it. If necessary, I will offer additional details about my decision with the hope that I can provide further clarity as to the reasons for my decision. In these conversations, however, my inclination will be to diffuse conflict because I don’t believe that RFD’s and post-round commentary ought to be an extension of the debate (let alone its own separate debate). Instead, I believe that they should be reciprocal, dialogical, and ultimately pedagogical opportunities to reflect on the debate while simultaneously participating in an ongoing and iterative effort to determine the value (or lack thereof) of divergent and conflicting propositions and/or performances as they are shaped over the course of a debating season.

When debaters utilize post-round conversations to help others learn more about their arguments and to help those involved in the debate to understand the ways that they think their arguments ought be evaluated, I often find myself more likely to perceive and consider argumentative subtleties and nuances that I didn’t notice initially when evaluating debates in the future. Generally speaking, I am unlikely to engage as openly or be receptive to post-round commentary that is demeaning or otherwise aimed at diminishing me or anyone else involved in the debate. Such conduct is not necessary to get me to admit to my own ignorance or to compel me to confirm that I may have made a mistake. I am quite willing to do so upon recognizing the error of my ways. If our differences in perspective are impossible to reconcile through constructive dialogue, in the absence of intimidation and bullying behavior, then the best remedy is to strike me in your judging preferences. Ultimately, none among us is immune to charges of ignorance and error; everyone involved debate (myself included) still has much to learn about whatever issues happen to be at stake in a given dispute. If we can’t find ways to resolve those issues without cruelty, humiliation, threats, and the like, then I’m not convinced that we can sincerely champion the virtues of dialogue, deliberation, and debate that supposedly drive our commitment to engage our disagreements in this activity.

That all being said, I realize that wins and losses do often function as a kind of social currency in debate. I also realize that there is no way to completely avoid using them, consciously or unconsciously, as a way to measure our own sense self-worth or to determine whether we are meaningfully contributing anything to this activity. I felt those pressures when I debated, at least. Mixing competition with education and advocacy is often a dangerous proposition. It can be downright destructive to self-esteem and the bonds of community and belonging. The optimistic promises of a platform for creativity, expression, and advocacy meets its limits when evaluation and judgement can have the effect of limiting opportunity and access (whether that involves the ability to participate in elimination rounds, denying enjoyment of the social currency that comes with it, etc.). I can’t claim to know how to resolve these effects and preserve the competitive structure of the activity. The best I can offer is to adjudicate debates transparently and to communicate the reasons for my decisions with honesty and care. My hope is that none of my decisions have the effect of diminishing your sense of self-worth or your value in the debate community. If my RFD has the effect on you, I encourage you to either tell me directly or ask a mutual friend or colleague to relay that sentiment to me. My preference is to, hopefully, find a way to make amends. Barring those (hopefully) exceptionally circumstances where there is a need to have difficult conversations about offensive language, objectionable lines of argument, or unacceptable conduct, my goal is to communicate both wins and losses in ways that demonstrate the respect that you deserve and the consideration that your arguments are owed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is my expired paradigm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Biographical Information:

I am in the second year of a doctoral program in Communication and Rhetoric at the University of Pittsburgh. I helped coach at Kansas State University for two years while earning an MA. I debated for 5 years at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

II. The Big Picture

Evidence:

First, this is a competitive academic activity and I expect the evidence you introduce into the debate to meet a certain level of intellectual rigor. This does not mean that every piece of evidence needs to be from a peer-reviewed source (although it is often preferable) but it should contain a coherent argument (i.e. claim and warrant). Hint: one line cards rarely (read: never) meet this standard.

Second, quality always trumps quantity. The “strategic” decision to read a bunch of cards that either come from questionable sources or fail to make a coherent argument will never beat one well-warranted card. This shouldn’t be controversial yet somehow debate has conditioned otherwise intelligent people to think otherwise.

Third, question your opponent’s sources. This is a quick way to get favorable speaker points from me. Do your opponent a favor and tell them that their sources are unqualified. Do me a favor and explain why I should disregard certain pieces of evidence because they aren’t academically credible and unfit for this academic community. Bottom line: read unqualified/bad evidence at your own risk.

Paperless Information: Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive/send the email. If you are doing an email chain then you should include me in it (my email is aallsup[at]gmail.com).

Good Speaker Points 101:

1. Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
2. Clarity: If I cant hear/understand your argument I will not flow/evaluate it
3. “Extinction” or “Nuclear War” is not a tag. Tags include claims AND warrants
4. Author name extensions are insufficient. Don’t do it. Make an argument and use the evidence to support it
5. Cross-X is a speech and it will factor heavily in speaker point distribution. I reward good questions and responses.
6. Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate

III. Argument Specific:

Topicality/Theory:

First, I am not the judge for you to stake the round on arbitrary interpretations. You need to be able to defend that your interpretation presents a useful norm that should be universalized within debate. That being said, I default to competing interpretations but have a decently low thresholds for critiques of topicality/theory when interpretations are wholly arbitrary.

Second, if you want to win a critique of topicality/theory you must prove that the exclusion of the affirmative is worse than the negatives ability to expect a fair, limited, or predictable debate.

Third, I tend to side with the idea that conditionality is a beneficial and educational tool in debate. The affirmative will have to win a decisive and tangible impact in order to get me to vote against conditionality. That being said, there is a point at which conditionality can be abused and that abuse trades off with good scholarship. I’m not the person to read nine conditional advocacies in front of. At a certain point there is an inverse relationship between number of advocacies and good arguments that demeans the purpose of engaging each other in this competitive academic forum.

Fourth, you can read your agent/actor counter plans and I will evaluate them fairly but I certainly will not be happy about it. My belief is that the negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. I don’t think competition based on the “certainty” of the plan is productive or interesting.

Fifth, my default is that most theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you think you can win a reason to reject the team then go for it. I guess we will find out what happens.

Counterplans: I’m not a fan of conditions/consultation counterplans. I think they should be both textually and functionally competitive. The negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. If you’re affirmative, don’t be afraid to go for theory. However, as mentioned before, I often find theory to be a reason to reject the argument not the team. As a former 2a I am not even in the ballpark when it comes to word pics/floating pics. Reading it as a critique solves your pedagogical net benefit. QED.

Disadvantages: Higher risk almost always beats a higher magnitude. You should always make disad turns the case arguments. You must provide some sort of impact calculation in order to have me interpret your strategy favorably.

Politics:

First, the story has to match. Please don’t make me listen to a scenario that doesn’t have matching parts. If the uniqueness and link evidence don’t assume the same politician/group of politicians then you lose.

Second, explain the implication of core defensive arguments. If Obama has no political capital or if the negative is missing a crucial internal link then you need to explain how that affects everything else they are saying.

Third, surprisingly I find myself enjoying politics debates more and more. Don’t hesitate to go for it when I’m judging. Just be smart about it – put your logical-analytic skills to work and make the debate worth listening to.

Critical Affirmatives and Framework:

First, I don’t think framework is a voting issue. Framework is a means by which I determine how to evaluate the round.

Second, topicality is absolutely essential to winning a framework debate when you’re negative.

Third, you need to prove that your interpretation can offer the possibility for the same education as the affirmative has provided to emerge. The best way to do this is to offer a topical version of the 1ac. Another way to do this is provide other topical examples that produce the same pedagogical effect as the 1ac.

Fourth, you also need to prove some competitive reason why the negative has been disadvantaged by the affirmative. More importantly, you need to prove why this violation of competitive equity impacts or implicates their education impacts.

Critiques:

First, the worst thing you can do is read a critique that you have little-to-no knowledge about or practice debating. Critiques are hard to win. I loved debating them. They’re all I debated. However, my experience has led me to conclude that I should have a high standard for those who wish to read critical arguments. It’s better for you (because you learn more about an absolutely fascinating literature base) and it’s better for me (because I don’t have to listen to bad scholarship).

Second, framework against the negative critique is rarely a winning strategy. Reading a bunch of cards is rarely a good strategy. Find the 2 or 3 crucial issues you need to win and win them with good arguments. For example, instead of telling the negative they need to provide a policy option, why not just win that policymaking is the best way to solve the impact to the critique?

Indiana University – Third Year Judge

Email Chain: mbricker35@gmail.com

Education: PoliSci BA: IU ‘21; MPA: Policy Analysis/Public Finance: IU ’23

Debate Career: HS: N/A College: Novice/JV

Job: Financial Analyst – DFAS (DoD)

I am not actively coaching. I will read cards if I need to catch up on background knowledge, though I will work to view the round in the way it was debated.

Big Picture

Debaters do best when they do what they do best. Do that.

Debate’s Value – Debate’s Value comes from the process of debate (i.e., reading academic journals, learning how to effectively communicate various arguments/literature bases, traveling to universities across the country, etc.). Post-college your topic knowledge will fade, but the skills you develop, people you meet, and memories you create will enhance your career and enrich your personal life.

Communication – Debate, at its core, is a communication activity. Too often debaters hide themselves behind their laptops, flows, and slews of cards. The best debaters are those that can debate technically and actively engage with their opponents and judges.

Cx – Enthrall me in the drama of debate. Cx is the perfect time to flex your topic knowledge and rhetorical skills. Ask smart questions, give the best answers. Make me laugh, cry, and feel alive. It is heartbreaking to watch a team get a solid Cx concession and for it to die there.

Speaks – I reward topic/academic knowledge, smart/strategic choices, rhetorical prowess, and growth. Speaks are a combination of how technically clean the ballot was won and how effectively you communicated.

Decorum - Reasonable sass, snark, or shade are fine. I am not a good judge for more hostile approaches, such as belittling opponents or interrupting opponents mid-speech.

Round Adjudication

Judge Role – I am an educator and adjudicator. I am evaluating arguments to determine who did the better debating based on in-round judge instructions.

Write My Ballot – Tell me: where and why I should vote for you and tie up loose ends. Final rebuttals shouldn’t be 6 min overviews, but a little story telling is fun

Disparate line-by-line blips are frustrating and risk me missing something and voting for the other team. I will try my best to evaluate the whole flow, but I am only human and have 20 mins to submit a ballot.

Evidence – I will only read evidence after the round if it is warranted (Ex. debates over quality or how evidence should be read, etc.). Typically, this means the card is explicitly flagged in the 2NR/2AR. I have limited time and don’t want to re-create the round from a slew of cards. No card docs please, I will ask where a card is if needed.

Post-Rounding – During the RFD, you have the right to my thought process in adjudicating the round, not my belittlement. If I feel that I am being post-rounded I reserve the right to immediately end the RFD and direct you to my email.

Post-RFD Qs – Please email me your post-RFD questions. The sooner the better

Technical Debate

Flowing - Tech over truth, but if I don’t understand an argument coming out of the round then I can’t vote on it. By “coming out of the round”, I mean the way the 2NR/2AR articulates an argument that can be traced back across the flow. At the end of the round, I prefer to recall speeches through the flow, I only look at docs if needed.

Spreading – Many open debaters would benefit from slowing down 5-10% when reading tags, long blocks/overviews, making important analytics, and transitioning arguments/flows. I will “clear” you once or twice if needed.

Signposting – Give your speech structure (Ex. Verbal cues, speed changes, argument flagging). Force my hand – make it impossible for my flows to not look like yours.

Arguments

T ­– Make your interp/model clear. My prior is that narrower topics are preferable

CPs – My prior is that the 2NR gets 1 world

DAs – Framing is everything. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump slews of cards. Crystalized links are important; If I don't understand how the aff triggers the DA then I can't vote for it.

K – An invaluable tool in a debater’s toolbox to test the resolution, affirmative, and debate space. I am less familiar with these arguments/literature bases. Explain advocacies, alternatives, and terms of art. I am less inclined to vote for arguments that are unclear, shifty, utopian, or hide behind buzzwords.

K Aff – The aff should at least be germane to the resolution in some intelligible way

FW - Can be done well, usually frustrating

Big picture things to do:
1. Robust Model of Debate – How do you view debate? Why is that important/preferable?
2. Crystalize the ROB/ROJ – What is my role? What does the ballot do? Why does this matter?

3. Terminal Impacts – Fairness? Education? How does your model/ROB/ROJ resolve these?

Open debaters, slow down to 70% of your top speed when reading the key words and subpoint tags that you want me to flow in these rounds. Especially during the block/1AR. Too often people zoom down their analytics and I find myself struggling to keep up on the flow. If this is the case, you risk me flowing straight down. I will be frustrated.

My prior is that debate is an educational activity and a game, and that fairness and education are both terminal impacts.

Theory – Quality over quantity. Give me typing time. A “dropped” argument is only true if it was properly explained and flow-able in the first place. Theory debates frustrate me when the teams are just reading their blocks back and forth without clashing. If your standards, perms, reasons to prefer are un-flowable, I am increasingly likely to write “theory party”.

Online Debate

1. Clarity is key – technology leaves many failure points, and I may miss something. Be clear – especially in the final rebuttals.

2. If my camera is not on, I am not present and/or not ready to start the speech

3. Please locally record your speeches to ensure we have a copy in the event of tech failure

(Updated 1/13/25)

Chain Email

browndarcell@gmail.com

Darcell Brown He/Him

Operations Director - Detroit Urban Debate League

Wayne State University Alum '22 (2020 NDT Qualifier)

My debate background in high school and college consisted of both policy strategies as well as Kritikal Performance & Structural K's (Antiblackness/Cap/Securitization)

-- Top Level --

I don't care how you choose to present/perform/introduce your arguments nor do I have a bias toward any particular type of argumentation. Just read your best arguments and give an impact that I can vote on. I'm like 60/40 tech over truth. I default to my flow but can be persuaded by pathos/performance in the debate to weigh my decision. I'll vote on presumption if persuaded the aff doesn't solve anything. I heavily prefer clarity over speed but can keep up with a fast pace as long as you're still coherent. I'll vote on theory args but am not the person you want for 2NR/2AR theory throwdowns.

-- Aff Stuff --

- On the policy end of the spectrum, I don't have too many comments for the aff besides the generic ones. Have an internal link to your harms and if you're gonna go util v vtl/deontology stuff then go all in or go home. On the Kritikal side, I'm down for whatever and will vote on rejections of the topic if there's an impacted reason as to why engagement in the context of the resolution is bad as well as Kritkal interps of the topic. Be clear about what your argument is early on. It serves better to be straight forward with your claims with me instead of using a ton of jargon.

-- Neg Stuff --

- I'm fine with you reading whatever on the neg however you need to engage the aff. FW has to have a TVA otherwise I default aff. THE TVA DOES NOT SERVE AS OFFENSE FOR ME BUT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY YOUR OFFENSE IS APPLICABE TO THE AFF! I rarely vote on fairness as an impact. There needs to be a reason why normative debate rules are good and what the off does that creates an inability for engagement with those good components of the topic/rez, not just "there are rules so vote neg". Not a fan of reading 5+ off and seeing what sticks kind of strategies especially in college debate. Any other questions you can ask me before the round.

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Korean-American born and raised in Iowa

Current Student at The University of Iowa with a double major in Psychology and English and Creative Writing

Iowa City West High School Alum

cho3104026@gmail.com -- put me on email chain pls

Quick Overview

This is my first year judging at the collegiate level.

I will always try my best to understand your arguments and figure out how everything works.

I'm down to vote for any argument

Unfortunately, I was never the best with the technical side of debate. I was always a big picture person who favored truth over tech. Thus, I probably need more explanation than the average judge when it comes to T and Framework debates.

I like to read evidence whenever I can, but I'll value my flow and what's being said over whatever I read in your evidence.

I have a solid foundational understanding of most critical arguments in debate, but I wont be too familiar with any topic specific evidence about anti-trust laws.

I'm not great when it comes to Theory debates. IE: Condo Bad, Vague Alts Bad, etc. I'm willing to vote for them, but there needs to be substantial proof of in round abuse and an impact.

Travis Cram

Director of Debate, Western Washington University

Years Judging: several

Email chain/contact: traviscram@gmail.com

My background is in policy debate, but I have been most involved the past 6 years through developing CARD (https://www.westerndebateunion.org/pnwdebate). I do not often judge debates these days, but every now and then I have the chance. Here are things about my approach that I think are significant:

1. I flow closely, and I think you should too.
2. I work hard to keep an open mind about the issues and arguments that are offered throughout a debate. I believe my purpose is to consider how effective you were at communicatingandarguingrather than evaluating the actual, empirical truth of a statement. At the same time, that purpose often asks me to consider how effective you were in convincing me that your argumentative content istrue or desirable. I will inevitably, as is true for everyone, have to resort to my own filters and experiences in making those assessments. However, I will always work to keep what was said or argued in a debate in focus as I decide and critique.
3. I provide post-round feedback that seeks to provide instruction and lessons for future debates, rather than reporting the (dry) details of how I decided this debate. I thus often discuss better paths taken, or ask you to think about how arguments, evidence, or perspectives interact in a larger sense. If you want more detailed explanations for how I resolved minutiae on the flow, please ask. I find my time is better spent providing future-thinking advice (my training in education tells me it is also in your interest), and so that is how I will couch my feedback.
4. Debate is about communication. It is also about research, advance preparation, and strategy. However, there is not a day I wake up where I am not going to be mostly concerned with the communicative, rhetorical, and argumentative elements of debate. The values and standards of communication may vary based on the format and participants, and I will work to meet participants (and the format) where they are at. However, I hold the expectation that the primary purpose behind debate is to learn how to communicate and argue well, particularly through oral communication.
5. The affirmative has the burden to prove a comprehensive case for change, and everyone has the burden to prove any single individual argument offered by them. The debate should focus on the topic, with the affirmative endorsing it. I do not provide a deeper theory beyond that. It is your debate; I expect you to provide those things. They are known as arguments.

There are a few things that I am increasingly not willing to compromise on. Those are important to know as well:

1. Value people.I believe you should show everyone who participates a basic level of respect even as you work through serious disagreements with them. Everyone has an obligation to promote community, or at the very least not actively undermine it.
2. Value debate, especially at the collegiate level. A considerable amount of resources are constantly expended to create the opportunity for people to debate. Seize and honor the opportunity, regardless of your goal or experience level.

I am happy to answer questions for those who ask in good faith.

David Cram Helwich
University of Minnesota
28 years judging, 20-ish rounds each year

Quick version: Do what you do best and I will try to check my dispositions at the door.

Topic Thoughts: We picked the wrong one (too narrow, needed at least sole purpose). Aff innovation is going to require NFU-subsets affs, but I have yet to see a good argument for a reasonable limit to such an interpretation. "Disarming" creates an unanticipated loophole. Process counterplans that are not directly related to nuclear policymaking seem superfluous given the strength of the negative side of the topic literature.

Online Debate: It is "not great," better than I feared. I have judged quite a few online debates over the past 3 years. Debaters will benefit by slowing down a bit if that enhances their clarity, avoiding cross-talk, and actively embracing norms that minimize the amount of "null time" in debates--watch for speechdocs and download them right away, pay attention to the next speaker as they give the order, be efficient in getting your speechdoc attached and sent, etc.

Evidence: I believe that engaged research is one of the strongest benefits of policy debate, and that judging practices should incentivize such research. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence quality is marginal—sources, recency, and warrants/data offered. I reward teams who debate their opponent’s evidence, including source qualifications.

Delivery: I will provide prompts (if not on a panel) if I am having trouble flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that I could not originally flow.

Topicality: I vote on well-developed procedurals. I rarely vote on T cheap shots. T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Debaters that focus interpretation debating on caselists (content and size), division of ground, and the types of literature we read, analyzed through fairness/education lenses, are more likely to get my ballot. I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as a “definition”—intent to define is important, whereas proximity-count “definitions” seem more valuable in setting the parameters of potential caselists than in grounding an interpretation of the topic.

Critical Arguments: I have read quite a bit of critical theory, and will not dismiss your argument just because it does not conform to ‘traditional’ notions of debate. However, you should not assume that I am necessarily familiar with your particular literature base. I value debating that applies theory to the ‘artifact’ of the 1AC (or 1NC, or topic, etc). The more specific and insightful the application of said theory, the more likely I am to vote for you. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is vitally important, for both “policy” and “K” teams. Absent contrary guidance, I view ‘framework’ debates in the same frame as T—caselist size/content, division of ground, research focus.

Disadvantages/Risk: I typically assess the ‘intrinsic probability’ of the plan triggering a particular DA (or advantage) before assessing uniqueness questions. This means that link work is very important—uniqueness obviously implicates probability, but “risk of uniqueness” generally means “we have no link.” Impact assessments beyond shallow assertions (“ours is faster because I just said so”) are an easy pathway to my ballot, especially if you have strong evidentiary support

Theory: I will not evaluate theoretical objections that do not rise to the level of an argument (claim, data, warrant). Good theory debating focuses on how the operationalization of competing interpretations impacts what we debate/research and side balance. Thought experiments (what would debate look like if the neg could read an unlimited number of contradictory, conditional counterplans?) are valuable in drawing such comparisons. I tend to find “arg not team” to be persuasive in most cases. This means you need a good reason why “loss” is an appropriate remedy for a theory violation—I am persuadable on this question, but it takes more than an assertion. If it is a close call in your mind about whether to go for “substance” or “theory,” you are probably better off going for “substance.”

