Northshore Debate Series 2
2022 — Northbrook, IL/US
Novice Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Rose - she/her - NW’23
Add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Sexism, racism, ableism, misgendering, homophobia, etc = L and lowest speaks
If you accuse someone of clipping you stake the round on it, and you must have proof
Always disclose unless its new
LINE BY LINE
I’ll try to push my biases to the side, do what your good at not what you think I will like
I’m a k/ flex debater do with that what you will
Tech > truth
Depth > breath
Novices shouldn’t read more than 7 off
Good judge instruction win rounds, write my ballot for me
I will protect the 2nr from new 2ar arguments
Tag team cx is fine , good cx = good speaks. There is a fine line between being assertive or smart and being jerk, know the difference
I tend to lean neg on the condo but a good standards debate can change my mind.
make sure to have a good da outweighs case push if you are only going for a da
Will only judge kick if you tell me to. Spread out your perms, I'm not going to catch 5 different perm do both variations in 15 seconds, Aff don’t let the neg get away with silly arguments, call them out, Neg, know what your arguments are and how to explain them. I dislike multi-plank cps.
Make sure not to lose the impact, Clash is really important in these debates, LBL
Know what your k says, read the lit, know what your alt is/ does. Probably won’t vote on death good, have good answers to it. I love word PIKs. Lits I’m familiar with : eco fem, fem arguments in general, cap, security, and set col.
If you didn’t cut your own k aff as novice, you probably shouldn’t be reading it, that being said, I like impact turns on framework, and case defense in these debates
Several aff can be taken down with a few really good cards in case, it's important to have a specific answer but case d is always good too! Just put some ink on the flow here.
Random things/ speaks:
Ethos, puns, and creativity = better speaks
Don’t steal prep, sending an email doesn't take 5 minutes most times
Remember to have fun :)
gbn '24; she/her; 1n/2a but I've been a 2n too
yes email email@example.com
katie, not judge
i'll give you +0.1 speaks if you can pronounce my name on tabroom correctly.
for an argument to valid it must have a claim, warrant, and an impact
don't be racist, sexist, queerphobic, etc.--auto L and I email your coach
death is not good
prioritize learning! ask questions about the rfd or anything that happened in the round afterwards. your focus shouldn't be winning, it should be learning.
flowing, line by line, and clarity should be your biggest priorities in the debate.
framing--why you won--should be at the top of your 2nr/2ar
don't take it super seriously, make jokes (when appropriate) and try to look like you actually enjoy debating. if you actively seem like you don't enjoy being there you're wasting both of our time.
don't clip, don't steal prep, don't talk over your partner in cx, don't continue speaking when the timer goes off
learn how to set up an email chain. time yourself.
T: Won't vote on T-A5
Explain your standards well and engage with the other team's arguments. Most T debates are like two ships passing in the night.
I ran the coast guard aff on the CJR topic. which means 1. i like ptiv debates and 2. do your worst
Aff--know your case very well. it's your greatest weapon.
Neg--engage more with the case! 1acs are pretty bad, especially on this topic. exploit any weaknesses you can.
Underutilized in debate. But also HORRID on this topic.
Neg--tell the story of the disad, lots of impact calc. you must win all parts of your disad
Aff--exploit any inconsistencies in the link story. trust me, they suck.
Process cps, adv cps, pics--do whatever you want, I go to GBN.
Condo is realistically the only theory I'll vote on, unless something else goes completely dropped and is exploited well throughout the debate.
You need a net benefit. you NEED a net benefit. solvency is not a net benefit.
Aff--make more perms, use your aff's internal links well. good defense of your aff's specific process will probably beat the majority of cp's.
Contextualize your links to the aff! You need an alt to generate uniqueness for the k imo, but if you disagree, by all means go ahead. if it's debated well, i'll evaluate it without intervention.
I think perm double bind pretty much solves like 99% of the time. and case outweighs is prettyyy convincing if the aff is doing well on framework.
you are a novice. why are you reading these.
framework makes the game work!
- I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college. Went to the TOC and NDT if that’s the kind of thing that matters to you.
- BA in Philosophy.
- Currently coaching at Niles West.
- Yes, I want to be on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Top level things:
- If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
- If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
- Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
- I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
- Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
- Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.
- Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
- The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
- Email-sending related failures.
- Dead time.
- Stealing prep.
- Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
- Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
- Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
- Marking almost every card in the doc.
- Disappearing after the round.