Counterplans: The gold standard for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I am more suspicious of multi-conditionality, and international fiat than most judges. I am probably more open to condition counterplans than many critics. PICs/PECs that focus debate on substantive parts of the aff seem important to me. Functional competition seems to make more sense than does textual competition. That being said, I coach my teams to run many counterplans that I do not think are legitimate, and vote for such arguments all the time. The status quo seems to be a legitimate voting option unless I am instructed otherwise. My assumption is that I am trying to determine the "best policy option," which can include the status quo unless directed otherwise.

Argument Resolution: Rebuttalists that simply extend a bunch of cards/claims and hope that I decide things in their favor do poorly in front of me. I reward debaters that resolve arguments, meaning they provide reasons why their warrants, data, analysis, sources etc. are stronger (more persuasive) than those of their opponents on critical pressure points. I defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think your argument is interesting.

Decorum: I believe that exclusionary practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist etc. acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”

Use an email chain--establish one before the round, and please include me on it (cramhelwich@gmail.com) . Prep time ends once the speechdoc is saved and sent. Most tournaments have policies on how to deal with "tech time"--please know what those policies are. I do not have a strong opinion on the acceptability of mid-speech prep for other purposes.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com

I probably need to do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen until I'm out of grad school. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.

Experience:

MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. GA since '21. Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.

BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching

HS: LD in GA, ‘16

Misc

A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.

For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.

Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.

Overall:

Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.

2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.

This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.

Theory

Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.

Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.

Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.

Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.

RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.

Content

No huge preferences here

Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.

Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.

Silliness

Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.

Update 4/1/2023

*If you are scanning this philosophy as a nonmember of the community, seeking out quotes to help your political "culture war" cause you are not an honest broker here and largely looking for clickbait. I find your endeavors an unfortunate result of a rage machine that consumes a great deal of quality programs without ever helping them thrive or grow. Re-evaluate your life and think about how you can help high schools and middle schools around this country develop speech and debate programs, core liberal art educational, to improve the quality of argumentation, that otherwise is lacking. In the end, as an outsider looking in, you are missing a great deal of nuance in these philosophies and how they operate in the communities (multiple not just one) around the US and the world.

If you have landed here as a representative of Fox News or an ally or affiliate, I would like to see the receipts of the bias that has and continues to perforate your organization from Roger Ailes to Tucker Carlson and more. Here is my question, when you learned about the Joe McCarthy era of conspiracy theory, along with the hysteria and demonization of potential Americans who are communist (or sympathizers) and "pinko" (gay or sexual "deviants"), is your gripe with McCarthy that he had a secret list without evidence, or do you recognize that a core problem with McCarthy is his anti-democratic fear that there actually ARE communists, gay, trans, bisexual, Americans?

My next question is when and where you think it is acceptable for a person with strong beliefs to exist in democratic spaces. Bias is inevitable and part of this debate game. Organizations attempt to manage types of bias and coaches and debaters learn how to adapt to certain bias while attempting to avoid problematic bias. What do you think? Would right leaning presidential candidates vote for an argument that affirms trans athletes in sports? Should a trans judge leave their identity entirely at the door and embody a leading republican presidential candidate who is against medical care for trans persons? Both answers are no. The issue you seek to lambast for viewership clickbate is much deeper and more complicated than a 3 minute video clip can cover. Thank for reading.

REAL PHILOSOPHY
Background: Indiana University Director of Debate as of 2010. Background is primarily as a policy debater and policy debate coach.

Email Chain: Bdelo77@gmail.com

The road to high speaker points and the ballot

I reward debaters who have a strong knowledge of the topic. Those debaters who can articulate intricacies and relationships amongst topic specific literature will meet what I believe are the educational benefits of having a topic in the first place.

Using evidence to assist you with the argument you are trying to make is more important than stringing evidence together in hopes that they accumulate into an argument. “I have a card judge, it is real good” “pull my 15 uniqueness cards judge” are not arguments. Ex: Obama will win the election – a) swing voters, Rasmussen poll indicates momentum after the DNC b) Washington post “Romney has lost the election” the base is gone… etc. are good extensions of evidence.

Less jargon more eloquence. I get bored with repeated catch phrases. I understand the need for efficiency, but debaters who recognize the need for innovation by individuals in the activity will receive more points.

Speed: I expect I can digest at least 70% of your speech. The other 30% should be general human attention span issues on my part. I firmly believe debate is a communication event, I am saddened that this has been undervalued as debaters prepare for tournaments. If I agree with X debater that Y debater’s speech on an argument was incoherent, I am more and more willing to just ignore the argument. Computer screens and Bayesian calculus aside, there is a human in this body that makes human decisions.

Should affs be topical?

Affs should have a relationship to the topic that is cogent. If there is no relationship to the topic, I have a high standard for affirmatives to prove that the topic provides no “ground” for a debater to adapt and exist under its umbrella. Negatives, this does not mean you don’t have a similar burden to prove that the topic is worth debating. However personally I think you will have a much smaller hill to climb… I find it disturbing that debaters do not go further than a quick “topical version of your aff solves” then insert X switch side good card… Explain why the topical version is good for debate and provides argument diversity and flexibility.

Policy debate is good: When I prep our files for tournaments I tend to stay in the policy-oriented literature. This does not mean that I am unwilling to cut our K file or K answers, I just have limited time and job related motivation to dive into this literature.

K Debate: Can be done well, can be done poorly. I do not exclude the arguments from the round but nebulous arguments can be overplayed and abused.

(Updated 3-2-2022) Conditionality:

1) Judge Kick? No. You made your choice on what to go for now stick with it. 2NRs RARELY have the time to complete one avenue for the ballot let alone two conditional worlds...

I tend to believe that one conditional substantive test of the plan advocacy is good (agent CP, process CP, or ?) and I am open to the idea of the need for a second advantage CP (need to deal with add-ons and bad advantages) or K within limits. I'm not a fan of contradicting conditional advocacies in how they implicate 2AC offense and potential.

Beyond 1-2 conditional arguments, I am torn by the examples of proliferating counterplans and critiques that show up in the 1NC and then disappear in the negative block. There is a substantive tradeoff in the depth and quality of arguments and thus a demotivation incentive for the iterative testing and research in the status quo world of 3+ conditional advocacies. The neg's, "write better advantages" argument has value, however with 2AC time pressure it means that 1ACs are becoming Frankenstein's monster to deal with the time tradeoff.

Plans: I think the community should toy with the idea of a grand bargain where affirmatives will specify more in their plan text and negs give up some of their PIC ground. The aff interp of "we only have to specify the resolution" has pushed us in the direction where plans are largely meaningless and aff conditionality is built into core 2AC frontlines. The thing is, our community has lost many of its fora for discussing theory and establishing new norms around issues like this. Debaters need to help be the change we need and we need more in-depth theory discussions outside of the rounds. Who is the Rorger Solt going to be of the 2020's?

Reading evidence:
I find myself more willing to judge the evidence as it was debated in the round (speeches and cx), and less willing to scan through piles of cards to create a coherent understanding of the round. If a debate is being had about the quality of X card, how I SHOULD read the evidence, etc. I will read it.

Sometimes I just have an interest in the evidence and I read it for self-educational and post-round discussion reasons.

Judging:

I will work extremely hard to evaluate the debate as the debaters have asked me to judge it.

Updated 2/7/24

Minneapolis South '17 || University of Minnesota '21

Coach at Minneapolis Edison HS Fall '17 - Spring '20 || Part-time Coach at UMN Fall '21 - Present

Email: josiahferguson3.14@gmail.com Yes put me on the email chain, feel free to email me any questions. Currently work for a city civil engineering department, was a 2A for most of my debate career.

Pronouns: He/Him/His.

Cliff Notes:

HS: low topic knowledge, Judged 5 round on this topic.

College: Fairly high topic knowledge, been doing some work for UMN, judged 47 debates so far, debated NFU in '18-'19 season. I value debates that show off your knowledge of the topic.

Speed, good if clear, warrant dense and slow > fast nonsense, I flow on paper so I need pen time.

FW v. k aff, yes fairness is an impact, but often a small one. K aff can win, but probably needs some explanation of the role of the negative (and how they can reasonably accomplish this role).

Longer version:

About Me:

I debated 592 rounds (30 middle school, 275 high school, 287 college) and have judged 334 (59 middle school, 130 High School, 125 College), best result: octa-finalist at the 2021 NDT.

Debate is an educational activity. My role as a judge includes being an educator. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you feel welcome and safe.

I value clarity over speed, I still flow on paper so I need pen time and clear communication on what you want me to write down. I usually flow straight down.
Default to tech > truth, though truth often determines how much tech you need. I usually evaluate most args probabilistically on offense vs defense.

Specific arguments:

T vs K affs - Yes. Fairness is probably an impact, though fairly small, clash is about the only other impact worth saying, the neg probably needs some way to mitigate aff offense including: TVA, switch side or process over content. Aff’s should probably have a model of debate, as it is difficult to convince me that an activity that you devoted your time to is wholly bad. Having a clear role for the neg can help against fairness and clash offense. Procedure based DAs to FW are better than content ones.

K vs Policy - Cap or security probably best k options in front of me. I’m fine for some specific Ks, but I haven't read much of the lit in depth. I’m ok for identity Ks (antiblackness, gender, queerness) in that I have a base level of understanding but have a prety high threshold for ontology claims. I’m not good for Baudrillard, Bataille, D&G or Nietzsche, etc. I have a high threshold for no Ks FW on the aff, easily win that you get to weigh the aff, though what that means is up for debate, and should be explained. Please impact out what I should do if you win your interp on FW. Much prefer a push on consequncialism good to just a push on extinction outweighs.

T v Policy - Default to T a priori. Standards with warrants are needed in the 1NC. Tell me what reasonability means and why it is good beyond the generic one liner if you want me to vote on it (ie 1-2 minutes of the 2ar + 2-3 sentences in each speech before then). Think of reasonability as going for presumption, you shouldn't do it often and when you do it should be the focal point of your speech.

Theory/CP - most condo is probably good, types of CPs, and solvency advocates matter more than just the number of condo, though I will vote on condo. I have found myself voting aff on condo more than I would like - 2nr please include neg flex, fairness outweighs and dispo fails. Love a good Adv CP out of a non-intrinsic advantage. 2NC counterplans out of straight turns are probably somewhat bad (Still worth saying, just not as your only answer).
PIC/Ks - aff should be able to defend their plan/advocacy, other pics are debatable.
Perm do the CP is good against process CPs, Default to reject the arg except for condo. International fiat probably bad, multi actor is debatable. Theory args like consult bad are best used as a justification for PDCP. Perm do both needs a net benefit, often a solvency deficit, please compare this with the DAs to the perm.
Yes judge kick unless 2AC or 1AR starts the debate on this, then up for debate, but still lean neg. Neg, you don't need to tell me to kick it, I will do so if it helps you.

DA/Case - I evaluate probabilistically, so unlikely to win zero risk unless major drop. Default to uniqueness controlling link. Threshold for thumpers is determined by the broadest link argument extended, so if you have a more specific link it can backfire to extend the more general one.
Case debate good, do it more. UQ is a squo solves/solvency deficit unless paired with theory.
I follow politics quite closely, so if you mess up the swing votes on your ptx DA I will be annoyed.

Impact framing - Risk = Magnitude x Probability, so structural violence can outweigh. probability is usually determined based on how well it is debated. Lean 10% chance of 99% dead outweighs 1% risk of 100% dead, but needs an explanation.

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

2023-2024 EDIT:

**That said, the Inequality Topic has made me add an addendum to my aforementioned grievance about being on my lawn: running blatantly contradictory arguments about Capitalism, Unions, Growth, etc. are egregious performance contradictions that I will no longer ignore under the auspices of conditionality. Its not that I am changing my tune on condo per se, its that this promotes bad neg strats that are usually a result of high school students not thinking about things they should be before reading the 1NC. Its pretty easy to win in-round abuse when a Neg is defending Unions Good and Bad at the same time. I encourage you to try.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Yes email chain: lincolngarrett49@gmail.com

https://www.debatemusings.org/home/site-purpose-judging-debates

AFF on T

NEG on conditionality, but even I have my limit (more than 3, no evidence for a bunch of them, combining them later in the debate, amending and adding 2NC cps). NEGs are less good at defending their egregiousness in my recent experience.

I will kick the CP if I think it is worse than the status quo. A neg team doesn't have to say "judge kick" and the AFF isn't going to convince me I shouldn't do this.

I reject the argument and not the team for most every other theoretical objection to a CP.

Will vote on K's. Will care about if the plan is a good idea even if the AFF can't physially make it happen.

Don't have to read a plan, but merely saying the res is bad and dropping stuff will lead to L's.

I am not in the market to award AFF vagueness or poor explanations of cases until the 2AR

Evidence quality outweighs evidence quantity.

University of Minnesota, NDT-CEDA 2017-2021 (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space, Alliances). Anoka High School, (lay) LD+PF 2015-2017.

For the email chain: please put the tournament and the teams in the subject line, it makes organization and scouting easier. College rounds: Please put debatedocs@googlegroups.com (not any other email address) on the email chain for me.

If you have questions: don't email debatedocs, email mjgranstrom@gmail.com. Please do not put this on the email chain: I want a clean email inbox, and I will immediately forward the email chain to debatedocs and then delete it. Please save me the effort.

You have my consent to record/stream/publish the round (and you are encouraged to do so, pending the consent of other participants). Here is my policy judging record, with a brief summary of each round and decision.

I appreciate when teams point out their opponents' mistakes in a speech, and I am reluctant to do that work absent debater instruction. I appreciate in-depth case debating. I greatly appreciate mundane arguments executed well.

I dislike time-wasting. I strongly dislike kritiks, and in general only vote on them when the risk of the affirmative's impacts is zeroed by external case defense. I dislike counterplans that do not have predetermined outcomes. I dislike argumentative cowardice: making incomplete arguments for strategic reasons, evasiveness in cross-examination, deliberate opacity in disclosure, making an argument in a speech and then walking it back immediately afterwards in cross-examination.

I am a very expressive judge -- if I look confused during your speech, you have confused me; if I look frustrated during your speech, it is probably your fault; if I laugh when you make an argument it is not because I will not vote on it or because it is a bad argument, it is because the argument is funny (i.e. counterplan texts that take two minutes to read), or because the fact that you have been forced to make it is funny (i.e. a Navy team reading "naval personnel not key to readiness"). I am bad at evaluating topicality debates, this is a skill at which I have been actively seeking to improve. I am willing to evaluate arguments other judges dismiss as jokes (warming good, aliens, wipeout, etc), but be warned: these arguments are jokes because their best answers are easy to execute. I am confident I am in the top five percent of all judges for topicality against kritikal affirmatives: I find it difficult to comprehend any of the answers I have ever heard to 'read it on the negative.'

I am more persuaded by 'elegant' theory interpretations than those that feel arbitrary: Interpretations like "2 conditional counterplans" or "one counterplan and one kritik" feel much less defensible to me than "arbitrarily many conditional counterplans," "arbitrarily many dispositional counterplans", or "only unconditional counterplans". Theory arguments premised on argumentation theory or logic are more intuitive to me than others. Theory debates are frequently lost when one side is reading their blocks at top speed and are not paying attention to the content of the other side's arguments. Despite spending half of my debate career as a 2N, I am less convinced of the value of conditionality than most other judges.

The neg block contains a constructive and a rebuttal. Corollary 1: It is very easy to persuade me to reject new arguments made in the first negative rebuttal. Corollary 2: It is hard to persuade me arguments made in the second negative constructive should be thought of differently than arguments made in the first negative constructive.

Novice/JV debate:

Novice and JV debaters are strongly encouraged to simplify the debate in late rebuttals. This will improve both your speaker points and your odds of making sufficiently complete arguments to win the debate. The best non-varsity speech I have ever heard was a novice 1AR in which the debater kicked down to one advantage and extended no more than two defensive arguments on each other page.

Unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing, your counterplans should probably be conditional -- empirics prove you are more likely to lose because the 2AC can now ignore multiple disads than to lose on conditionality.

Flow the debate -- I will be very disappointed if arguments that were in a speech doc but not read get answered.

Procedural items:

I will evaluate evidence that was inserted but not read only if the mere existence of the evidence constitutes a warrant (for instance, inserting solvency advocates in a topicality debate). I will kick counterplans for the negative only if I am explicitly instructed to do so. I will run a prep timer for teams who need things removed from a speech doc (this is distinct from asking for marks in marked evidence).

An ethics violation (evidence, clipping, etc) introduced as a voting issue will end the debate. If this occurs, I will give the team alleging the violation the opportunity to retract the allegation and proceed with the debate; their opponents may not insist the debate be staked on this issue. I have a high threshold for identifying malice or competitive advantage gained from introducing improperly cited evidence.

A forfeit will occur if one side does not wish to debate. I will consult tab, if they award a forfeit/bye I will not submit a ballot. If I am instructed to submit a ballot, the side withdrawing from the debate will recieve the minimum speaker points allowed. I will not participate in any arrangement to give sham speeches to avoid the bracket implications of a forfeit.

Competition rooms are public spaces, and spectators are welcome to watch or take notes as they see fit.

I will not evaluate either arguments about the conduct of the debaters that did not take place in the particular debate I am adjudicating or arguments about the conduct of individuals not participating in the particular debate I am adjudicating.

Nukes thoughts:

It seems like the deterrence disadvantage has gone out of style since the last time we debated arms control. That's kind of sad.

I have noticed that teams advancing arguments that Trump will win and that will cause broad US isolationism consistently underestimate the extent to which this interferes with internal links about the US being drawn into global crises.

Old personhood thoughts:

Plan texts should describe what the aff does. Plan texts should contain all of the things the affirmative wishes to fiat: If your solvency advocate calls for an insurance mandate, you probably already have enough offense against the PIC out of an insurance mandate to win without perm do the counterplan.

Old antitrust thoughts:

I have noticed that topicality interpretations seem exceedingly contrived and largely silly, and I don't know what is limiting this topic. I have noticed that in case-DA or counterplan-case-DA debates I vote negative an astounding amount of the time. This tells me that affirmative teams need 1) better 1ac answers to states and regs, 2) offense against net benefits, and 3) better case coverage in the 2ac.

Pet peeves:

The number of conditional worlds is two to the power of the number of advocacies, not the factorial of the number of advocacies.

All of the evidence you read in a debate should be formatted in the same way.

Put arguments in a useful order: If the first advantage has two scenarios, answer scenario 1 then scenario 2. If the 1AC has a solvency page, put circumvention there rather than on whichever advantage you take first.

A performative contradiction is never an independent voting issue -- it is either a double-turn (in which case a team can concede both halves and win) or a consequence of the introduction of a conditional advocacy (see above).

The speech doc is not a record of what happened in the round, it is a tool to share evidence. Failing to send evidence you read is a problem, failing to read evidence you sent is not.

No current competitors debated on either the healthcare or executive authority topics, don't act like you were there in T debates. Even I hardly remember those topics.

University of Chicago '24 (MPP with concentrations in International Development and Urban Policy)

Indiana University '21 (BS in Business Economics & Analytics)

Dec 2023 update: I don't have much background on this topic, besides some high level interactions in my coursework. Please be sure to overexplain and define all acronyms. If I don't understand your argument, then I can't vote for you.

Please add me to the email chain: mehuldebate@gmail.com. Feel free to email me with any questions, comments, or concerns before/after the debate. Please send me a doc at the end of the debate with the relevant cards referenced in the 2NR/2AR, though do not count on me reading them all. Decision times are tight and I find myself having little to no time to read cards.

I try my best not to let outside knowledge affect my decision of the debate. Overall, you do you and I will work hard to make the best decision I can. All of the below are simply predispositions but I will evaluate the round as is. If I look confused during CX/your speech, I probably am and you may want to clarify your point. If you have me for a format other than policy, go to the end.

Spreading: Dial back to 70% of your top speed. I am not actively involved with debate and my ears are slow to adjust. Please be clear on the tags, long blocks/overview, important analytics, or a theory debate so that I can flow it. I don't read along with speech docs since this is a communication activity. I flow on paper so a quick pause in between flows is appreciated.

I will not evaluate re-highlighting that's inserted into the debate. You have to read it in your speech.

Online debate: Please slow down and make sure to adjust your microphones. If the audio is distorted, my ears ring which will cause me to miss arguments and I can't flow. I will try to say "clear" but obviously this can be tough over Zoom.

Counterplans

I'm open to most types of counter plans. I love intuitive CPs that are logically based on 1AC internal links/1AC CX. You should probably have a solvency advocate (or otherwise a defense of why you don't need one).

PICs are cool if they are functionally competitive. Not a big fan of word pics.

I won't automatically judge kick in the 2NR. Please make it explicit if that should be an option, although winning this is an uphill battle.

Theory

I'm pretty middle leaning for theory. Condo is probably fair game for the aff after 3ish conditional advocacies. Just slow down on these debates. Otherwise, I default to "reject the argument not the team".

If the neg lies about theory (i.e. says they can't kick planks but still does it), I would encourage affs to capitalize. I will vote against that.

K affs/Framework

I think affs should be related to the topic. I have a hard time voting for critical affs that don't engage with any topic literature. If you're reading a critical aff, you are better off impact turning framework in front of me instead of going for "we meet". It's strange when teams go for "we meet" and then no link topic DAs.

Not a good judge for you if your strategy relies on debate bad/is a rejection of the activity or your arguments orient around "survival strategy".

Negs should focus on what voting negative means and what my ballot can resolve. Fairness can be an impact or an internal link. TVAs are good (not necessary though) but they need to be specific. I think oftentimes 2Ns say a plan text but never explain how that engages with the aff's literature or why that model of debates is better. TVAs from re-highlighted 1AC evidence are very compelling to me.

Kritiks

Make sure you slow down in the overview, talk about the specifics of the aff, and have offense (this includes having a specific impact). Please explain buzzwords or high-theory concepts. I do not actively read K literature, so it's likely I have little to no background on your argument.

If your overview is more than 30-40 seconds, I'm not the right judge for you. Not a fan of "cloud clash" where the 2N just cross applies the overview to the line by line. I'm fairly sympathetic to the aff in debates (1AR especially) where the neg relies on that strategy.

Something that always annoys me is when teams can't explain their alternatives in CX. You should be able to explain what the world of the alternative looks like and why it's better than the status quo.

I don't think a team needs specific link cards to every argument in the block as long they do specific analyses using historical and contemporary examples of their theory and how it interacts with the aff.

Topicality

I love a good T debate. Just make sure to have clear impacts, of which fairness can be one. Please slow down and make sure to not go for the "buffet" in the 2NR - pick your best argument and sit on it. And please don't forget the case list, something I think it's underutilized by negs.

DAs

Impact calc is important here. Spend some time in the 2NR/2AR on how I should evaluate the impact, turns case, magnitude, etc. The more you write the ballot for me, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Read uniqueness. If the 2AC says "they didn't read uniqueness so we get new 1AR answers", I'm pretty sympathetic to that.

Politics DAs are cool, especially if there are real topic links. Not a fan of rider DAs or anything of that sort.

__________________________________

Public Form

I don't have a ton of experience coaching/judging in this format outside of some work at camp. That being said, I'm definitely not a "lay" judge. In terms of judging, please start the beginning of your final speeches with impact calculus and how I should write my ballot. Oftentimes these debates get very messy and it's tough to resolve them. Every argument does not need to be there. Pick your best and sit on it.

LD

Most of my stuff from policy applies here. Like with PF, don't have a lot of experience with it outside of camp. My biggest advice is to focus on narrowing the debate down by the final rebuttals. The cleaner the rebuttals, the easier it is for me to write a ballot.

Congress

I competed in the activity for 4 years so please don't treat me like a lay judge. A lot of these thoughts are borrowed from my former coach, Ryan Andersen. For the most part, you do you but a few thoughts/pet peeves I have:

- Evidence should preferably come from peer-reviewed journals, books, & articles. When that's not possible, it should be considered credible and you should be able to defend your source in CX. There seems to be a trend of people quoting random blogs or students who don't have qualifications relative to the debate.

- Don't paraphrase evidence. Please read directly from the article but also make sure to choose the best line or two to save time.

- Focus on the analysis more than the evidence. I think too often people let the evidence do the talking for them and spend much less time on the impacts of a given argument. Explain the short-term and long-term implications of different warrants present in your evidence.

- I find roleplaying introductions/antics to be silly. You all are high schoolers, not actually in congress.

- CX should be spent asking targeted questions about the specific arguments made in the speech. I tend to see a lot of time wasted here by trying to set up a question that's not actually important. I think this is an area where average and excellent debaters can distinguish themselves.

- Every speech after the first affirmative speech should have refutations. These should be as specific as possible. This means not only refuting others by name, but contextualized "line-by-line" style debating where you engage with the substance of why the argument is incorrect. Debaters who are able to do evidence comparison, embedded refutations, etc. are ones that I will rank higher. This is a debate event, not speech, so I would like to see lots of clash.

- If no one is standing up to speak on a bill, move to previous question. This activity can get frustrating (more so in Zoom) when there are a bunch of parliamentary antics (including excessively long recesses) instead of fostering debate

Part-time coach at the University of Kentucky, formerly debated at UK (graduated in 2020)

add me to the email chain: genevieveelise1028 at gmail dot com

General Thoughts

I like for debate to be fun and will generally enjoy judging in debates where it is clear you are having a good time and doing what you're passionate about. Don't be afraid to let your personality show in how you debate - being funny or spicy in the CX are often times I enjoy the debate the most. I understand the amount of time and dedication it takes to do this activity seriously, so I will work very hard to make sure that I am evaluating your debate in a way that respects the hard work that you have put into the activity, and the time and energy you are using to be present at each tournament.

The more I reflect on how I judge, the more I think it is really important for debaters to provide instruction/guidance in their speeches about how to tie all of the different pieces of the debate together. 2NRs and 2ARs that do a lot of this, backed by quality evidence read in earlier speeches, will often find themselves winning, getting good speaker points, and being more satisfied with my decision and how I understood the overarching picture in the debate. I generally believe, in the 2NR and 2AR, reading cards should be an absolute last resort.

Online Debate

I appreciate the accessibility benefits of online debate but do think it suffers from some quality deficit. If my camera is off during prep time, I have probably walked away for a number of reasons. I'll generally try to pop my camera back on when I get back to signal I have returned, and will also usually keep a headphone in to maintain awareness of when you stop prep. Just give me a sec to turn on my camera and get settled before you launch into an order or the speech.

I have an audio processing disorder, which makes it more challenging to flow due to the variety of ways that online debate affects clarity/feedback/etc - please take this into account and put in more effort to be clear on your transitions, tags, etc. It helps me to be able to see you talking, so if you are angled to be completely hidden by your laptop, I will likely be less of a precise flow than otherwise.

Please recall that while I cannot hear you when you are muted on zoom, I can still see you - things like talking for the entire 2AR, blatantly not flowing your opponents speeches, etc are still bad practice, even if you can technically do it.

Nukes Topic

I love this topic, think debating about nukes is educational and based on a robust controversy in the literature, and personally worked in nonprolif/arms control advocacy so it's an issue I care about lots!

That being said, I'm bored - I think assurances/deterrence is a great debate, but have a pretty high threshold for debating the DAs well on both sides - I think innovation in the way people answer and debate the generics could be more interesting and will reward quality in connecting all of the pieces of these debates. I would also enjoy judging some more varied negative strategies, and will reward innovation on the topic with good speaker points

soapbox moment - say it with me: de-clare-uh-tory - declatory is NOT a word

DA/Case/CP

Disad and case is awesome, more case analysis that is smart will be rewarded in points. I think smart and specific counterplans are cool. The more specific and in grounded in the literature your CP is, the less likely I am to care about theory.

Topicality (vs aff with a plan)

I think a limited topic is good and care immensely about the comparison of one version of the topic to another when it comes to T. If you cannot explain coherently what the difference between the two topics are, I am much less likely to care about your very abstract appeals to the notion of limits or ground.

K (vs aff with a plan)

I enjoy judging these debates. Being more specific about the topic is far better than some random backfile check about Baudrillard. You should explain your arguments clearly vs using buzz words because I will be much more likely to understand what you are trying to communicate.

The specificity of the link and explanation of the link and how it coheres with your broader theory about the world and interacts with the consequences of the plan are all things that strongly influence how much I am persuaded by the K. If you have a link to the action of the plan and clearly explain how the impact to that compares to the impacts of the affirmative, as well as having an alternative that resolves this impact, I am likely to vote for you. I find myself less often voting for the K in debates where the neg relies on a strong framework/prioritize rhetorical/discursive links path but would not preclude this entirely because the aff is often time pressured and poorly equipped to debate about framework and fiat.

In addition, I think it's important to resolve how I should weigh impacts in the later speeches - I find myself often concluding I should weigh the aff and its consequences but also weighing the discursive/ethical/structural impacts described by the neg but not getting a lot of instruction about how to compare those two things and decide which one to vote on. I think mitigating claims about total extinction impacts with impact defense and specific solvency take-outs would go a long way to changing how I vote in these debates.

Planless Affs

I have found myself voting both ways in framework debates, but am usually persuaded by the benefits of clash, procedural fairness, etc. The more specific the aff is to the topic & good aff cards are things that most often lead to an aff ballot in these debates. The negative making a strong, coherent limits argument that includes arguments that appeal to clash while providing defense that proves the topic is compatible with the affs theory are things that most often lead to a neg ballot in these debates.

I think specific strategies against these affs are interesting and good (whether that be a da/k/pic) and will reward this specific research with speaker points. I generally think if something is in the 1AC I am likely to believe there is a link to your argument, and am very persuaded by strategies that utilize the cx to pin down specificities of the 1ac advocacy and then predicate the strategy off of that. If the aff is unwilling to speak specifically about the strategy of the advocacy, I generally tend to be more persuaded by framework.

I usually am not persuaded by strategies that rely on the idea that we should destroy debate, or that extinction or death is good. I do not think there is much of a difference between "debating about death being good" and "advocating death being good" so if your strategy relies on a pivot resembling "well we don't think everyone should die but we should talk about death", it is not a good strategy to use in front of me.

Misc.

I tend to lean towards conditionality being good, but would be persuaded otherwise in particularly egregious incidents.

If you are going to read cards written by former debaters, take ten minutes to ask around why they are no longer in the community. Strongly consider if the reason is one which should preclude their evidence from being introduced in a debate. I do not expect perfection in this regard, but I do think we should be talking about this.

It has come to my attention that I am what one might call a "points fairy". I will be working to adjust my points to more accurately reflect the scale I find most other judges follow.

I like when lots of quality evidence is read, and will often read your evidence at the conclusion of the debate (and if evidence is referenced in a cx, will usually try to find what you are referencing while it's being discussed). That being said, evidence is best paired with strong judge instruction in the rebuttals. There are instances when evidence is good enough to speak for itself, but in a debate where both sides read decent ev on an issue, I will often find myself voting for the team who tells me how and why their arguments matter more.

After hosting a bunch of tournaments in my time at UK, I am sympathetic to the pleas of tournament hosts and tabrooms. Please be on time, keep things efficient in debates, and clean up behind yourselves.

My facial expressions are likely unrelated to the things you are saying. In particular, I may come across low-energy. This doesn't mean that I am unhappy with the debate (although if I find your debating upbeat, engaging, and high-energy I will probably be a bit more likely to mirror that). Tournaments are a long-haul, I judge a lot of debates at each tournament (often every debate), and there seems to be increasingly little time afforded to restorative things like sleep or eating, so don't worry too much if I'm coming across a little sleepy.

Also, I sometimes just stare off into space when I'm typing - I'm still paying attention as long as I'm typing.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

I debated at Coeur d’Alene High school for 3 years and Gonzaga University for 4 years.

My email is mdrjohnson26@gmail.com

I haven’t been heavily involved in debate for a few years as I was working abroad.

Essentially, do whatever you want and I’ll do my best. I try my absolute hardest to pay 100% attention while a debate is happening. This means that I try to make eye contact, listen attentively, and catch all of the arguments the best I can. This also means, however, that I flow on paper. As such, please give me some pen time especially if you have a really important argument you want to get across. **This is 10x more true for theory arguments/T debates - you must slow down.

Also, I really hate interrupting a debate. I don’t yell clear, please just…be clear?

Updates as of Kentucky

1. Line by line is important to me - I understand we're on a time crunch, but I have to know what you're answering. Numbers are great, use them consistently.

2. I like research - I love this aspect of the activity a lot. That said, I think that the way a lot of teams highlight cards is odd. I'm naturally more skeptical of a piece of evidence if you've made 1 sentence from 15 lines of text by highlighting a few words. I also really don't like the size 2 font on cards.

3. Compare your cards! I think every debate I've watched in recent memory could have been improved if no one said "their card is really bad". I'm more persuaded if you first tell me what makes your evidence so persuasive and why the opponent's evidence can't meet that threshold.

4. That said, CX needs to extend beyond just evidence. Asking "where in you card does it say 'x'" for 3 minutes isn't persuasive to me.

5. There is no clarification period. If you are asking a question, that is CX.

Decorum
I don’t like obnoxious people. I have a pretty good sense of humor and I know when being funny crosses a line. I’m also not persuaded when debaters tell others to do harm to themselves or others. It won’t necessarily cost you the debate (unless I’m instructed otherwise) but I will tell you now; it’s a waste of breath that will probably lose you speaker points. I also do not enjoy debates where debaters don't defend the things they have said/read. If you read Irigaray, you have to defend Irigaray. If you try to weasel out of it, I'm either going to think you a) are unprepared/don't understand your evidence b) are a weasel c) are an unprepared weasel.

Theory
I lean neg, but everything is open to debate. This was never my favorite kind of debate and it is definitely not my strength. I don’t consider most things reasons to reject the team unless you tell me and give a good reason. I tend to lean negative on conditionality.

Topicality
Love it. Read it, but be honest with yourself. You and I know both know that T – Sub isn’t the best argument ever, but I’ve won on it and voted on it, so here we are. An important note: I find it easier to vote for/against T when I know what exactly a debate round looks like on average. What are the affs? Are they winnable? What are the DAs? Are they winnable?

Counterplans
Love them. If you’re going to have a super long, complicated text, please read it slowly. I try to write it down the best I can. If you have a lot of planks, you should probably have solvency cards for all the planks.

DAs
Love these too.

Ks
Go for them if they’re your thing. I was a philosophy student, but the K lit most kids read was never my jam. I like a specific link story and I would like to know how the alt solves or why, if it doesn’t, I still shouldn’t vote aff. Something that often confuses me about K debates is that I don’t know what to do with the things I am told, so please impact things clearly and let me know what to do with the information you provide.
I’m not a big fan of the dead-on-the-inside stuff as it all sounds like gobbledygook to me, but if it’s your thing and you want to shine, shine on, friend. I’ll do my best.

K Affs
The more about the topic they are, the happier I am. That said, I don’t hate things that have nothing to do with the topic. Just explain the aff well and try to be as clear as possible. I will say, if all of your cards have paragraph-long tags, it will be harder for me to flow.

Please don’t hesitate to ask me questions before/after the debate. I really love debate and want everyone to do well and get better.

Important Update

**Clarification questions about the speech doc are CX time**

laurenlucillejohnson@gmail.com

Director of Debate at Weber State University - presently

Assistant Coach at Western Washington University. 2020-2022

Graduate Assistant Coach at the University of Wyoming 2018-2020

I debated for Gonzaga University 2014-2018

Do what you do best and feel most comfortable and confident forwarding in the debate- I judge a myriad of styles and types of arguments in debates- while my paradigm gives you a sense of how I view decision-making calculus- I first and foremost view my role as a judge as an ethical educator.

Kritiks- I enjoy critical debates. Feel free to run them on both sides. I am well versed in feminist/queer, postmodern, and gender theory, although I am also familiar with other critical literature bases. The link debate is the most important part of a critique for me. Really good impact analysis does not matter if there is no link to the 1AC. I also think that performative links are valid arguments and can be used as reasons for why the permutation does not solve. I generally think the aff should get perms although can be persuaded otherwise in an instance where the aff is not about the resolution or in pure methods debates.

Role of the Ballot - I think the role of the ballot is to vote for who wins their arguments and does the better debating. If you have an argument otherwise, I will be more persuaded/default to a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think it's dishonest and transparently one-sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation.

Aff framework versus the K- Your interpretation should probably say you should get to weigh your impacts vs. the K. I prefer debates about the substance of the arguments over debates that end up being exclusively about aff framework, if your framework argument ends up mooting the substance of both the aff and the K (aff solvency and alt solvency) then it becomes a messy debate that I will not enjoy adjudicating.

Performative/Non-Traditional Debates - I think the aff should be about something pertaining to the topic and recommend something be done that is different than the status quo (does NOT have to be a plan or involve the United States Federal Government). If the aff chooses to not do this, they'll have to win why the topical version of the aff can't solve for the performance/discussion that the aff began and win an impact turn to framework. In terms of impact analysis. You should be able to explain what reasonable neg ground exists versus your aff that is within the realm of topic-related research. That said, I'll still vote for an aff that is not about the topic if they win their impact turns to framework/accessibility questions.

Framework versus Performative/Non-Traditional Affs- I think that the negative either has to win that there is a ‘topical’ version of the aff that can solve for the substance and performance/discussion of the affirmative, or that their interpretation of debate can allow for better access to the solvency mechanism/ address the impacts of the affirmative. I say ‘topical’ because I am generally unpersuaded that the aff must defend the “hypothetical enactment of the plan by the USFG”, I think that the negative has to prove that the affirmative either justify an interpretation of the topic that makes it impossible to be prepared to debate this particular aff, or that the affirmative is not grounded in a methodology that changes something in the status quo or the lives/experiences of the debaters in the round. I think that the best deliberative model of debate is one in which the affirmative presents a strategy that can generate effective deliberation on a topic because it is something that is contestable and allows for a debate to occur regarding the desirability and effectiveness of two competing strategies/methods to address the affirmatives impacts/concerns.

Topicality- If the debate becomes a large T debate, please slow down so I can get the nuances and particularities of the arguments and debate. I flow on paper so keep that in mind. Limits and predictability are not impacts they are internal links. Discussing how limits and predictability impact debate/ research/ neg prep and what that means in terms of education etc. (This also goes for framework)

Theory- Generally, I think reasonable conditionality (example: 1 Kritik and 1 CP) is a good thing but conditionality bad arguments can be used strategically. I generally err neg on theory arguments that are not conditionality, but I am open to persuasion by either side of the debate.

Counterplans- I generally will vote on a counterplan if you win that you solve the aff, which means you don’t particularly need to win a big risk of your offense to win.

Disads- You need a good disad turns case argument or a case take out to be a round winning strategy. Most of the time I will filter my decision for case versus the disad debates through impact calculus.

Updated for NU 22

NOTE: I have not thought about debate since the 2022 NDT. I am excited to be back but know that these rounds will be the first time I am hearing about Legal Personhood.

Yes Email Chain brent.lamb97@gmail.com

The short version

I am a judge who will vote for essentially any argument. I am as likely to vote on FW versus K affs than I am to vote for impact turns on FW. Simply put, run whatever arguments you are the most comfortable with and dont feel the need to change your style for me.

I will say that because of my debating style I am much more experienced in Policy v Policy and Policy v K debates but I still view K v K debate as amazing and will be excited whenever I get a chance to judge one of those rounds! NOTE: I am super inexperienced at Pomo debates. I have and will continue to vote for them IF I can understand them, pref me if you read those arguments at your own risk.

I think it is important as I judge more rounds to note areas that I have noticed that have become more important to me. The biggest thing I have noticed is debate is a communication event as a result I place a higher premium on communication than some other judges do. Don't read great evidence and leave it at that but rather connect it to the debate round as a whole. I am a judge who loves judge instruction and telling me how I should evaluate arguments or impacts is going to put you in a much better position than simply hoping that I will follow your same line of thinking.

The long version: Most of these comments below are my specific thoughts. Things like DA's and CP's are pretty straightforward. Have a link for the DA and be able to solve some or all the aff with the CP.

Tech over truth: If an argument goes conceded and you impacted it well enough and explain why I should vote for it, I will.

Speed: I have a high threshold for speed and will yell clear out twice in a speech before I stop flowing. That being said with this year most likely being all on Zoom it is important to go at a speed that everyone can understand online. I recommend 80% of your normal speed but you know what works best for you.

K-affs: This is an area where I have experience in but was never my main focus during debate. K's and K affs are the areas where I am the most likely not to vote on an argument because I did not understand it. All that means is to make sure to explain your argument and dont assume that I will fill in the gaps with the same level of knowledge that you all have.

I prefer affs that are in the direction of the topic (that doesn't mean defending USFG action) but affs that are not in the direction of the topic are still able to win my ballot if it is well debated.

K-aff's Vs T/FW: My opinion of what arguments against framework that I find persuasive is still very malleable. All that really means is answer framework in whatever way you think is the most strategic. Reading my advice on T/FW vs K-aff's will give you a good idea of what I find important and being able to beat those arguments will put you in a good place in the debate. Affirmative teams usually win against T/FW in front of me when you prove that the neg's interp excludes the possibility of being able to discuss your scholarship (got to beat the TVA), combined with offense.

After judging multiple framework vs K aff rounds I have come to find that I am more persuaded by whatever team does better impact comparison (why does fairness outweigh education or vice versa?). I will also say that I am less persuaded by general debate bad arguments. I agree that the community is messed up and there is a lot we can do to improve it but saying that debate provides no benefit is a harder sell. If that is your A strat you are not out of luck instead it just requires you to invest more time in this argument if you would like to win it. In general impact turning, T/FW is very viable in front of me.