- If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
- If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
- If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
- Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
- Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
- If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
- If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.
Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:
- I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.
- I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.
- I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
- The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
- 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.
- For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.
- If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.
- The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
- ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
- I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.
- Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
- Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
- Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?
- I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
- I think fairness is an internal link not an impact in and of itself.
- I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
- I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
- I think when teams are aff against T-USfg in front of me, offense that explains why I should prefer your interp is more persuasive than just impact turns.
- I don't think debate is roleplaying.
Glenbrook South '24
Tech > Truth
For novices, understanding your arguments is better than having good ones.
Warrants needed for everything. If the other team dropped T, explain why that means you win the debate.
Please flow. Especially because you're a novice.
+0.3 speaks if you: add me on the email chain, signpost, watch Game of Thrones (I will quiz you)
+0.1 speaks if you: are clear, understand your arguments, make Aayan Ali jokes
Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs. I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based purely on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all common debate arguments and literature bases <i.e. everything which has historically been read in debates past or on this particular topic, I am the nerd who when I got to GBS the first thing I did was sit down and read through every backfile> such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would <somewhat unfortunately> say I have above average knowledge related to NATO & US policy regarding it.
- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.
- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.
- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I am a 'story' judge. If you look at my record, the thing which most unites the teams which have success in front of me is not their ability to repeat the arguments I ran or coach teams ro run, instead it is the ability to tell a complete story that resolves the points of tension identified in the debate.
<*My Debate History*>
I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.
- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.
- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).
My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.
- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).
My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.
- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.
- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.
- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.
- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.
- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!
Pronouns are she/her
Director of Debate at GBS since 2019, assistant coach for a year before that
My job mostly involves teaching (novice debate + varsity policy + English/Social Studies), admin work. I do not know the topic and I didn’t work at camp. I do not know topic acronyms.
I will not flow while reading off speech docs - I need to be able to understand what you are saying.
I like cats more than I like people.
*My teams do everything - some are hard right policy teams and some are ... not that. I tend to think that debaters debate best when they find their own brand of debate and let their personality shine through.
*Style: Don’t be a jerk for the sake of it, but you shouldn’t feel pressure to be sugary sweet if you’re not - expectations of civility, politeness, etc tend to fall on non cis dudes and BIPOC disproportionately. Therefore a little attitude is fine with me. It’s a competition.
*I've deleted most of my philosophy because I found this year that the rounds where I was most confused about what on Earth teams were doing were the ones were people were trying to over adapt. Please don't do this. I find I'm much better at adapting to teams than teams are at adapting to me (no offense.) Here are just the absolute most important things.
*Won't judge kick for you automatically. You can make the arg that I should judge kick for you; it just won't be my predisposition to do so automatically.
*Clarity is very important to me. So is pen time.
*I often end up flowing straight down as an inevitable consequence of sloppy line by line.
*Zero risk is a thing. Love me some smart defensive arguments against silly arguments.
*I tend to decide quickly and give my best rfds when that’s the case. Don’t be offended - it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good debate.
*If you're making new args late in the debate you're likely to have to justify them to me. That doesn't mean don't do it, it just means defend your actions.
* No touching.
*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.
*Please stop trying to classify me as a "K person" or a "policy person." This divide is exceptionally harmful to the community. Spoiler alert, you'll be a better debater if you're flex. I grew up in policy land but also debated in college on the left coast so when people try to classify me they're usually wrong. I get bored easily so I enjoy judging a wide range of debates. I like the topic and think taking action in the 1AC is important... I like even more when judges let the debaters do the debating and try to decide the round as objectively as possible. The times when my background and preferences come into play are only when the debaters don't resolve issues for me and I have no choice but to insert my own opinion.
I welcome any questions you might have and really quite enjoy talking about judging practices. Feel free to email me anytime.Please copy your coach when you email me.
please put me on the chain: email@example.com
most important things! (not necessarily in order)
1 - have fun and just try your best! novice year is all about learning
2 - be nice to each other and me. basically just don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. - otherwise (depending on how bad it is) i'll stop the round, vote you down and talk to your coach
3 - flow!
4 - try line by line and answer every argument. i know that novice year you'll likely have blocks but still try.
5 - do impact calc! you can always explain things more and "tell the story" of your arguments
1 - please have a plan (especially if you're a novice)
2 - explain your case well
3 - extinction probably outweighs (i can be convinced otherwise)
4 - 2nc cps and condo are probably the only things to reject the team for (if you explain well i can/will vote otherwise)
1 - i love them!