T/FW vs K-aff's: Im relatively open to all type of negative impacts for framework. I am much more persuaded by T impacts that are centered around skill-building or resolution focus good compared to impacts such as fairness but again am open to any impact. TVA's are pretty much must haves and at the very least make your odds of winning much higher.

K's: Just like above I have some experience but it was not my main focus. Having links to the aff and winning impact calc and/or framework will put you in a good spot.

Going for CP's: I default to no judge kick unless told otherwise.

Theory: Theory is a tool that is underutilized by a lot of aff teams Neg's get away with a lot and needs some checks. Condo theory I view as a reason to reject the team. I am more lenient on reject the arg with everything non-condo but I can be convinced why reading those CP's in the first place is a reason to reject the team. I enjoy theory debates less typed out/reading blocks and more engaging on the line by line and vision of debate.

Topicality for policy affs: Having a specific violation and examples of in round abuse puts you in a better place than just a generic T-shell. Also in the later speeches if you are still going for it, make sure to explain what a world of your interp looks like (What affs are aloud, why are only those affs good for debate, etc)

Impact Turns: Love them and think they are underutilized as well. I have had experience with impact turns from Heg bad to Nuke war good.

Random Info

Prep: I do not count flashing/emailing as prep, as soon as your document is finished you can stop prep. If I see you stealing prep I will call you out once and then start the clock for your prep.

Language: Your language matters racist,homophobic,abelistic,misgendering language is probelmatic just be kind to people.

Clipping cards: If someone is accused of clipping cards the round will stop, you must have video evidence and make the claim in the round. Clipping cards causes an instant loss and low speaks. Accidents happen just make sure you are reading everything you said you read. Mark where you said to mark.

If you have any questions before the round don't be afraid to ask!

Brent

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his

I am beginning to judge more events other than just policy but I have almost zero experience with other forms of debate.

Please include me on the email chain: joshlamet@gmail.com. Everyone gets plus .1 speaks if I'm not asked to be put on, and I'm just automatically put on the chain. Ask me any questions about my paradigm in person or via email, although I try to update it regularly with the most important stuff.

School conflicts: Minnesota, Glenbrook North, Como Park

I don't care what you read as long as you convince me to vote for you, I will.

Stuff related to online debating:

Don't delete analytics from the speech doc, please. I'll probably dock your speaks if I remember to. Online debate is harder to flow than in-person so it's good practice if you want me to catch everything you're saying.

Please slow down a little (especially on T and theory*) because the number of arguments I flow is rarely equal to the number of arguments the speaker actually makes, and those numbers will be much closer to each other if everyone prioritizes clarity and slowing down a bit. Don't just read this and think you're fine. Slow down, please. I know half of all judges ever have something like this in their paradigm but I'm a slower flow than average because I flow on paper.

Sliders:

Policy------------------x-------------------K

Read a plan-------------------------------x---------Do whatever (probably at least sorta related to the topic)

Tech--------------x----------------------------Truth -- I hate myself for it, but I am kind of a truth-orientated judge in that I really don't want to vote for silly args, and the worse an arg is, the more leeway I give to answering it

Tricks---------------------------x--------------Clash

Theory-------------------------------------x--------- Substance -- condo is really the only theory arg that gets to the level of "reject the team", I simply feel that most other theory args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. Unless the negative goes for the CP/K to which the theory applies in the 2nr, it's a tough sell for me to vote on, "They read [insert abusive off-case position], they should lose".

Conditionality good--------x---------------------Conditionality bad -- this being said, I would much rather see 4-6 good off, than a 7+ mix of good and bad

States CP good (including uniformity)-----------x----------------------50 state fiat is bad

Always VTL----------------x---------------------Never VTL

Impact turn (*almost) everything-x-----------------------------I like boring debate -- to add to this, I'm a huge sap for impact calc and specifically rebuttals that provide a detailed narrative of the impacts of the debate and how they interact with the other team's. Impact comparison and impact turns are often the deciding factors for me in close debates

*Almost meaning I'll vote on warming good, death good, etc. but not on args like racism good or ableism good. Why don't people read death good anymore? I am an edgy teenager at heart and could be convinced the human race should go extinct.

Limits---------------x-------------------------------Aff Ground

Process CP's are cheating----------------------x---------------Best fall-back 2nr option is a cheating, plan-stealing CP

Lit determines legitimacy-------x-----------------------Exclude all suspect CPs

Yes judge kick the CP--x-------------------------------------------Judge kick is abusive -- as long as the 2nr says to kick the CP, I'm gonna kick it and just analyze the world of the squo vs the aff and I'm pretty sure there's nothing the aff can really do if condo bad isn't a thing in the round. Heck, I judged a debate where the CP was extended for 30 seconds and not kicked but I still voted neg because the neg won a large risk of a case turn. What I'm saying, is that when you are aff and the neg goes for more than just the CP with an internal NB, beating the CP doesn't equate to winning the debate outright

Presumption----------x--------------------------Never votes on presumption

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------x--I only read what you read

I flow on my computer ---------------------------------------x I'm gonna need to borrow some paper

I try to give out speaker points that are representative of how well you performed in the round compared to the tournament as a whole. I try to follow the process detailed here, but I often find myself handing out speaks sort of indiscriminately. Getting good speaks from me includes being respectful and making good choices in the rebuttals (smart kickouts, concessions, and flow coverage).

Clash! I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve about one another as opposed to simply in vacuums.

Don't be sloppy with sources.

Random things I am not a fan of: Excessive cross-applications, not doing LBL, email/tech issues, making my decision harder than it should be, and 2ACs and 1ARs that don't extend case impacts (even when they're dropped).

T-USFG/FW:

Fairness is an impact----------x-------------------Fairness is only an internal link -- My threshold is usually how close your aff is to the topic in the abstract, i.e. econ inequality and nukes. I do feel like in the end the main goal of doing debate is to win. The activity serves a ton of other purposes but at the end of each debate, one team wins, and one team loses. This doesn't mean that I think reading a planless aff is unfair and can be convinced that a "fair" debate produces something bad, but it's going to be very hard to convince me that debate is not a game.

Topic education is decent for an education impact but policymaking and policy education are meh. Critical thinking skills can also be extracted from debate and critical skills about calling out state action and for revolution planning.

If you don't read a written-out advocacy statement: Impact turn framework---------x---------------------------Procedural

Debate and life aren't synonymous but I understand that many of your lives revolve heavily around debate, so I will respect any arg you go for as long as you make smart arguments to support it.

Teja Leburu, Assistant Coach at Northwestern, Email: tejaleburu@gmail.com, College People: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

I don't have a ton of involvement in debate anymore. I will not have a great understanding of community norms around t/competition on the topic, nor experience on many of the substantive issues. Considering this, it will probably help you to overexplain rather than under.

With regards to clash debates, based on the previous rounds I have judged, my record indicates I am not great for non-topical affirmatives and critical arguments. I will attempt to evaluate the debate as fair as possible, but it seems as though I diverge for two reasons with other judges when dealing with non-topical affs, 1) I find that the affirmative offense is not intrinsic to debate about the topic, nor does it outweigh the neg offense 2) I think that aff debating assumes I’ll account for a lot of implicit case interaction with framework, which I have a hard time doing. With regards to the K, I think the two issues lead me to diverge in decisions from other judges, 1) I tend to agree with the affirmative arguments about plan focus and think the negative doesn’t spend enough time responding to the classic “fairness and clash” arguments 2) I think there has to be some response to case either via explicit alt solves arguments or case defense. Absent that, I seem to give a lot of “Aff outweighs the K” decisions.

In more traditional debates, here are the more controversial opinions I have:

1. I will evaluate rehighlighted/inserted cards, within reason. I get that “within reason” can be an ambiguous line; a general rule of thumb is if it’s text that’s included from the other team's speech doc, that is fine. If it’s from a different section of the article or another article, read it.

2. I think some 1NCs make close to zero complete arguments, e.g introductions of “just text” CPs without a card, an explanation of how it solves, or what DAs it avoids. If the 1NC is without these things, the 2NC cannot assert the aff has dropped a complete argument and I will be lenient to allow “new” 1AR arguments. I think a good test is if the neg finds themselves asserting the aff has dropped an argument and then proceeding to read more cards about that exact issue; then I’ll think the aff should be permitted to respond to the new evidence read and that will often allow “new” 1AR arguments.

3. There are few theoretical arguments (aside from condo) that I could entertain as resulting in rejecting the team. I think I’ll have a hard time being convinced otherwise.

4. I think translated cards or cards from author correspondence are fine and should be encouraged. When the debater or a coach are the ones doing the translating, I can be more convinced that it’s not the best idea.

5. Condo is starting to approach the point where I am questioning whether “infinite condo” is, in fact, good for debate. If the neg finds themselves exceeding 5 or 6 options, depending on the situation and debating, I could find myself persuaded to vote on it. It’s still a high bar, but not as impossible as it used to be with me.

6. I seem to not like “process” oriented strategies as much as other judges. The more germane to the topic and the more it competes off of topic specific resolutional phrasing other than merely “immediacy” or “certainty”, the more likely I’ll be to think it’s both legitimate and competitive. In addition, I think merely reading definitions without advancing a reason to prefer those definitions on competition is risky endeavour.

7. It seems I'm more willing than the average judge to entertain CPs that are often competitive (states, con-con, etc) as theoretically illegitimate, and reasons to reject the *argument*

Things I would have wanted to know as a debater:

-I have judged a total of 0 rounds at tournaments this year. I judged one round in 2021 (I think). Consider me a total lay judge for topic knowledge and any arguments that reference previous community developments this season (stuff like "X team is running this aff" in T debates).

-I was not a very technical debater and won't be a very technical judge. I won't be good at following dense technical rants and I flow by hand w/ a heavy reliance on shorthand. Because of this, I'll err towards clearly explained on the tech vs. truth question.

-Please curb your speaking speed a bit. As mentioned, I flow on paper and I'm not 100% at auditory processing.

-Please add me to the email chain! lincourtvictoria@gmail.com .

Other stuff:

-I debated for three years with Indiana University. The pandemic ended debate for me, so I've never debated digitally or judged college digitally (much). I don't really know the norms for digital debate.

-I work in ecosystem restoration and land management. I have decent-ish background knowledge in climate policy, food policy, and social safety net policy.

-While I debated, I stayed mainly in policy-oriented literature and had some limited experience with K literature (really only Cap K stuff, small Ks around the executive powers nukes topic, and gender/queer theory). I'm probably not a good judge for literature that relies heavily on author names or prior in-depth knowledge.

-My thoughts on framework debates are really similar to Jacob Bosley's and I'd recommend reading his paradigm for clarification - with the BIG caveat that I will not be as good at judging it. Whenever I debated framework, I was notorious for dropping things and I'm guessing that judging framework will go very similarly for me.

-I really really like T debates and think definitions are cool. This (and picky procedural args) was my favorite part of debate. I probably have a very low threshold for voting on T arguments that you deem squirrelly in the 1NC but get extended, explained, and impacted out properly. I probably also have a low threshold for questionably topical affs if they're justified with adequate ground. That being said, don't go for fairness as an impact to T if you don't tell me why it matters.

-DAs, CPs, theory, etc. are all fine. Conditional stuff is fine.

-In general, I think debate is an educational activity with a lot of value. I won't be a fan of arguments that insist "it's just a game" and stop at that level without explaining why this does/doesn't mean what we do in round matters. I think it's a good idea for everyone, regardless of what type of debater you are, to understand what your ideal model of debate is and how/if engagement with the activity can create the type of community norms you'd like to see.

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

The Short:

I have a PhD in Philosophy. I was 3rd speaker and a semifinalist at the NDT (in 2012?). I read: Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze and Guattari, Nietzsche. I didn't read: topical plans. I will vote on T, though I don't think fairness is an especially compelling impact. I defer to an offense/defense paradigm unless told to do otherwise.

Speaker points start at 27.5. 28.2-28.4 marks an average speaker.

Don't adapt. Be bold.

Mollison.JamesA@gmail.com for the chain. (Sigh.)

Butin scale is:

Helpful-----------------------x----Lazy

The Medium:

Judge adaptation, by my lights, is better saved for “smaller” or “more technical” aspects of debates, as opposed to being something that should inform your overarching strategy. Besides, it pains me to watch a poorly executed version of an argument that I agree with, whereas a poorly executed version of an argument that I disagree with strikes me as a matter of indifference. So, your best bet is probably to argue whatever you like to argue if I’m your judge.

I incline, as much as I can, against intervening in debates that I judge – though I oscillate as to whether I take this to express some vague pretension to intellectual integrity or mere laziness. This isn’t to say I don’t intervene. (For example, I have yet to develop a criterion for new arguments that amounts to anything more than thinking “I saw it coming, so you should have too.”) Nevertheless, it is to say that I try not to intervene more than I must to make a decision. If your argument is valid or strong, I’m willing to vote for it. (Soundness and cogency are far too high a bar for most arguments to pass, and I can’t make claims about the soundness or cogency of your arguments without portending to know things about the world, which gets us all in hot water.) So, again: read what you’d like.

If no one in the debate tells me how to judge it, as is the case more often than not, I default to some sort of opportunity-cost calculation thingy, maybe with some offense-defense jargon thrown in so that I sound like I know what I’m talking about. To be clear, I consider such methods inadequate to the task of doing justice to the messy value oriented questions that debates typically devolve into. Nevertheless, I resort to such crude methods because I think it’s fair to presume that most policy debaters take some such paradigm for granted – and it’s not my place to ruin your fun. (For my part, when I read the room, I often think something like: “Are these calculators trying to make heads or tails of ethical questions? Fascinating.”) If someone in the debate tells me I shouldn’t do the cost-benefit-analysis thingy, great. But you’ve been warned about what I’ll do if left to my own devices. Chalk it up to the aforementioned inability to distinguish intellectual integrity from laziness.

In descending order of preference, I suspect that these are the kinds of rounds you want me to judge for you:

1. “Clash” of “Civilizations” Debates

2. Critique v. Critique Debates

3. Policy v. Policy Debates

Here’s some explanation for this ranking.

1. “Clash” of “Civilizations” Debates – On the one hand, I didn’t read plans, topical or otherwise. I was what some call “a critique debater.” On the other hand, my familiarity with the standard policy-debate replies to critical arguments is developed enough that I don’t hesitate to vote for policy teams against critical arguments. Indeed, I often find myself voting on arguments that, in my bones, I believe are false. To cite a sadly common example, I don’t think fairness is an impact; if a game is shown to be unethical, bellyaching about equal due within the game seems to me to be beside the point. Similarly, the argument that “clash is unique to debate, so it must be its purpose” is worse than Aristotle’s argument from function, which I bet you don’t believe either. Yet, I vote on fairness and clash as impacts regularly. “Topical versions of the affirmative” and “switch side debate solves” arguments are counterplans in disguise – and I expect critique debaters worth their salt to be wise to such tricks by now.

2. Critique v. Critique Debates – I list these debates second because they tend to be messy, with teams struggling to generate clear competition claims. The struggle is often bad enough that judge intervention is required at a more fundamental level of the debate than usual. So, if you have me in these debates, try to hold my hand when it comes to explaining how the arguments in the debate ought to be compared. Otherwise, I’ll intervene in an unexpected place based on what I consider to the philosophical ground-floor of the debate – and to wit, I’ll blame you for my doing so. Another reason I put these second is that there are many different kinds of critique arguments and you likely don’t want me to judge all of them. I mostly read Baudrillard, Bataille, and other bastard children of Nietzsche born in France. As a result of these research interests, which I still champion, I dislike critical strategies that shrilly moralize or rely heavily on some taken-for-granted notion of identity. Don’t worry, though. Should you choose to moralize your opponents and should they choose to grovel apologetically, I’ll vote for you – quickly, too.

3. Policy v. Policy Debates – I like to think I can judge debates about counterplans, disadvantages, and case. Nevertheless, and regardless of what year it is, I probably haven’t done any research on the topic. There are too many things that I want to read for me to whittle away my eyesight reading about process counterplans. Technical terms from topic literature, acronyms, tricky procedural distinctions – you will have to explain these things to me patiently. Otherwise, I approach these debates like a toddler in a knife store. Let me be explicit: I enjoy a case beatdown as much as the next judge, but you may need to catch me up to speed before I know what, exactly, is going on.

Many of the debates that I judge are what I call “a double loss.” A double loss occurs when neither team has effectively precluded the possibility of me voting for their opponents (without intervening for them, that is). If I judge you and the debate is a double loss, I will likely tell you as much. This isn’t intended to hurt your feelings. But it is intended to remind you: you left enough doors open that you’re letting me decide the debate haphazardly. My RFD is bad, you say? You should have written a better one for me.

After a debate is over, I tend to ask myself: (i) “what is the central question of this debate?” and (ii) “which team requires me to do less work in order to write a ballot for their side?”

If the debaters themselves have not told me the answer to the first of these questions, and in keeping with my feeble attempt to fall back on some ill-defined policy-debate-norm that I assume policy debaters take for granted, then I answer the first question with something like: “the central question of the debate is how effectively avoid bad stuff, like a big boom-boom with horror-show theatrics.” Don’t like that? Nor do I. But if you don’t tell me not to do the cost-benefit analysis calculation-thingy, that’s what I’ll fall back on. You’ve been warned twice now.

Unfortunately, debaters often require that I do a great deal of work to rationalize voting for them. I’m frequently left doing impact comparisons, having to think through the priority among arguments, asking what arguments undercut others… These are all signs that I’m judging “a double loss.” Woof. So, like I say, I ask myself (ii) “which team requires me to do less work in order to vote for them?” I then incline toward thinking whatever team that is has likely won the debate. Just to be sure, though, I go back through my notes and see whether there are adequate answers to all of the bits and pieces the other team may whine about in an attempt to convince me, after the fact, that they won the debate. If the answers are adequate, I vote for the team who lost less, that is, for the team who requires that I do less work for them. If the answers aren’t adequate, then I ask myself why it took so much effort to discover this team’s winning argument... and, very likely, still vote for the other team because they didn't need me to do so much work for them.

I’ve made at least three wrong decisions when judging debates. If I do this to you, I will let you know once I realize as much.

The Long:

Good on you for reading more than the bare minimum.

My name is James. I was a critique debater who called everything an impact turn.

Don’t lose the forest for the trees.

Try to enjoy - well, everything you do, but also - your debates.

Here's my old judging paradigm, which is now a simulacra of sorts.

I don't have much time...

I agree with Calum Matheson's debate paradigm, for now, with a certain degree of deviation which needn't really concern anyone. It reads:

Calum Matheson--Harvard

Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 26.5 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you.

Debates are almost always decided in part by preconceived ideas which we presume to be shared. The same holds true for debate-theoretical issues. Due to time pressure, size, or whatever, many debates leave some element that a judge must decide for themselves, like “What is the standard for a new argument?” or “What does it mean for something to be conceded?” As a result, I have rewritten this to focus on those factors. All of these are defaults. Contrary arguments by a team in a debate always override them. I would like to intervene as little as possible, but am unwilling to pretend that anyone's objective.

1. An argument contains at least a claim and a reason. It constitutes intervention for a judge to ignore a dropped argument on the basis of its soundness, rather than its validity. If you don't know what that means, you should look it up--it might be helpful more generally.

2. One makes an argument, and then reads evidence to support it. The evidence is not the argument. Many judges read too much evidence, which invites them to intervene. In thebest case, reading fifty cards and taking forever to make a decision means you’re reading too much into cards, forgetting the debate, and thus taking the debate away from the competitors. You should use your evidence carefully and sparingly with me. I’d rather you read a few high-quality cards than a big pile of crap. The quality of arguments matters, not the quantity of evidence.

3. “Any risk” is inane. Below some level of probability, signal should be overwhelmed by noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. Pretending that one can calculate risk precisely is stupid. Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure it’s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation.

4. Uniqueness cannot determine the direction of a link. This is not an opinion, just a statement of fact. Some outcome is more or less likely to happen in the future, but because it’s a prediction, the probability is almost never 100%. The link is a net assessment of how the plan changes this—it’s a yes/no, up/down thing. So if one team wins the direction of the link, they should win the argument (although winning the sign of the change doesn’t mean that its magnitude is necessarily enough to result in a particular outcome).
Here’s an example: the Aff has three advantages. The Neg has a counterplan that definitely solves two of them, and definitely does not solve the third. The Neg only has inherency arguments on that advantage, which is the only net benefit to the counterplan. Does the Neg win? No. They have no offense so the counterplan can’t possibly be better than the Aff alone. This situation is identical to the case when a counterplan solves all of the case, the Neg wins uniqueness to the net benefit, but the Aff wins (non-unique) link turns.

5. An argument that is conceded is “true” for the purpose of the debate and joins the set of other usually unspoken presuppositions, like “things can cause things,” “death is bad,” “the Obama mentioned in the cards is the president of the United States,” and so forth. This means that if something is conceded by the negative bloc (for example) and then becomes relevant again as a reaction to the 2nr, the Aff’s extension of it is not new.

6. My criteria for “new” applications of an argument: if I could see it coming when the team made the argument originally then their use of it later on is not new. I know this isn’t a perfect standard, but I can’t think of a better one. If a claim or reason is not made until the rebuttals then that component of the argument is new, but not necessarily the whole argument. It’s not enough to say “this is new.” You must say that that’s bad for some reason.

7. Offense/defense isn’t always appropriate for theory arguments. The team that makes the argument has the burden to show that it’s okay to do that, but they don’t need to prove that something is particularly good—just okay. Theory arguments should be rooted in something fundamental. There are hypothetical benefits of debate, then practices that further them, then specific arguments that are examples of those practices. These principles rarely result in a counterinterpretation that isn’t an arbitrary, self-serving turd shat gracelessly into a shallow theory debate.

8. The idea that the Aff determines the meaning of words in the plan is wrong. If so, then nothing would stop them from saying “by Iraq we meant Iran,” “decrease means make more,” or whatever. Topicality arguments would be impossible. Competition and disad links even worse. Cleverly written Affs could have some ambiguity in their advantages so that words in the plan could be suddenly and arbitrarily redefined in ways that still allow the plan to have advantages. The meaning of the plan wouldn’t be predictable. Here’s the plan you hand the Negative before the debate: “The USFG should set fire to children. Survivors will be eaten by cobras.” The Neg spends half an hour prepping (some “cobras aren’t big enough to eat kids” cards, maybe a PIC out of children who agree to join the Marine Corps, a "Russia likes cobras/hates children" card, etc) and then the debate starts and the 1AC is about why the war in Iraq is immoral and we should ban depleted uranium shells. Seems to me that a better interpretation is that both sides should debate over the meaning of the words in the plan text—which the Aff should be ahead on since they chose the words.

9. Unless the Negative makes an argument to the contrary, going for a counterplan in the 2NR means that the only relevant comparison is the counterplan versus the plan. If the plan is better than the counterplan, the Aff does not need to be compared to the status quo. It is “logical” for the judge to compare the plan to the status quo if the counterplan is a bad idea, but it’s similarly logical for the judge to vote for only part of the plan, or the plan plus some undiscussed-but-implied alternative, delay the plan for a couple of months, or to unilaterally decide that a disad isn’t intrinsic. Saying “status quo is always an option” doesn’t resolve this—an option for who? The 2NR or the judge? If you want the status quo to be considered along with the counterplan, you should say so clearly.

10. Debates should be about opportunity cost. Disadvantages should be intrinsic to the plan. Many people seem not to understand what this means. If the impact to a disad is that the same actor doing the plan would then do something bad, this disad is not intrinsic—i.e., nothing about the plan means that the disadvantage necessarily results. Example: the plan has the US Congress withdraw US troops from Iraq. The Neg says “Congress would then choose not to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that would hurt US-Russian relations.” This disadvantage is not intrinsic, because the same actor—Congress—could do the plan and still repeal Jackson-Vanik. A legitimate Aff response is “Congress could do the plan and still repeal Jackson-Vanik.” Here’s where some people seem to get stuck: the Aff argument “we could do the plan and Congress could give Alaska back to Russia” is not a legitimate argument. Intrinsicness arguments are like permutations of the status quo—they test to see if the Aff could do the plan and still maintain the decision that the negative says the plan trades off with (Jackson-Vanik). They can’t introduce new options to solve the same impact because that tests the necessary magnitude of the cost, not whether or not two courses of action are actually exclusive of one another. The “plan plus return Alaska” argument tests competition with a hypothetical world where we’re giving back Alaska, which is not the world that the Negative defends. There are many, many ways around this intrinsicness requirement for the Negative, and I have very rarely voted Aff on this argument.

11. In critical debates, the role of the judge is very important (“critique” is not spelled with a “k” in English, and we didn’t fight the Boche on and off for thirty years just to revert to their barbarian customs). If the alternative uses an agent other than that proposed by the Aff, it is necessary to make this clear and justify the change. I don’t think the default position for the judge is as a government policy maker—without further instruction, I will suppose that the judge should just select the best option regardless of the agent, but this presents a number of serious problems that are worthy of attention by both teams, as whoever wins the “role of the judge” generally wins the debate.

12. All debates are impact debates. If team one wins that (impact x risk) of their arguments is larger than (impact x risk) of team two's arguments, team one wins. Although the standards for evaluating impacts is different in different debates (e.g., "liberty outweighs life," "moral action outweighs consequences"), this is true in theory debates, policy debates, and critical debates because the "impact" is just the reason to care about whatever you said. Impact calculus is thus very, very important, probably more important than any other aspect of a debate. Oddly enough, I think this is also the least-developed part of most debates. Bear in mind how conceded arguments influence impact uniqueness--in many debates, someone kicks a disad with a nuclear war impact by conceding that it's not unique and doesn't link. This means that the judge is making a decision about two opposing contingent worlds, both of which contain a nuclear war, usually in the next few years. Shouldn't timeframe matter more then since we'll all be fighting Super Mutants and learning to make our own bullets in a couple of years? In a related note, it's strange to me how little people exploit the impacts that they do win since the scale of impacts people discuss would clearly effect one another not just at the internal link level (e.g. "econ collapse hurts heg") but at the level of terminal impacts vs. internal links (a nuclear war might cause pandemics, or collapse the economy, or whatever--at the very least, we'd probably quit enforcing the plan once the time came to discuss the finer points of radioactive cannibalism).

13. Nearly always, what Aff teams call "not unique" arguments are actually brinks. Because most disads are cartoonishly stupid, they are also unique, because the magnitude of change that they're talking about is extreme. Example: "the plan spends money; hurts the economy; econ collapse = nuke war." If the Aff says "economy low now," that's probably good for the Neg, because their impact ev is talking about a situation where the economy has completely collapsed, so the Aff claim arguably adds plausibility to their argument. Link uniqueness is different of course.

14. Debate is ultimately about communicating your ideas to a judge to persuade them to vote for you. If I cannot understand you, I will not be persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly. I will not say “clear.” I will just ignore you without remorse, since the most basic goal of a debater is to be understood by the judge. This doesn't apply if it's not your fault, e.g., you're too far away and I can't hear you.

15. A few notes on language: Speaker points are entirely subjective. They reflect how much I like a set of speeches as a performance; feel free to fight with me about them but be aware that I have never cared. If you have an accent, speak a dialect, or whatever, I would not penalize you. That said, if you think that the first syllables of "tyrant" and "tyranny" are pronounced the same way, I wish you ill. Similarly, the aff does not "cause the Holocaust," unless this is an unusually bizarre counterfactual debate. "Knight Ridder" is a news agency; "Night Rider" was an 80's television series. "G.A.O." is an acronym, not a name. "Genocide" is a noun. The adjectival form is "genocidal." "Genocide" is not a verb. "Critique," as previously mentioned, is spelled with a "C," and as a rule, unnecessary use of German never made an argument sound less insidious. "Spec" is an annoying abbreviation; "tix" is one whose users should be condemned to a short life of hard labor in a Siberian uranium mine.

Again, all of these are defaults, and I ignore them when teams I judge make contrary arguments. Please do feel free to contact me with questions about how I judge or ideas for change. I will update this periodically.

he/him

Coach at Michigan State University 2019-

Coach at Wayne State University 2010-2019

Debater at Wayne State University 2006-2009

Debater at Brother Rice HS 2000-2004

BruceNajor@gmail.com

--

Below is a compilation of thoughts. Some are argument related, some are decision-making related. I update it periodically to keep it fresh, but nothing important has changed since you last read this.

-General-

- I used to judge 80+ debates a year, and now I probably judge less than 20. As with anything, skills atrophy, and I find that I'm a bit slower in terms of argument processing, both in real time and in decision time. It would behoove you to narrow the debate and explain the winning arguments as early as the negative block, treat the 1AR like a rebuttal, not a 3AC, and make connections on the line x line, instead of emailing me a plethora of cards and expecting me to sort it out.

- I flow. I don't follow the speech doc while you're talking. If you are unclear I won't be able to get what you say down and I won't vote on it.

- Slightly more truth > tech than the median judge. Once indicts are made your rejoinder burden grows depending on the strength/weakness of the original argument. Bad arguments can lose to bad arguments. Your argument got what it deserves.

- I value my decision time, and I'd hope you do too. Judges normally get around 30 minutes assuming everything in the round ran promptly. This is not an unreasonable amount of time, but ask yourself if the minute(s) it takes to get that marked copy before CX, or the "econ decline doesn't cause war" card before starting prep > subtracting those minutes from decision time. Please be prompt in making and sending a post-round doc.

- I carry the try-or-die flag higher than anyone else in the judge pool. I find I get sat on this argument more than any other. This probably won't bother you on a panel, but may be a tad more frustrating in a prelim debate. Ensuring that the world you're advocating for has a chance at sustainability is important. This isn't applicable to how I think about impacts generally (see below), rather, I think of it as a win condition of the game. If voting for you means there's a 100% chance of everyone dying, but voting for the other team means there's a 1% chance of everyone staying alive you lose, regardless of solving an impact. I'm open to teams who find themselves in a try-or-die trap arguing for rejecting this as a win condition, but debated out equally, or not debated out at all, well, you can't say you weren't warned.

- A bit inconsistent with the above, but once the conditions for try-or-die are not met, I find that I put greater emphasis on the link than many of my colleagues. When I get sat for non try-or-die reasons, it is often because I thought the link was small despite the impact being large.

- I don't flow "stream of consciousness" well. I encounter this a lot in 2NRs where the 1N typed up a thing for the 2NR to blitz through. I don't have an issue with speedy delivery communicated in a way that allows for the listener to digest the content, but if you're just speed reading through a long chunk of text I'm probably missing 50+% of it.

- We don't "debate out" accusations of unethical behavior/practices. If you want to stop the debate and have me adjudicate whether a debater/team was unethical, the debate ends. We cannot restart the debate from the alleged unethical practice, and the winner of the debate cannot be decided on "who did the better debating." I think a fundamental standard for "unethical" must be obfuscation for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. This doesn't mean the team in question had to know they were gaining a competitive advantage (i.e. they didn't have to have cut the card), but that the way the evidence was presented gained the team a competitive advantage they wouldn't otherwise have had if the evidence was presented properly.

-Critical / Critique-

- I generally understand impact turns to topicality as "counter-standards" that support a counter-interpretation, so I struggle as a judge to get to an aff ballot when the "critical aff" (broad interpretation) fails to provide a counter-interpretation to the resolution. I equally struggle when that counter-interp is self-serving and not grounded in defining resolutional terms (i.e. "affs can affirm or negate the resolution").

- Most critical debate is too fast for me. If these arguments are your thing, you will benefit from slowing down over-explaining.

- I struggle to understand critiques of "fiat." I find that most of them rely on an interpretation that is divorced from what I understand "fiat" to mean. Absent a tech disaster from one team, I have consistently been persuaded that the aff gets to weigh the benefits of implementation versus the impacts of the K.

- A critique argument still needs to engage the case. Trying to simply outweigh the case or framework it away has empirically been unlikely to persuade me to vote neg.

- Critiques of "impact magnitude" are generally unpersuasive to me. "Critical affs" are much more successful in front of me when they focus on challenging the link.

-Evidence-

- My decision will probably reflect evidence quality / evidence specificity more than the median judge.

- I value good evidence with coherent highlighting. Nonsense highlighting makes me want to read for flaws in your evidence and have it reflect in my decision making even if not brought up in round.

- I don't have an issue with "insert re-highlighting" as long as its accompanied by an actual argument, and the insert has merit. If your "inserting" is actually just mis-readings on your end, I won't care if it's "dropped". Likewise, if you're inserting stuff but haven't introduced context for an actual argument, the other teams burden of rejoinder is low to nil.

-Theory / Competition-

- More neg than the median judge on conditionality.

- 50/50 on judge-kick but presumption is 2NR = one-world. This means if neither team addresses the judge-kick contingency, I will not do it and vote aff if the neg fails to prove a NB and/or competition, even if I think the NB links to and outweighs the case.

- Slightly more neg than the median judge on neg fiat (states, international, multi-actor). I can't see myself ever rejecting the team for non-conditionality theory arguments, even if dropped in every speech.

- "Perm do CP" means the plan and the CP can be the same thing. "Perm do both" means doing the plan and CP at the same time resolves all the NB, or enough of the NB that the solvency deficit outweighs. If you are making a different perm than either of these, you need to say more in the 2AC than "do both" or "do CP"

- I'm not going to vote on disclosure args (not disclosing the 1AC is a voter, you disclosed to us wrong, you're not on the wiki, you only gave us a paper copy, you only read this in X spot, etc.). Disclosure is a privilege, not a right, and I'm here to judge a debate, not be the disclosure police. That said, poor aff disclosure can be persuasively used to justify leniency for the neg on theory args, like conditionality or judge kick.

-Speaker Points-

- I don't really have a model. I suppose my scale goes from 28-30, but realistically my range is probably 28.5-29.5. That doesn't mean if you get a 28.5 you're the worst debater I've seen, it means you did an adequate job and I expected debaters I judged at this tournament to fall in that range. #BringBackTies

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 19 years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: Since Tabroom stopped making speaker points accessible, I honestly don’t really even know what they mean anymore. I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.7 or 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Answer your own cross-ex questions. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

Updated - Pre-NU - 09.12.23.

On balance, J Philosophies should prob cut to the chase - but I'm gonna violate my own rule this time:

We exist in an era where being unfiltered gets glorified.. where the smartest person in the room is also encouraged to be the loudest.

Every now and again, someone arrives in our small pond - and they have all the characteristics of a great judge. They are quietly brilliant. They are thoughtful. They hold the community's respect for the simplest reason of all: they are undeniably good at what they do. It doesn't need to be broadcasted - it finds itself on display in each oral critique.

I won't be the guy that pretended to know Brian McBride on a deeply personal level. Our interactions were often limited to those panels that finish their task at 2am.

... but I know enough to say this with confidence. I learned a great deal by letting that guy go first in the post-round. He rarely called attention to himself. I am hopeful that our community finds ways to honor his contribution - even if he would've bashfully declined such praise.

I had a great deal of respect for who he was in this community.

Customary biz:

Yes - speech Doc.

Repko.Debate@gmail.com

Side note - I often miss non-speech doc correspondence sent to that address bc I only use it for judging.

** New - Topic Specific - Nuclear weapons, 2023-4

With all the asterisks that often accompany this, I'll say I'm not going to deeply break-down my thoughts on hyper-generics and the kind of K's that tend to get run on every Res. I do have thoughts on these matters - but I am much more apt to be placed in a Policy-Policy round... this is bc clash/K teams have (correctly) concluded that there are many judges in the pool where their win% would be higher.

I have sneaking suspicions that Topicality will arise more in Policy-Policy rds - what follows is designed to be helpful:

- As a general proposition, I am more Aff than most on T - but I do think the Framer's worded things in a manner that gives the Neg something to argue here. Enough will come down to execution that some of what follows could be overread.

- I do not enter into the T Debate presumptively assuming Negs are structurally hosed on *this* Res. This ain't the water or CJR Res - there's at least room to argue that this Res= atypically good for Negs. I often judge on panels where the lone conception of "ground" is Neg. Absolute kudos to the Neg if they can pull of that framing - you should (as ever) run with the premises your opponents concede. But - in an evenly matched debate - I do think there's space for the Aff to push back on the some of the classic Neg ground claims.

- While I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where one side's interp is noticeably imprecise (i.e. old school "substantial" defs about a Court case involving a kitchen measurement), I tend to think most prepared teams read a reasonably precise interp. Once the opponent's interp has exited the theater of the absurd, I am open to threads that argue that we should consider defaulting to other RTP various interps. Better put - if you're trying to win that an inch of precision >>> a mile of balanced ground/limits, I would recommend you have technical execution on your side.. bc I am going to need to read the opponent's interp and chuckle at how non-applicable it is. If your lead on precision is NOT an inch - I am very good for your side.

Deterrence and Assurance are a thing. If/when the Neg blends them together, they create Aff openings where "thumping one" can "thump both".

Revisionism has become the Policy equiv of ontology. The 2N uses the fact that "Russia has revisionist tendencies" to lower the threshold for the link, the impact, the "turns case" thread, etc.... OK - I suppose it's somewhat helpful to the cause - but let's not overdo this. No one would pretend that reading a card that "X nation is revisionist" is - by its lonesome - a link to the NFU Aff... The best K research takes the ontology claim and contextualizes it to the Aff in question. The best disad research takes the revisionism premise and applies it to the NFU Aff. I find no dissonance here - it feels logical (to me) to demand scholarly contextualization from both revisionism claims and ontology claims. And - to be candid - I suspect I have a higher bar for Neg contextualization than most.

*Older stuff starts here - I'd only read through it if you needed more than the basics

I'm somewhat correctly stereotyped as a "good judge to break a new aff in front of". And, certain broad strokes will not change between now and Monday:

- I am bad for some Neg generics that get run in these spots (process CP, many K's)

- I will do enough "reading" in the post-round to at least try and comprehend a novel Aff or Neg arg - and, as these things go, that can open room for a prepared new Aff to win on various appeals to specificity

- I get that Neg's adore the Cap K... but the way this is getting deployed in the modern era is just so far from what I feel is a complete reason to Negate. I could break down my creative Cap K 2.0 blueprint ..or go on some rant - but, unless your Cap K has some very unique twists, I'd say that I am the second worst judge in the pool for your Cap K (behind Katsulas). This is meant to be helpfully honest as you make pref decisions;

- I am one of the better judges in the pool for "the impact turn doesn't link". Let me unpack - as this might read as illogical. Just bc the Aff said "heg" doesn't mean that *the way* the Aff enhances Heg auto-links to your backfile... similarly, just bc the Neg read an impact module that loosely referenced "ag" or "econ" doesn't mean the camp backfile is simply greenlit. Often times the OG impact is about "preventing a future decline in Heg"... or helping a sector of the econ that may solely be a piece in the dedev puzzle. I'll obviously "play ball" if both teams opt to ignore this int link minutiae. But I do sometimes find myself on the bottom of a 4-1 bc I strongly consider analytic threads appealing to whether the impact turns applied in the first place. This is not intended to full-on dissuade. Teams seeking to impact turn should invest some time connecting the "top-level" dots between the opponent's impact claim and their impact turn. Impact turn strat can also wind-up defending a squo that's very messy (transitions, other Aff impacts). Think about more than the narrow impact turn itself - and the broader system being defended.

- I differ from many judges on "disad turns case". I was recently asked to recount an NDT elim I judged a few years back. In it, Aff slams on Adv... Neg slams on Disad... Aff is bad on "disad turns case"... neg is silent on "Aff solves case"... 8 out of 10 judge vote neg here: after all, Neg turns Aff. I regularly vote Aff on "aff solvency claim is every bit as dropped as the neg's claim to turn solvency". There are some exceptions where I would vote Neg - suppose the neg's "turns case" arg is couched as comparative to the 1AC solvency... OR maybe the neg claim simply makes more sense than the OG Aff solvency.. etc... but I tend to not punish the Aff for lacking large re-explanations of (dropped) swaths of their case. Negs would do well to make comparisons that bake-in the particulars of the Aff.

- there is a risk of overcorrection to all of this. I have voted on "PIKs bad" at the NDT - and it was the correct 2AR choice.. I voted on a "meh" human innovation disad earlier this season bc the Neg tailored it so well to the opponent's solvency claims. There have been other decisions that might surprise a third party coach - unless they watched the debate itself. I do understand that debate is a game. All of this advice assumes situations where both sides have the time to evenly execute on a position - but sometimes that hasn't taken place. Capitalize accordingly.

--- Everything below this is older stuff... all of it still applies - but may be more than you need ------

TLDR - general

More apt to be placed in Policy v. Policy rounds. A great deal of the research that I do is on critical/culture theory. And, a lot of outcomes are possible in a world of imbalanced coverage/attention to detail.

That said, I have a poor track record for planless Affs. I have enough "argumentation teacher" in me to give a range of oral critiques. But, I do think K of this Res/Topicality struggles vs. standard (policy) boilerplate responses.

If your pref decisions hinge on post-round academic convos, I will be an engaged critic. But if a big component of your pref decisions are about the grizzled bottom line of winning (which is 1000% understandable, IMO), I think much of the pool has a better track record on behalf of the K.

Seems like there's two sets of Policy judges on this particular Res:

Camp 1.0 - summer pleasure reading was about Bostrom, gray goo bloggers, and meta-physical q's posed by British scholars.

Camp 2.0 - not that.

I'm more in camp 2.0. I have cut policy cards on the topic. I am not dismissive existential risk. I think the Sci Fi impacts are fine - strategic even....

And, I am (quite fairly) accused of letting your ev do some work for you. But there's a wave of oral critique out there that's akin to: "the sub-text of the Aff entropy claim rests on Toby Ord's The Precipice - which is hardly viable without a deeper defense of hypercomputation".

... huh ?..

I can get there - but you'll need to at least start me down that journey.

TLDR - process CP, compete on "should"

Anything is poss in the land of wildly disparate in-rd execution/coverage - but I am quite Aff here

Where are you good for the neg ?

Disad, CP of non-process flavor... the 1AC itself = often pretty silly.

'Rona

For me, I am judging INP for the first time in a minute - mostly bc it would not be great if I brought COVID back to my household.

I am appreciative of the efforts the tournament and the participants are making to reduce the risk of COVID. I mean that quite genuinely

... this simple statement could be over-read or cause students to overreact when I am judging. I understand that sure-fire solutions are rare... and I do not need to 2A to debate outdoors or something. Just a friendly - not judgmental - reminder that I will be on the cautious side of this one.

--wrote this pre '21 NDT - I'll leave it up a bit longer, but it has little to do w. arg preferences ----

This strikes me as an audience where one can make a bold claim... and be granted an opportunity to back it up.

Here goes:

One of the strongest people I know is only 3 yrs old.

... I've watched her figure it out.

When the six yr old points and stares.

When the family switches lanes in swim class.

When they ask why her mask is the kind that ties in the back.

...and I've watched in amazement. Somehow, she channels her exasperation into thoughtfulness. Somehow, these aftermaths are productive.

A few years ago, I heard rumor that a student was thinking of foregoing her final NDT - ending her career after her Junior season. This student had challenged MSU Debate ...in the best ways possible. Judging policy rds as I do, I knew this debater. I decided to drop her a note. I thanked her for the hard work she'd put in.... for the indirect ways in which she'd made our program grow. One never knows what to expect once the send key is hit. I do think she was a little surprised to receive it. But I came to learn it made a small difference... that it landed with the right timing.

Later that season, I wrote a similar note - this time to a non-traditional debater. The same premises held. This student pushed our program and drove us to be more prepared. I extended an overdue "thanks". I imagine they were more than a little surprised to receive it. Judging policy rds as I do, I had even less of an idea how it may land. I was glad to learn it landed well.

The days leading up to the NDT are an especially good time to keep one's head down.

...But when the dust settles... when the inevitable frustrations grow distant... consider crafting a simple note. Consider sending it to a judge... a rival... a teammate.

Above all, consider sending to someone that may not expect it.

In doing so some will accuse you of being weak. Why extend energy to your rivals ?.. Why breathe life into the foe ?

But - in doing so - you will be anything but weak.

You will exit a challenging season... perched atop a most-challenging 12 months... and you will have done something genuine.. something unexpectedly thoughtful.

And - in doing so - you will show strength.

Strength similar to the strongest girl I know.

A girl who is Earless... and Fearless.

A girl named Robin Jane Repko.

#E&F

Thanks - and best of luck to each of you this weekend.

NDT 2021

---------old stuff here-------------------------

True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising.

Topicality:

I'm overwhelmingly Aff on "contrived" interps bad. In general, I think I am more Aff than most on T in policy rounds. If it helps, I did not happen to judge the elim between UGA AR + KU HM on the Exec Authority. Here - by all accounts - the neg did a dazzling job on a T thread that amounted to "you gotta be a big Aff".

I cannot know - but I suspect I would have been an above-average judge for UGA in that spot. It has nothing to do with the debaters - all four were/are magnificent. It's more that I find T interps of that ilk tend to break-down under strict scrutiny.

I don't mention this example out of nowhere. I am writing in 2021 bc I suspect it could be instructive for this yrs college topic. I would not be shocked if I voted Neg on T - hard work has dividends. By this is a game of inches - and this is me being transparent about an inch.

Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season.

-------------- old philosophies start here -------------

I wrote this a few years ago - it still holds:

Often, the K struggles on the alt... and can be a little over-reliant on the checklist for someone (like me) that's a bit of a truth-seeker and post-round ev reader.

To give a concrete example:

Suppose a (policy) Aff said "a Small Modular Rector will *solve* for a nuclear accident". Further suppose that the Neg did not engage this claim in any way.

Then suppose the Neg said "interrogate our relationship to neolib -- as it may *solve* neolib". Suppose the Aff was comparably inattentive to that alt.

I would start the post-round evaluating competing solvency claims. Both teams 100% won their original statement -- but the word *"solves"* in both sentences does not get at questions of magnitude/likelihood. "Solve" was not posited as a 100% affair in either the ev, the tag, or under any standard of logic.

So, yes, both teams "solve", but the degree to which an SMR could prevent an accident is miles ahead of the degree that individual interrogation might solve neolib. I acknowledge that not everyone judges these args in this manner -- in part because they fear being labelled "interventionist". I happen to feel it "intervenes" to impose magnitude onto either team's claim (as stated).

I can imagine a future time where the K more assertively attempts to have Alts that inform policy praxis or generates non-institutional collectives... And if you think your arg is novel in that regard, then I might be a better judge for you... But, the odds are that you've learned to run the K based on the prevalent community norms that have developed over the previous 15 years... Over that time, your predecessors did an exceptionally mediocre job of helping the K inform praxis and be PART (not all) of negating an Affirmative.

-------------------------------------------

Rando:

- I rarely think "literature" alone makes a cplan competitive. I consider the two as wholly unrelated and I struggle to grasp this line of thinking. Some are aghast if the two options that are compared by a think tank article are somehow not auto-competitive. This borders on laughable - as there's lit that defends plan-plus cplans....Sometimes I have judged literature that demonstrated that the perm severs - that might be germane.

- I think "judge kick" needs to be flagged early and often - not merely implicitly as part of a conditionality answer in cx - for it to be a presumptively strong arg for the Neg. I consider "conditionality" to be a question of whether multiple strategies can/should be carried through the middle of the debate - and *not* whether the Neg should ultimately be afforded multiple choices at the end of the debate. I will assume that you went for the one damn strategy that you did extend in the 2NR unless you play your "multiple options" card earlier in the debate.

If you have specific questions about how I'd evaluate an item, feel free to ask. I'll strive to respond with candor.

Best,

Will

I would like to be on the email chain -- if you don't have my email ask me

I debated at Iowa City West in high school, then 5 years at Iowa.

Don't be overly mean

T --

I default to competing interps

Reasonability is supposed to be applied to interpretations, not the aff

You should go slower on T and Theory than other flows because the relative percentage of the words you're saying that I have to write down is higher

K --

I will default to evaluating the implementation of the plan vs the implementation of the alt -- this isn't to say that you can't convince me otherwise

I probably won't vote neg on your k's impacts if the alt doesn't solve them//you haven't won that your framework obviates the question of solvency (which requires a warrant and doesn't defacto happen once you won framework)

I often find kritiks of extinction framing don't have impacts that outweigh extinction ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

K Affs --

Judging framework debates I'm often more persuaded by internal link analysis based on interps/counterinterps than the impacts themselves in the abstract. That seems like it should be obvious, but contextual analysis about the magnitude of limits explosion based on the affs counterinterp is rarely made, and even more rarely contested by the affirmative. I'm much more persuaded to vote aff if it's made clear to me that there is valuable role for the negative team in their model of debate.

The most kritikal aff I ever read was an Agamben aff on the surveillance topic in high school that defended the rez as a plan text and read a bunch of aff perm cards as solvency advocates lol do with that information what you will

CP --

Advantage counterplans are dope -- solvency advocates for them are cool -- if you dont have a solvency advocate for the counterplan it better very obviously solve the aff

I love PICs, especially ones that compete positionally as per Brett Bricker's Positional Competition: More Than Just a Plan Text, The National Journal of Speech & Debate, Vol. 2, Iss. 1, September 2013

Process CPs are winnable, but aff theory and competition args against them are persuasive

Condo's probably good

DA --

idrk what to say here -- who doesn't love a good DA, if you have a good DA you should read it

dont be afraid to go for DA and case, especially if your DA has in-roads to complicating the affirmatives internal links or impacts and happens on a shorter timeframe

do your thing, and I'll do my best to render a decision based on the arguments the two teams presented in the round ???? (sorry for the lame platitude but it's a requirement for a paradigm)

Put me on your email chain (all of them, even if I'm not judging. I just want to be included): dar298@cornell.edu

Update (2023/2024)
Less involved in debate than previous years and I judge even less. I probably will be confused about certain acronyms and shorthand others might get.

Please do what you do. I will try my best to meet you where you are, and on the grounds you start from. I am, however, not a blank slate.

The longer version of this paradigm was written when I was an over-eager debate coach, and is way too long. Here's the short of it:

- All arguments are Ks and performances and about identity-- yes, even the Japan prolif DA (especially!). Just make good ones.
- I am equally good for T/FW and against it. I believe that FW as traditionally conceived is bad on a truth level, but I think some things implicit to all FW debates (what we talk about and where we devote our energies) are so important that they often contest the core of the aff and thus overshadow this error.
- Being able to critically contest ideas and sort out moral quandaries without prepared research isn't just useful, it's an essential skill that we should actively cultivate in debate. Effective research is also an essential skill and highly prepared debates are extremely fun and informative.
- Please respect your opponents enough to speak with and in their terminology, language and concepts, even if you haven't read their literature. The best answer to most K affs is to simply think on the fly and contest their understanding of the world/problem and their solution.
- I will never vote for anthro good. I will happily vote for criticisms of how animal subjectivity/rights are traditionally conceived. I just will never accept that I am more important than a cow or a chicken.
- I am extremely sympathetic to critiques of non-black people reading afropessimism.
- Be nice. Sometimes being nice to yourself means no longer being nice to your opponents and I respect that. But don't be needlessly cruel.

I would like to repost something from one of my favorite judges when I was a debater, Will Baker. This part of his paradigm resonated deeply with me:

Cherish this moment. Being at a university with the resources to send you across the country to represent them in intellectual combat forwarding whatever arguments you wish against some of the most talented debaters in the world backed by an incredible braintrust of coaches, in front of a critic that you preferred is an immense privilege and a societal rarity. In a world that thrives on hot takes over listening and polarizarion over pragmatism, debaters need to understand your power, hone your craft, and value others. We lose brilliant, debate minds too often. Others globally perish in silence, pain, disasters and darkness. Thank your parents/guardians, your administrators, your coaches, but most of all your OPPONENTS. None of us would be here without others to debate so respect them whether your perfect strat features a Politics DA & a CP or impassioned narratives set to Janelle's dulcet tones.

Update (2022)
Less involved with debate than before, so please keep that in mind. That said, my research does involve animal personhood and I did contribute to the animals K neg section of the topic paper, so I am familiar with the RoN/animal topic.

I am less familiar with the AI topic than the personhood topic, but I am willing to listen and learn.

I've become more dissatisfied with the presumption that debate arguments follow the narrow exceptions to make them justified unless "beaten" (e.g. First Strike an enemy of the US because it could be justified under consequentialist grounds if certain things are met--counterforcing works, war coming now etc., which is supposed to lessen the vileness of that thought experiment). I have trouble distinguishing the universally agreed areas outside these limits (spark, death good, homophobia good, etc.) from things currently accepted that I see as similarly pedagogically harmful (first strike US enemy, US heg good, warming not real). Do whatever you may with that info.

Overview/Long of it

Started as a novice in college and I love novice debate! Don't talk badly of it in my presence.

Started policy debate running xo and politics every round, devolved into reading one off Ks most rounds (mostly anthro and disability [as 2n/1a], sometimes various strains of afropessimism [not as 2n])

Do NOT assume that because I read critical arguments you are better suited to read critical stuff in front of me- do what you do. I love policy research and did a lot of it for various squads over the years so please don't be afraid to go for it in front of me.

I enjoy critical affs, especially if it's something that you have put thought into/challenges how I think of the world. It's some of the best and most educational part of debate.

This does not mean I am opposed to voting on FW or T arguments- it's a large amount of what I debated against so I am well aware of when a team does it well. I think a lot of affs mishandle T/FW and it can be a very strategic choice for the negative - especially when T/FW implicates the aff's knowledge production/method.

I am very line by line and flow centric- I don't think this is at all opposed to "big picture debate" or in-depth argumentation but that's just my style that will be represented in my judging- i dislike implicit "overview" clash that doesn't flag what your argument does or how it functions in relation to their argument.

I would rather not read every card referenced in the debate after it ends- debate is a game about communication and spin can beat evidence if you do it well enough- I don't vote on whether or not your or your coach cut a good card, I vote on the way you articulate the importance and weight of an argument the card makes (or comes close to making).

Skip here if you don't care to read above/Specific arguments:

Case: Debate it more- most cases don't make sense and can be dismantled with analytic arguments/a small amount of cards.

DA: I probably have a higher threshold for internal link explanation to impacts than other people - especially advantage extensions in the speeches like the 1AR- too often the 1ar runs through a scenario without an internal link and it pops back up in the 2ar again magically.

FW: FW is a K, defend your alternative view of the world/debate and the relative disads to the counterinterp/aff and how you capture/mitigate/outweigh/turn their offense. No feeling one way or another, either side can win- debate it.

T: Do your thing, but I'm probably extremely unfamiliar with norms of T/shorthand, etc.

K: Familiar with most lit bases in debate, in particular animal studies, afropessimism, disability etc. Don't assume my familiarity with the K- explain the arguments in depth and their importance as if I had no idea what you were talking about.

CPs: Impact out your solvency deficits or else it's hard for me to compare relative deficits/advantages in solvency

Other things:

Reading afropessimism is all the rage for non-black people in debate but if you are not black I will be very sympathetic to arguments about that from the otherside- - years of seeing in this debate has made me very uncomfortable with this. (Christina Sharpe and Selamawit Terrefe in Rhizomes- "The only people who can be and embrace it are particularly these white, male, young academics who are so excited. They're excited by it. And it's an invigorating theory because it's a purely intellectual enterprise for them. This is something we have to experience and re-experience viscerally when we read Frank and Jared's work. It's a traumatic experience. But it's not a trauma that is being imposed by us— by the theory or by those of us who write and critically engage with the work. It's a trauma that we're reliving because we're never outside of this trauma. So I think Black people's responses, Black academics' responses in particular...it's not a foreclosure the way white or non-Black academics would respond. If it's a negative response it's foreclosing on their own...ethical relationship—")

The one exception to this is I can think of is if you have a partner that is black and wants to read that argument, but I am willing to hear args for and against that. (This does not mean don't discuss race/colonialism/your relation to that if you are white but be critically aware of how you are situated in relation to identity and the dangers involved.)

Please respect people's pronoun choices.

I will never vote for anthro good. If you decide to argue that in front of me, that is your issue.

That twitter account is not me, it's some impersonator.

brubaie at gmail -- Please add to email chains, thank you

Updated March 2022 for championship season -- congratulations yall!

1. Just do what you do and do it well.I like every "style" of debate and have been lucky to debate, coach, or judge most over these past two decades. Thank you for being stewards of a beautiful game at a pivotal moment in debate history.

2. Above all. The 2NR/2AR should clearly describe what the most important issue(s) in the debate are, why they're the most important issues, and how voting your way best addresses them. Choose, compare, and dig in on a few A+ arguments over a greater volume of A- arguments.

3. Framework. I judge quite a few framework debates and like them. I don't have a strong "lean," but I do notice some slight trends;

-- For the neg, I often find that leaning on fairness/some procedural impact is best. It's the thing the neg's interp most often clearly solves relative to a counter-interp. I think the TVA + aff doesn't solve combo is an effective strategy. I often find that lots of direct pushback vs. case (even without evidence) is necessary and effective. If you don't win some significant defense to the aff it can complicate most paths to victory.

-- For the aff, it helps to clarify a role for each side and to negate/impact turn the neg's interp from there. If you don't have a description of why debating the aff is good and/or how the other team can engage then it can complicate most paths to victory. I am more moved by "here's what the neg could do" than counter-interpreting "resolved."

4. Evidence quality. It's very important, but the key to activating it in my RFD is rebuttal framing. The way evidence is utilized and framed in the final rebuttals is usually the most important variable in how I assess it. The easiest way to hypothesize which evidence I read is a simple if/then: if I hear a clip/quote/even an author name referenced directly in the last speech then I'll 100% read it. Beyond that I'll read for comprehension but that is less likely to drive the outcome of my RFD than direct framing by debaters.

5. Counterplans/theory. Not the worst judge for a funky counterplan. Most common 2AC theory objections seem like competition concerns remedied by kicking the counterplan. I'm not terrible for conditionality bad, but that's almost always because of tech concerns like a flippant block that doesn't answer the 2AC than truth concerns like any real aversion to conditionality (I generally think it's good).

6. Topicality. I haven't really judged a big T throwdown this year. If you prefer someone with no set preferences I'm great, but if you want someone to adhere to consensus I'm afraid I'm unsure what consensus is and will need more explanation than most. Despite my unfamiliarity with many interps, T has generally been an efficient/low-risk/high reward block option in past rounds I've judged.

7. Critiques. The more a K identifies specific parts of the 1AC/2AC that it disagrees with, the better. The aff should attempt to identify which parts of the aff are offense, why only the aff solves them, and why they outweigh. I generally think the aff gets to weigh the aff and most neg framework arguments just seem like impact calculus.

8. National championships!! Congrats again yall :) March 2022 will mark my first tournament judging in person since February 2020. I am thrilled to see you all again and to celebrate all you've done for debate. I know it's the national championship and it's tough to relax, but try as hard as you can to just have fun and enjoy it. Debate goes by way too fast and is very easy to take for granted. Sending all who read this the best of luck and hope you can lift each other up and give each other some really fun, challenging debates to end the season.

Current affiliation: director at Purdue & assistant at Head Royce.

Did you know Purdue is a public University with over 40,000 undergraduate students? Despite our excellent reputation for our engineering and computer science programs, as well as our success in the NCAA basketball tournament, we are in fact a public land-grant university in West Lafayette, IN. Tuition is less at Purdue than it is at Indiana University.

Past affiliations: Weber State, Wake Forest, Loyola Marymount, Idaho State, West Georgia, as well as College Prep, Georgetown Day, Bishop Guertin, Chattahoochee, and many other high school programs.

I love debate. I chose to return to debate after spending a few years working at a consulting firm. I make less money now, but enjoy the work much more. I appreciate your participation in the activity and will do my best to determine a winner, as well as help you improve in the time I spend judging your round.

I will default to flowing on paper. I appreciate efforts to be organized and go line-by-line; I will reward speakers that make flowing easier.

I will not read along with the speech doc. I believe debate should be a persuasive activity. I think following along with the speech doc is a poor practice, and I feel some type of way about it. I would like to be on the doc chain; everybodylovesjim@gmail.com& hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

If the round has started and there is no timer going, please don’t prep. I’ll kindly ask you to stop prepping if I notice you prepping while no timer is running. I think remote debate may have contributed to lax prep time standards, and I feel some type of way about it.

I’m a fan of multiple flavors of debate. I’m somewhat of a dinosaur at this point, but I still appreciate attempts at innovation. I’ve voted for and against all sorts of arguments. I’ve coached teams on various flavors of arguments. I’m generally agnostic. My best piece of advice for debating in front of me, or any other judge; debate powerfully, make the judge adapt to you.

I love cross ex! It’s generally my favorite part of the round. I usually flow it. I always pay attention to it. If you make gains in cross ex, please leverage those gains in your speeches. I will reward speakers for a well executed cross ex. I prefer you don’t treat prep time as cross ex time, I frequently leave the room during prep time and appreciate these opportunities.

I will reward speakers that focus on clarity over speed. If I ask you to be clear, please make an effort to adjust.

I start the process of deciding who won by establishing the most important issue(s) in the debate and determining who won the core controversies. I ask myself who won the round if both teams win their package of arguments. I frequently write a rough draft of a ballot and then try to argue against that decision to check against overlooking something. I try to edit my many thoughts to keep things more brief in delivering my RFD, particularly when on a panel. Sometimes when I sit I ask to give my RFD last - sometimes this is so I can get a sense of where the other judges are at, sometimes it’s to circumvent judges from editing their decisions when I’m confident in my RFD.

jrskoog17@gmail.com

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

I debated at Brophy College Prep and then debated at Gonzaga University.

I now coach at Gonzaga in Spokane, WA.

Everything under this are my defaults but obviously any argument that is contrary to any of these override my presuppositions. I'll try not to intervene to the best of my ability.

The Highlights:

I don't like when teams read evidence from debate coaches. It is absurd and self-referential.
Tech over truth
I'll call for ev, but only if it is a key part of the debate or I have been told to look at it. I put a lot of stock into the quality of evidence when deciding debates.
I default to reject the arg for everything except conditionality unless told otherwise.
Awesome strategic moves will be rewarded.
For the love of Przemek Karnowski, please don't cheat.
I'm not particularly expressive, but it doesn't mean I hate your argument, I'm just thinking to myself.
Keep your shoes on in the round.


Specifics:

Evidence:
Read warrants please. I will reward fantastic ev. Quality outweighs quantity. Use spin and compare your evidence to theirs.

Case/Impact Defense:
I do tend to default to less change and think that there is such thing as zero risk of the aff. Using very smart case defense arguments is awesome. Internal link defense and solvency arguments are, in my opinion, underused. That makes me sad. So please use them.

Counterplans:
I'm a huge theory nerd so I'm down with being convinced something is competitive. HOWEVER, I do think that a lot of counterplans that are commonly run are not competitive. Granted, I ran Reg Neg and Consult Russia a lot, and I understand why they are necessary sometimes, but I will reward case specific counterplans with net benefits that justify the status quo. To be clear: Artificial net benefits be dumb, yo. Counterplans should have solvency advocates--preferably normative one--which will go a long way in defending the theoretical legitimacy of the advocacy.

Against big stick affs, don't read stupid PICs like "the" or "should" because then I will cry. And I am an ugly crier.

I won't kick a conditional CP in the 2NR unless I'm explicitly told to in the debate.


Disads:
For politics, gotta have the goods evidence-wise.
Political capital key cards should say that political capital is key.
I think that an aff shooting apart the internal link chain of a stupid scenario is sufficient.
I would really like it if your DA was an actual opportunity cost to the plan.
Link controls direction of uniqueness.

Kritiks:
I exclusively went for the K almost all of college, so I know a lot of the literature. I've read a lot of Foucault, Baudrillard, Nietzsche and Deleuze but I won't pretend I know all K authors equally. Please explain it in relation to the aff, not just in high theory terms.
I don't think I'm the federal government. I am a sleepy coach judging a debate. However, I can be persuaded differently by args made in the debate.
Getting to weigh the aff is distinct from a "role of the ballot" argument because Role of the ballot determines how/what I am voting on or evaluating.
I love highly technical K debate ie. LINE BY LINE and clash.
Well researched and case specific Ks will make me smile.


Theory:
I really do enjoy theory debates if it is delivered at a rate consistent with the arguments. For example, if you are saying conditionality is bad in the 1AR don't speed through it because it is difficult to flow in its entirety. I will vote on unconditionality good, or 5 conditional CPs good. Debate is debate. If a theory violation is well impacted and explained, I will vote on it.

Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations unless told to evaluate it differently. I love when people read a lot of cards on tea, or have a hyper specific topicality argument. I evaluate it like a DA, so impacting things such as limits and ground is important.

Framework vs K affs:
I'm down to listen to really anything, and I was usually on the side of the team answering framework for most of my career. That being said, I really really enjoy framework debates. I think that "no Ks" isn't very convincing, but there should probably some agreed upon stasis point. This doesn't mean you need to defend the hypothetical implementation of plan in front of me, but if the other team wins that fiat is a good model of education, I will vote on it.

Bee Smale

They/Them pronouns

4 yrs - East Kentwood High School

4 yrs - Indiana University

Grad Coach @ Wayne State

Yes on the email chain: wayneCXdocs@gmail.com

Debate is a game but the only rule is that I have to submit a ballot at the end with one winner and one loser. I expect debaters to try to win the game. I'd rather you make a controversial and innovative argument then suggesting that there were other debates or conversations to be had. I find that ethos is often much more important to my decision then the flow.

I dislike judging debates about the character of individual debaters, but will obviously do so if that's what the debate is about. My decision will ultimately rest on who did the better debating, and any judgement rendered is not final nor is it a judgement on the character of individual debaters.

* Minor note before Blake

I've done essentially no research on the 2023-2024 high school topic. While I've debated or coached on topics relevant to this area, I might not recognize very specific acronyms and am generally unaware of how people have approached questions related to the limits/broad meaning of this topic for T debates.

*Briefly updated before 2022 season

Debaters should have the ability to argue about what the terms of the debate are and how that relates to my decision. I prefer judging debates where the competitors are invested in their arguments, whatever those might be.

It is very rare in the debates I’ve judged that one team loses every argument on the flow. Consequently, it often seems going for a few less arguments improves the quality of the debating for both sides. Most debates tend to be decided in terms of how well either team characterizes each other’s options and framing what matters. At the top of your final rebuttal, please clearly prioritize how I should evaluate the debate. I love when debaters give me a roadmap of what's going to happen and then make it happen.

E-debate/Paperless:

Prep time only goes until you’re done prepping your speech, which means email time doesn't count against you. Please always include me on your email chain. Sometimes in cross-x when people are asking questions about evidence, I like to be able to look at the cards as well.

I'm pretty sympathetic that the transition to online debate is hard for many people and not the same as doing it in person. I'll try to do my best to make sure the rounds go smoothly.

I am better at flowing if I can maintain eye-contact with the person speaking. If you need to have your camera off for connection issues / personal reasons, I totally understand.

Speaker Points:

I spend most of my time at the end of the debate trying to decide who won and what I would have needed from the other team to win the debate or general commentary about the debate. While I’m filling out the ballot, I spend a few seconds trying to decide speaker points. I don’t have a static starting point for assigning or categorizing speakers, but try to decide how well the speakers used / responded during cross-x, whether a decision made by one of the speakers uniquely helped improve/hurt the teams chances of winning and how well the speakers brought together the debate in their final rebuttals.

I take notes during cross-x and enjoy when debaters get strategic concessions that are used in their speeches.

Argument related comments:

- Counterplans generally require a solvency advocate. This can be aff evidence or neg evidence.

- Critiques may not need to have an alternative to be competitive with the aff, but I will not judge kick an alt (or counterplan) for you unless the framing in the 2NR justifies that option.

- I often find it insufficient to read a hodgepodge of cards or arguments that “critique the squo” and call it an affirmative. Good affs have compelling methods, approaches to the space, or defenses of the resolution.

- In all debates but especially K aff verse K debates, links need impacts / clear internal links. The negative can win a link and still lose the debate if it’s unclear why that link “matters”.

- Competing methodologies is too often left as a buzz phrase that does not establish why the aff should not have a permutation. Similarly, asserting there is a permutation that is advantageous, does not explain why I should allow the aff to access that option. In either case, having a bit of depth goes a long way to win whether the aff should or should not have a perm.

In-round Accessibility

Part of my responsibility as the judge is to make the debate accessible. If there is something I can do to help with that – please let me know. If you don’t feel like disclosing then you’re welcome to email me (address above).

Pet Peeves:

1- Clipping cards is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points. I do not feel that I need a debater to initiate a clipping challenge, as an educator I feel I have a responsibility to monitor against cheating.

2- I value very highly the safety for ALL competitors to engage in this activity, so please be considerate of others. Making arguments with sexist, racist, ableist, and other exclusionary language can be especially harmful for people in the activity.

3- Please make sure you ask your opponents what pronouns they use. Misgendering is a serious issue.

4- Stealing prep time

5- Reading conditional arguments that clearly and unquestionably contradict

6- Repeating that an argument was conceded- especially if it clearly was not

7- Asking cross-x questions that go nowhere in developing the strategy or understanding of the debate.

8- Don’t be disrespectful to the people who host tournaments.

Brief Bio

I studied philosophy and sociology as an undergraduate, communication at UNLV for an MA, and now communication at U-Iowa for a PhD.

3 years of debate at Millard South High School

4 years of debate at Concordia College – Moorhead

2 years coaching at University of Nevada- Las Vegas

5 years as a graduate assistant coach at the University of Iowa and 2nd year as the Debate Coach at Iowa

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Matt Stannard

stannard67@gmail.com

Me: he/him, I participated in policy debate for West Jordan High School and Weber State University, I have coached multiple formats at Eastern Utah, Long Beach, Wyoming and Lewis & Clark, and have directed and/or taught at a vast multitude of institutes.

Delivery: I will, shockingly enough, miss your unclear analytics. Speak clearly no matter your rate of delivery. Over-enunciate. Don't leave comprehension to chance; control what I write down.

The (very important) game: all styles and formats of debate are good, policy/critical/procedural all valuable, I am not the state, topics and topic research are good, I vote for all kinds of arguments even when I intellectually disagree with them, debate should be both very accessible and very challenging.

Important needs and assumptions: besides clarity, I have these predispositions: (1) conditionality is fine until the 2NR; you need to explicitly tell me what advocacy you are kicking. (2) I seem to have a greater need than other judges for good solvency cards for affs, counterplans, and K alternatives. Many K alts I hear feel vague to me at the outset. Love voting for movements and don't think fiat is confined to the state, but the threshold is specific advocacy with solvency cards. (3) political and social implications of T and other procedural/framework interps can be reasons to prefer/reject them, weighable against other reasons. They aren't "genocide" per se, but they aren't ideologically neutral; debate it out. (4) aff should provide a clear statement of advocacy, neg should provide a clear reason to reject the aff.

Tech: I judge online a lot, please use the best mic tech you have and don't project your vocals directly into an internal laptop mic. Prep time ends when you say so and then IMMEDIATELY hit send, and in all debate tech scenarios if anything goes wrong don't panic, we'll be fine and figure out what to do.

Ethics: be chill to each other outside of your speeches (in your speeches you should feel free to be ruthless if that's your thing), don't cheat, let's all commit to dismantling classism, racism, sexism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, ageism and ableism, and to listen to those affected by exclusion--not just as debaters making arguments but as responsible and accountable human beings making our world. It's okay that debate is weird and different. Please make it a safe place for everyone.

Hello, and welcome to LaTonya Starks’ judging philosophy for the 2022-23 debate season! Please note that I have NOT JUDGED A DEBATE IN TWO YEARS, so if you're thinking of yelling at me about a decision, don't. You've been warned.

I hope that this document will provide you with sufficient answers to your questions on how I view the activity and the game that is debate, as well as how I tend to judge certain arguments. If this document does not answer your questions, or perhaps leaves you with more questions than you began with, please ask me in-person or contact me via email.

My email address is: latonyastarks@gmail.com

----

For those of you who are in a hurry, here's a quick rundown of what I have written below:

• I approach debate with n open mind. I believe that I can fairly adjudicate any kind of debate, be it policy/plan-focused or critically-oriented.
• My approach to judging debates, on every level, greatly revolves around the art of communication and the idea that in order to win a debate, you must be the team who most effectively and efficiently communicates why your your arguments should be given credence before and/or valued above your opponent’s arguments.
• I love Topicality and/or Framework debates! It is one of my favorite arguments to parse through. I will say that my love of T does not mean that I will vote for it automatically, without a clear delineation of how the Aff is not topical, using evidence and detailed arguments about negative ground, the ability or inability to have meaningful clash, limits, predictability, fairness and, especially, the argument’s impact on debate, both as an activity and in that particular round.
• I am pretty liberal about counterplans. I believe that counterplan competition is incredibly important. Also, I do believe that counterplan competition can be gleaned from cross-examination.
• I prefer critical arguments to be well-defined from the beginning. The more grounded, specific, discerning, conscious and, most importantly, responsive to either the 1AC, the 1NC or the debate community and/or topic at issue this year.
• Please tell me what it means for me to vote for you, and whether that has implications in the debate round, or has larger implications on debate as a whole.

----

Now, let me begin by saying that I had one of those, “Wow, I am old,” moments when I was asked to produce a judging philosophy for the first tournament of the year, and I began by conducting a bit of research. I found my judging philosophy from many years ago. For a little context, that document was written when I had just graduated from college and was coaching college debate for the first time. I read it and I thought, “What the hell are you talking about?!” It just boggles the mind how little experience I had back then. I wrote all of that prologue to say that opinions change, people learn, and hopefully grow, and all of those experiences not only shape a person, but they influence how that person thinks and approaches debate.

I now approach debate with a far-more-open mind. I believe that I can fairly adjudicate any kind of debate, be it policy/plan-focused and or critically-oriented. In the end, I believe that I can judge pretty much any type of argument because I firmly believe that there is a reason why ballots changed their rhetoric to include the words, “The better debating was done by…” My approach to judging debates, on every level, greatly revolves around the art of communication and the idea that in order to win a debate, you must be the team who most effectively and efficiently communicates why your your arguments should be given credence before and/or valued above your opponent’s arguments. Honestly, whether your style of debate is centered around making policy arguments or you want to critique the topic and/or the ideas and institutions behind and within debate, the most important thing is that you be clear and consider, and that you communicate effectively.

My more open approach does not mean that I have changed my mind on how I evaluate all arguments. I am very much still all about the evidence. Debates about evidence are great, and when done properly, can be met with a reward in the form of speaker points. Please take the time to compare your evidence to that of your competitor. In doing so, be sure to compare warrants, qualifications, the source of the research and whether or not a sentence or whole article has been taken out of context. I also care greatly about the quality of your evidence. I am more likely to give a team a bit more leeway if their arguments are supported by superior evidence.

Here is a bit of information about how I view particular strategies and arguments in debate rounds…

Topicality/Framework

I love Topicality and/or Framework debates! It is one of my favorite arguments to parse through. I will say that my love of T does not mean that I will vote for it automatically, without a clear delineation of how the Aff is not topical, using evidence and detailed arguments about negative ground, the ability or inability to have meaningful clash, limits, predictability, fairness and, especially, the argument’s impact on debate, both as an activity and in that particular round. So I will rephrase -- I love good Topicality debates. To me, Topicality is like a disadvantage. You need to control the link debate and make it clear that your interpretation has an impact in the round and on debate as a whole, and/or debate as a game and an activity.

Counterplans

I am pretty liberal about counterplans. I believe that counterplan competition is incredibly important. Also, I do believe that counterplan competition can be gleaned from cross-examination. I am fine with plan-inclusive counterplans, process counterplans, agent counterplans, etc. I will assess affirmative arguments which articulate the need for limits to what the negative can do in terms of fiat or agents. Please make your counterplan theory, or any theory really, more that just quick bullet points. While most theory debates often end in a wash for both sides, it seems that would not be the case if theory arguments were well-developed from the original block, and given impacts that would influence the debate round and/or debate community.

Critical Arguments

Please do not assume that I am so familiar with your critical arguments that you can gloss over the importance of the link, or simply refer to your arguments by the last name of the Author. Like anything else in debate, I prefer critical arguments to be well-defined from the beginning. The more grounded, specific, discerning, conscious and, most importantly, responsive to either the 1AC, the 1NC or the debate community and/or topic at issue this year. Please tell me what it means for me to vote for you, and whether that has implications in the debate round, or has larger implications on debate as a whole.

Now here is where my outlook has not completely changed from so long ago. I still believe that the framework of critical arguments is very important. Teams, at a minimum, should be able to defend why I should or should not view the debate through a particular lens. Simply put: prove why the debate you’d like to have is more beneficial than the debate the other team wants to have. For the neg, framework shouldn’t just be a discussion of why a certain kind of debate is bad but should have a specific application to the assumptions or implications of the harms of the 1AC. I also think that affirmative teams should get to weigh their impacts against the K, unless the negative can prove why this should not be true. Once again, a discussion of the links to your argument is vital. This should include more than a generic claim that, for example, capitalism is bad. I think it is persuasive when a team can point to specific instances from the the other team’s rhetoric, evidence, or plan action to prove a link. Also, I think all kritiks should have a clearly defined alternative with a text that will not change throughout the debate. Most affirmative teams seem to have a difficult time proving that they don’t link to a K at all. As such, a solid framework defense, the use of a permutation, and discussion of the impacts of the affirmative plan, or a just a straight up impact turn of the K, seem to be most convincing strategies.

Disadvantage/Case Debates

I love them. I’d like to see a lot more of them. On the negative, make sure to properly explain each component of your disad and how it interacts with the case.

To Do and Not To Do

Do...

• Be on time and be prepared. That means that you should have things like pens, paper, timers, etc. at the ready.
• Be aggressive without being obnoxious.
• Be respectful of your opponents.
• Be respectful of the space in which you get to debate. This means that you should try your best to be neat and organized, and that you should clean up after yourself.
• Make comparative evidence arguments.
• Use cross-ex wisely and as a means to setup your strategy or to poke holes in your opponent's evidence or arguments.
• Have fun! If you love what you do, it shows!

Don't...

• Clip cards and/or read evidence which was cut out of context. At best, it will hurt your speaker points; at worst, it could cause you to lose the debate.
• Be rude to your opponents.
• Steal prep time and/or take forever to get your paperless house in order.

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins 
their arguments in the debate. 
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me 
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better 
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something 
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that 
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is 
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see 
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the 
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate 
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these 
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the 
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your 
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of 
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round 
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is 
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a 
must. 
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only 
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend 
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This 
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the 
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically 
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly 
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need 
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly 
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate 
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence 
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 

*Updated November 2023*

CONTACT INFORMATION

Email: thurt11@gmail.com

LD NOTE

I've been in debate for fifteen years as a competitor, judge, and coach. In that time, I've almost exclusively done policy debate (I think I've judged <10 LD rounds ever). That's to say, judging LD at the Glenbrooks will be a bit different for me.

I don't think you'll need to dramatically adjust how you debate. In fact, I'd prefer to judge you in your best style/approach/form. Relatedly, I don't think I'm particularly ideological, and I'm like not a bus driver or parent who has been dropped into the judge pool. That said, be aware of my still-developing topic knowledge, norms of LD, and theory. I will do my best to resolve the debate before me. That said, folks should know that I'll likely have many idiosyncracies of someone who has basically always been in policy debate.

PF NOTE

Much of what is said about LD is true here too. Some thoughts on evidence that I stole from Greg Achten:

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION

I debated for four years at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Go Packers/Brewers/Bucks! In college, I debated for four years at Michigan State University, earning three first-round bids and a semifinals appearance at the NDT.

Currently, I work on the non-debate side of Michigan State, doing education data analysis, program evaluation, and professional development. On the side, I coach for Georgetown University. I still love debate, but it is no longer my day job. Given that, I'm not a content expert on this topic like some of your other judges might be.

More generally, any given debate can get in-depth quickly, so you should be careful with acronyms/intricacies if you think that your strategy is really innovative or requires a deep understanding of your specific mechanism. Teams sometimes get so deep in the weeds researching their business that they forget to provide a basic explanation for the argument's context/history/background. Instead, they jump into the most advanced part of the topic. If something is creative, that's an issue because it's likely the judge's first time hearing it.

Everyone says it and almost no one means it, but I think that you should debate what you care about/what interests you/what you're good at doing. In other words, put me in the "big-tent" camp. All of the stuff below is too long and shouldn't impact your debating (maybe besides the meta issues section). It really is just my thoughts (vs. a standard), and is only included to offer insight into how I see debate.

META ISSUES/ABBREVIATED PHILOSOPHY/STRIKE CARD ESSENTIAL

1. Assuming equal debating (HUGE assumption), I'm *really* bad for the K on the neg/as planless aff. I find myself constantly struggling with questions in decision-time like: Does the neg ACTUALLY have a link to the plan's MECHANISM or even their SPECIFIC representations? What is the alternative? How does that advocacy change the extremely sweeping and entrenched problems identified in the 1NC/2NC impact evidence? If it's so effective, why doesn't it overcome the links to the plan? If the alt is just about scholarship/ethics/some -ology, how does that compare to material suffering outlined by the 1AC? This year, some of these biases are accentuated by the "disarm" and negative state action planks of the topic. On the affirmative, I think there are many creative ways to critically defend the idea of ending nuclear weapons (especially by the "United States" rather than the "United States federal government"). On the negative, I have hitherto been unimpressed with the Ks of "disarm" (like the ACTUAL "We end the nukes and dismantle them because they risk horrific US first use/nukes are bad" disarm) I've seen.

In the end, when I vote negative for Ks or affirmative for planless affs, it's generally because the losing team dropped a techy ballot like ethics first, serial policy failure, or "we're a PIK." Do you, don't overadapt, and feel confident that I approach every debate with the intention of deciding the question of "who did the better debating?" REGARDLESS of the subject of the debate. Relatedly, know that I'm excited to have the chance to evaluate your arguments (even if it's really late and I'd rather not be judging at all in the abstract) basically no matter what you say. Instead, I would take my above biases as things to keep an eye out for from your opponents/come up with novel responses to/overcover/etc.

2. College debate made me more oriented to tech than truth. In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in the round and executed more effectively. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you.

3. I care about evidence quality - to an extent. Debate is a communicative activity, and I'm not going to re-read broad swaths of evidence to ensure that your opponents read a card on all their claims. To be clear, I do think that part of my role in judging is comparing evidence *when it's contested and through the lens with which it was challenged.* Put concretely, if your 2NR says "all their evidence is trash and doesn't say anything" or is silent on evidence comparison, I'm not gonna be doing you any favors and looking at the speech doc. I'm certainly not going to be reading un-underlined text in 1AC/1NC cards without explicit direction of what I'm looking for. Instead, if you're like "Their no prolif cards are all before Kishida and only talk about means vs. motive," I'm happy to read a pile of cards, looking to assess their quality on those two grounds. If that sounds time-consuming for your final rebuttals, it is. You should create time by condensing the debate down to the core issues/places of evidentiary disagreement.

4. Every round could use more calculus and comparisons. The most obvious example of this thesis is with impact calc, but I think there is a laundry list of other examples like considering relative risk, quality of evidence, and author qualifications. As a format, any of these comparisons should have a reason why your argument is preferable, a reason why that frame is important, and a reason why your opponent’s argument is poor/viewed through a poor lens. In the context of impact calc, this framework means saying that your impact outweighs on timeframe, that timeframe is important, and that while your opponent’s impact might have a large magnitude, I should ignore that frame of decision-making. Engaging your opponents’ arguments on a deeper level and resolving debates is the easiest way to get good points. Beyond that, making a decision is functionally comparing each team’s stance/evidence quality/technical ability on a few nexus questions, so if you’re doing this work for me you will probably like my decision a lot more.

5. I hold debaters to a high standard for making an argument. Any claim should be supported with a warrant, evidence, and impact on my decision. Use early speeches to get ahead on important questions. For instance, I won’t dismiss something like “Perm do Both,” but I think the argument would be bolstered by a reason why the perm is preferable in the 2AC (i.e. how it interacts with the net benefits) instead of saving those arguments for the 1AR/2AR. By the way, you should consider this point my way out in post-rounds where you're like "but I said X...It was right here!" For me, if something is important enough to win/lose a debate, you should spend a significant amount of time there, connect, and make sure your claim is *completely* and *thoughtfully* warranted.

6. All debates have technical mistakes, but not all technical mistakes are equal or irreversible. Given those assumptions, the best rebuttals recognize flaws and make “even if” statements/explain why losing an argument does not mean they lose the debate. I think debaters fold too often on mistakes. Just because you dropped a theory argument doesn’t mean you cannot cross-apply an argument from another theory argument, politics, or T to win.

7. I'm a bad judge for yes/no arguments like "presumption," "links to the net benefit absolutely," or "zero risk of X." I think the best debaters work in the grey areas.

8. Things people don't do enough:

a) Start with the title for their 1NC off case positions (i.e. first off states)

b) Give links labels (i.e. our "docket crowdout link" or "our bipart link")

c) Explain what their plan actually does - For instance (in college), what nuclear forces do you disarm? Who does it? What is the mechanism? I've decided that if the aff is vague to an egregious extent, I'll be super easy on the negative with DA links and CP competition. Aff vagueness is also a link to circumvention and explains why fiat doesn't solve definitional non-compliance. I will say, I'd rather lacking aff clarity (e.g. when aff's include resolutional language in their plan and say "plan text in a vacuum") be resolved by PICs/topic DAs than by T. I don't think that the negative gets to fully define the plan or have some weird positional competition vision for T even if I think 2As frequently dance around what they do. Punish affs for ambiguity and lazy plan writing for the purposes of T on substance!

d) Call out new arguments - I don't have sympathy if you *wish* you said no impact in the 2AC. There are times that I wish it existed, but there isn't and can't be a 3AC. I will say that for mostly pragmatic reasons, I'm not to the point of reviewing every new 1AR argument. I'll protect the 2NR for the 2AR, but you have to do the work before that.

9. Random (likely to change) topic thoughts:

a) Both sides are likely to get to some risk of Russia and/or China nuke war. The best 2Ns/2As will dehomogenize these impacts based on scenarios for escalation and their internal links.

b) Be careful your UQ CP doesn't overwhelm the link to your DA. Sometimes the neg goes a bit too far. I do love a good UQ CP though!

c) This is a rare topic where I'm less interested in process stuff! Who would've thought?

d) Debated equally, I'm 60/40 that we should include NFU subsets and "disarm" actions that fall short of "elimination/abolition." I get the evidence is good. I'd just abstractly rather have these arguments as affs than PICs/would prefer a bit more than the smallest topic since single payer.

GENERIC DISPOSITIONS

Planless affirmatives – The affirmative would ideally have a plan that defends action by the United States (least important). The affirmative should have a direct tie to the topic. In the context of the college resolution, this means you would have a defense of decreasing nukes/their role (pretty important). The affirmative MUST defend the implementation of said "plan" - whatever it is (MOST important). While I will NOT immediately vote negative on T or “Framework” as a procedural issue, if you don’t defend instrumental implementation of a topical plan *rooted in the resolutional question*, you will be in a tough spot. I’m especially good for T/Framework if the affirmative dodges case turns and debates over the question if nukes are good or bad. In particular, I am persuaded by arguments about why these affirmatives are unpredictable, under-limit the topic, and create a bad heuristic for problem-solving. Short version is that you can do you and there is always a chance I’ll vote for you, but I’m probably not an ordinal one for teams that don’t want to engage the resolutional question.

I do want to say that at tournaments with relaxed prefs, I will do my absolute best to keep an open mind about these assumptions. That shouldn't be read as "Thur says he's open to our planless aff - let's move him up to push down 'policy' people." It should be read as if I come up at one of these tournaments, you might as well do what you're most comfortable with/what you've practiced the most instead of over-adapting.

Critiques—Honestly, just read the first point in the "meta issues" section. I understand neolib/deterrence/security pretty well because they were a big part of my major. If you want to push against my confusion on the K (as a concept), you need to have specific links to the plan’s actions, authors, or representations. Again, trying to be honest, if you're itching to say Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, death good, etc., I'm not your guy. On framework, the affirmative will almost surely be able to weigh their 1AC (unless they totally airball), and I'm pretty hesitant to place reps/scholarship/epistemology before material reality. One other thing - substitute out buzzwords and tags for explanation. Merely saying "libidinal economy" or "structural antagonism" without some evidence and explanation isn't a win condition.

In terms of being affirmative against these arguments, I think that too often teams lose sight of the easy ballots and/or tricks. The 1AR and 2AR need to “un-checklist” those arguments. In terms of disproving the critique, I think I’m pretty good for alternative fails/case outweighs or the permutation with a defense of pragmatism or reformism. Of those 2 - I'm best for "your alt does nothing...we have an aff..."

Case- I’m a huge fan. With that, I think that it’s very helpful for the neg (obviously?). I believe that no matter what argument you plan to go for, (excluding T/theory) case should be in some part of the 2nr. In the context of the critique, you can use case arguments to prove that the threats of the 1AC are flawed or constructed, that there are alternative causes to the affirmative that only the alternative solves, or that the impacts of the affirmative are miniscule and the K outweighs. For CPs, even if you lose a solvency deficit, you can still win because the net benefit outweighs the defended affirmative. Going for case defense to the advantage that you think the CP solves the least forces me to drop you twice as I have to decide the CP doesn’t solve AND that the case impact outweighs your net-benefit. That seems like a pretty good spot to be in.

CP- My favorite ones are specific to the 1AC with case turns as net benefits. Aside from that, I think that I am more inclined than most to vote aff on the perm when there is a trivial/mitigated net benefit vs. a smallish solvency deficit, but in the end I would hope you would tell me what to value first. I had a big section written up on theory, and I decided it's too round-dependent to list out. I still think that more than 2 conditional positions is SUPER risky, functional > textual competition, competition is dictated by mandates and not outcomes (i.e. CPs that are designed to spur follow-on are very strategic), judge kick is good, consult/condition/delay/threaten generally suck, and interpretations matter A LOT.

Topicality- People have started flagging violations based on things not in the plan (solvency lines, advocate considerations, aff tags, 2ac arguments, etc.). This is a bad way to understand T debates. The affirmative defines the plan, positional competition is bad, plan text in a vacuum makes sense, and the way to beat teams that include resolutional language in the plan is on PICs not T.

I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced that Competing Interpretations is a decent model. The negative does not need actual abuse, but they do need to win why their potential abuse is likely as opposed to just theoretical. That is, I'll be less persuaded by a 25-item case list than a really good explanation of a few devastating new affirmatives they allow. If I were to pick only one standard to go for, it would be predictable limits. They shape all pre-round research that guides in-round clash and ensure that debates are dialogues instead of monologues. Finally, as a framing point, I generally think bigger topics = better.

SPEAKER POINTS

They're totally broken...

I'll try to follow the below scale based on where points have been somewhat recently.

29.4 to 29.7 – Speaker Award - 1 to 10

29.2 to 29.3 – Speaker Award - 11 to 25

28.9 to 29.1 – Should break/Have a chance

28.4 to 28.8 – Outside chance at breaking to .500

28 to 28.3 – Not breaking, sub-.500

27 to 27.9 – Keep working

Below 26 – Something said/done warranting a post-round conversation with coaches

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. NEGs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. AFFs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue. Example: a DA is heavily and messily contested, and may be straight turned, but the case would outweigh the DA even if the DA was 100% NEG. I will likely not attempt to resolve the DA page. In complex debates, it would help you to instruct me on how I should do this, or instruct me not to do this if you would prefer that I resolve the debate a different way. You can also stop this from happening by debating in ways that don't require intervention to evaluate.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would not do this. However, decision times are shrinking. Post-round time is limited; minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

I have voted NEG 53% of the time.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them.

DAs

The agenda DA is not a serious argument, but can be a strategic one.

"Framing pages" where you say "DAs are bad" are bad.

CP'ing in offense is underrated.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty NEG on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the AFF are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the AFF, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches.

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the NEG says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of AFF/NEG bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other AFFs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless AFFs

OK for specific Ks on the NEG, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K AFFs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA then yes, you need framework and you need an alternative. Whatever issue your framework says should determine the round should be what your link, impact, and ALT are about.

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional AFFs. The biggest hurdles to voting AFF for me are usually: 1) why can't the AFF be read on the NEG, 2) why is the AFF's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting NEG on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the AFF's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

Ethics and Conduct

If the tabroom tells me to do something, it is not up for debate. I will do that thing. The rest is what I will do if left to my own devices.

Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Alternative remedies short of an automatic loss could be more responsive or proportional to the harm: scratching the argument AND evidence, scratching only the evidence and treating the argument as if it is made analytically, assuming an author is absolutely unqualified, requiring the team to produce the full text of articles in question, requiring the violating team to establish a paper trail authenticating other important evidence and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, requiring a team to produce the full text of every article in the debate and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, reducing speaker points, informing the team's coaches after the fact. They MAY be a reason to reject the team, but I will not treat them as such by default.

Clipping - claiming you read words from evidence that you did not read - is different, and a voting issue. It is a form of dishonesty that irreparably distorts teams' speech times, which affects every other issue in the debate, and which opponents are uniquely poorly positioned to police. If you are inexperienced or appear to have clipped by mistake, I will be lenient. Otherwise, it is non-negotiable.

Thoughts on stopping the debate early:

1. This is an exceptional measure to be avoided if possible.

2. Once the debate stops because of an ethics challenge, my first step is to consult the tabroom and do whatever they say.

3. Unless expressly instructed otherwise by the tabroom, the debate will not resume once stopped. The winner and loser will be determined solely by the ethics challenge.

4. An accusing team can stop the debate at any time except during a speech or a cross-ex. They win if they are correct, present compelling evidence that they are correct, and I agree that the conduct justifies a penalty loss. The winner will receive 28.5 and 28.6. Losers who have personally committed an ethics violation receive the lowest points allowed. Losers who have not personally committed an ethics violation - either due to an unsuccessful accusation, or because the partner committed the violation - receive a 27 and 27.1.

5. During the dispute, both teams must engage in good faith. The accusing team must submit evidence of their accusation as soon as possible. I will not consider evidence submitted within 20 minutes of decision time. Any filibustering or other unreasonable behavior by the accusing team will result in a win for the accused.

6. An accused team can stop the debate, even if the accusing team does not wish to do so, if the accusation concerns the fundamental academic integrity of the accused. This is a very high bar.

7. An accusing team may ask me if I believe certain conduct justifies a penalty loss without stopping the debate. I will take judge prep to answer. This answer is not an invitation to negotiate and obviously doesn't bind the tabroom.

8. I will proactively end the debate for clipping. I will not do this for other evidence ethics or academic integrity issues.

9. Basically none of this applies to novice or JV, where I will resolve the dispute as quickly and narrowly as possible with the aim of maximizing the number of speeches that can happen.

Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth.

U of MN ’21, current grad student in Communications/debate coach at UGA

Last updated: February '24

Please include me on email chains/contact me if you have questions: allegro.wang [at] gmail

Coached Wayzata '17-'18, coach at Minneapolis South '18-'20

Top Level

I have experience in both policy and critical debate and have coached teams going for a wide range of arguments as well. Most of my HS experience consists of K debate, but I was generally more flex and policy leaning in college and will judge each round as objectively as possible. Doing what you do best is more likely to win you the debate than reading arguments you think I'll "enjoy" listening to.

Tech > truth

Ev quality > quantity

An unwarranted claim isn’t an argument

Please don’t call me “judge,” call me by name

Slightly less dead on the inside than Buntin (though at this point, it's a very slim margin)

In terms of language in rounds, using problematic language (i.e. saying something racist, trans/homophobic, ableist, misgendering someone, etc.) will result in docked speaks.

Below are some random thoughts about specific arguments if it helps

Framework and K Affs

I don’t really have predispositions in a framework round – I’ve both read K affs and gone for framework. That being said, I generally find clash and fairness the most persuasive impacts to framework. TVAs and switch-side arguments can be useful for the neg, but I don't think they're necessary to win the debate.

I think case should be grappled with in some way in the 2nr, either by directly going to case or telling me why your impact on FW turns case, or a TVA/SSD resolves at least some of the aff's offense.

Don’t really have a specific opinion on truth or arg-testing as impacts. I think at best this is generally a defensive filter for how I should evaluate the aff's offense, not a reason to vote on presumption.

I'm most compelled by critical affs that engage the resolutional question in some way. The further the aff is from the resolution, the more compelling I find procedural arguments by the negative.

Ks vs K Affs

Controlling the link debate is probably the easiest way to win for either side.

“No perms in a methods debate” – not super persuaded by the arg on face

If going for the perm, it's helpful if the aff contextualizes what the world of the perm looks like in comparison to the alt alone, and what the net benefit to the perm is. The opposite applies for the neg---explaining what the alt looks like and how it solves/interacts with the aff helps a lot.

Theory/“Ethics”/Speaker Points

I’m pretty neg leaning on theory unless there’s substantial in-round abuse

Condo is usually the only reason to reject the team (though, as I've debated and judged more, I've realized I still have a very high threshold to voting on condo. I am predisposed to thinking infinite conditionality is good and the aff has an uphill battle to win otherwise)

If going for theory, tell me what your interpretation looks like for debate and why that's good

If raising an in-round ethics violation, there should be a record of what the violation was (ex. if you think your opponent clipped, there should be a record of where they clipped).

I flow CX and will reward smart CX execution with higher speaks

I will not make decisions based on events that happened outside of the debate

Kritiks

I have familiarity with most lit bases, both in identity arguments and postmodernism/high theory, but you should still avoid being overly reliant on buzzwords and make sure to contextualize arguments/links. Don't assume I've read your lit in-depth.

Experience in K debate means I tend to have a higher threshold for explanation, especially on the link debate. I don't think alt causes are link arguments--they are defensive reasons the aff or perm don't solve at best.

I don’t think the alt is necessary in the 2NR for the neg to win, but if you aren’t going for it, you probably need a heavy framework push and/or well-developed contextual links.

I'm also definitely down to judge an aff that goes all on on deterrence, heg good, etc. to turn a K - it seems like teams are too willing to read an unfamiliar aff to try and avoid links, which often results in worse explanations. If you're more comfortable going for a hard-right impact on the aff, it will likely result in a better debate - don't over-adapt.

If possible, try to keep overviews short and stick to the line by line. If there's a long overview, let me know I need space for it.

Topicality

I lean towards competing interpretations as a framing to evaluating T - if the aff is going for reasonability, it helps to articulate what your vision of a “reasonable” resolution looks like and why it’s good for debate/sufficient to resolve the neg's offense.

*The next part on the impact to T is shamelessly stolen from Ezra Serrins because he sums up my thoughts so well*

"The resolutional wording defines affirmative ground. Topicality arguments that speak to a predictable and precise definition of the topic, and teams that win their definition is a more literature supported, predictable definition of the topic will have success with me judging. These arguments carry a burden of proof only that one definition is better than the other definition."

Counterplans

CPs should probably be both functionally and textually competitive.

I default to judge kick (including individual planks) unless told otherwise.

In terms of CP theory specifically, I tend to err neg unless the neg has done something uniquely abusive in the debate. If you think theory is your best way to win in the debate, go for it.

DAs/Case Advantages

I love a good topic DA and case debate

Card quality > quantity is especially relevant on DA/case debates. I also think rehighlighting opponent's evidence is underutilized in high school debate (inserting rehighlighted ev does not count---it needs to be read out loud at some point---CX counts)

Presumption/zero risk arguments exist, including through the use of smart and well-warranted analytics (i.e. disconnect between the opponent’s evidence, missing internal links on the DA/advantage, etc.)

Impact turn debates are one of my favorites to judge (since I went to Minnesota). That being said, arguments like “racism good” and “misogyny good” aren’t real arguments and will severely hurt your speaker points.

Currently leaving this blank due to doxxing of judges. Ill update again before the season or debaters can email me for a copy. SovietHistory2396@gmail.com

Background: Debated 2006-2010 at Michigan State University, Assistant Coach at Gonzaga 2010-2011, Coach at MSU 2011-present

carly.wunderlich@gmail.com

---Updates Based on Getting Old---

1. What happened to 1NC DA shells that were complete arguments? Card 1 – Dems will win now – health care is a thing that matters. Card 2 – Dem win stops impeachment. Card 3 – Trump causes nuclear war. Um, no. You don’t have an argument here. The aff gets a wreck of leeway to answer stuff in the 1AR because this isn’t even starting to establish a causal link chain in the 1NC.

3. What happened to 1NC solvency cards for CPs? If your 2NC starts “they dropped the announcements plank in the 2AC it’s GAME OVER” but you haven’t read solvency for that plank that’s a no as well.

They all have huge strategic benefits, I get it – you can just spread them out and then piece it together once the aff drops everything. It’s gross to watch, your speaker points will reflect it and I won't forget who's fault it is that the debate is a wreck to try to decide because the debating didn't start until the block. This is also all true of ludicrous aff moves in the same vein

---Old Philosophy + Minor Revisions---

Things I like about debate

1. Working hard/preparation--- I think quality research should be a guiding factor when making decisions. Specific strategies rewarded, poo-nuggets punished

2. Critical thinking--- nothing gets you thinking you your feet like debate. I like interesting pivots and fast-moving debates

3. Argument testing---looking at both sides of an issue to parse out the most compelling arguments on both sides without confirmation bias – more important than ever, in my opinion

Topicality

As an old 2A I think reasonability works out well for the aff in a lot of spots. I'm very close to living in a post-T world if I'm being honest. The link to the limits DA should be well explained and evidenced (either by analysis or with actual evidence). Need clear case lists with explanation why you do/don’t include a specific case. T-substantial/significant is no for me.

CPs

I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, states) as reasons to reject the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. I also do not think that distinct is competitive and I think the neg should compete off a mandate of the plan.

Conditionality- for the last decade my philosophy has read “this is an area where I've started to move farther into the aff camp. My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department.” Unfortunately, I have failed the aff and voted neg in a LOT of spots. I still wish in my heart that we could limit the number of CPs read in a debate but unfortunately my voting record has not reflected that.

Unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

DAs

I think there are many logical inconsistencies with DAs that often go unremarked on by the aff in favor of impact defense. I think the aff would generally do better on engaging at the link/internal link level of dubious DAs. Picking one argument to deal a death blow to the DA works better than death by a thousand cuts.

Ks

Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. Links to the plan action are best. Affs get far on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. Almost all frameworks are a race to the middle. Neg gets to question assumptions of the aff, aff gets to weigh advantages- that’s a warning to the aff and the neg.

The Aff

I feel that there are lots of instances where crummy affs get away with it because the neg only focuses on impact calc. I think this is another instance, like DAs, where focusing on solvency/internal link args can pay bigger dividends than impact calc.

Speaker points

Things I like in speeches

1. Connections on central questions- slowing down and effectively communicating about guiding issues

2. Technical proficiency- answering clearly all necessary arguments

3. Clarity- I’m doing my best to be mindful of this but I honestly sometimes just forget- I’ll call clear once if you’re incomprehensible but at a certain point it will affect whether or not I vote on arguments

4. Strategic cross-exs- I’d prefer not to spend another 12 mins listening to “where does your card say that?”

Things that will result in reduced speaker points

1. Cross-reading, clipping- if there is an ethics challenge made I will stop the debate and evaluate it. If the person in question is found to be doing it they will lose the debate and receive zero speaker points.

2. Tech fails- please be prompt and quick with tech things. In a world of decision times this is increasingly getting to me.

3. Creating an environment that is hostile or unsafe for me or the other team – It's important for productive conversations and it's not healthy for all of us to leave tournaments hating each other.

4. Talking over everyone in c-x – I get it, you think you’re cool but I’m pretty bored with watching people get themselves all worked up and then just yell over the other team

My Speaker Point Scale (unless otherwise published by the tournament)

29.6 -30: You should receive a Top 10 speaker award

29.3 – 29.5: In this debate, you were an quarters level debater

28.8 – 29.2: In this debate, you were a 5-3, octos or double octos debater

28.4 – 28.7: In this debate, you were a 4-4 debater on the verge or bubble of clearing

28 – 28.3: You are improving but not quite there on big picture issues

27.5 – 28: You need some improvement on technical items as well as big picture things

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.