2 - willing to listen to anything (<3 process cps)
1 - impact calc and turns case are part of the best explanations
2 - explain the story of the disad well (uq, link, impact)
1 - kinda familiar with some of the more common stuff (security, fem, cap, set col, etc.) but anything more complicated please explain well
2 - i default util but can be convinced otherwise
1 - i don't think t-interps are great on the nato topic (i would love to be proven wrong)
2 - explain your standards and impacts well please!
1 - make me laugh (or make a joke about debate people i know) and i'll boost your speaks
2 - most of these are centered around novices - if you have questions about any of my preferences email me (if you're a novice don't worry about it - just try your best!)
3- please have your camera on for online debates!! (and realize that if mine is off I'm not ready)
Yes, email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
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-
--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.
--Not great with theory debates.
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.
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.
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.
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. I think 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.
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.
International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions.
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.
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.
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. (NATO TOPIC NOTE: I am finding myself being more sympathetic to the Aff on PTIV. If your plan focus somehow includes something outside of "security cooperation" or defense related assets, then PTIV is a justifiable defense, but you do need to deal with the solvency implications.)
Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take the impacts to the next level.
Things that make me happy:
Nuanced Case Debates. Obviously being prepared. Impact Turns. Link Turns. (not at the same time) Specific Links. Tricks and Traps. Debating evidence. Beating an argument in Cross Ex.
Things that make me unhappy:
Wipeout. Spark. OSPEC. Wipeout. Over highlighting. Hidden Theory Arguments. New Affs Bad. Poor disclosure ethics. Wipeout. Not using that awesome thing your partner said in CX in your speech. Trying to prove why debate makes people bad. Wipeout. Calling me “judge.” Turning debates into poetry slams or video games.
Oh, and Wipeout.
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.
I debated at Blue Valley Southwest High School for 4 years and am currently debating at KU
I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense (TVOA, argument testing, etc). The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Affirmative teams would also be well served to offer a competing interpretation of debate, designed to mitigate the negative impacts.
Fairness is the most persuasive impact to framework.
I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.
I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.
CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.
I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.
If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.
Questions comments and concerns can be directed to email@example.com
Don't send me comments
gbn 23, she/her
please don’t call me judge, naina is just fine
include me in the email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
i am a pisces and an infp
will not tolerate racism, lgbtq-phobia, sexism, ableism, etc. - will vote you down, give you the lowest speaks possible, and email your coach
no death good arguments (so basically just don’t be ignorant or disrespectful)
tech > truth
i am okay with tag team cx just don’t cut your partner off
speed will come with practice so just focus on debating with clarity
please flow on paper!! it’s important to practice flowing rather than reading a script, even if you are making the wrong arguments
in terms of speaks, it’s most important to provide a roadmap, signpost, be clear, and have good sportsmanship
good debating can beat most predispositions
bottom line, just be nice and have fun, and if you have any questions feel free to ask!
add me to the email chain: email@example.com (yes it's a pun)
be respectful to everyone in the round
- flowing is good
- tech > truth but you need to explain why a dropped argument allows you to win the argument / round
- every argument should have a claim, warrant, and an impact
- smart analytics beat cards with no explanation/impact
- cx is open and binding
- impact comparison is good
- play nice and have fun!
- knowing your affirmative beyond your plan text is good
- case debate is good
- frame your aff! i lean towards util
- all the affs are not that good on this topic
Counterplans and Theory
- i am familiar with pretty questionable counterplans, so you can run whatever you want but if it's especially egregious the aff has a lower threshold to win perms or theory
- net benefits are good. i will not vote on the counterplan if you don't have a net benefit
- condo is probably good. you're welcome to prove me wrong.
- everything other than condo is a reason to reject the argument, not the team
- fully warrant out the story of your DA. in the 2NR do not just read your overview again please
- specific links are good. like really good.
- questionably topical affs should be prepared to defend their plan but i'm not predisposed to vote against you
- answering your opponent's standards is good.
- what even is reasonability
- don't spread your blocks
- i'm familiar with security, cap, fem, fem ir, set col, etc. but none of it is on a techy level
- i think the aff wins the k on the perm double bind
- specific links are good. like really good.
Former debater at New Trier
Northwestern '25 (I don't debate, so assume I know nothing about this year's topic)
Yes email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Because novice year is a time to learn and grow:
- have fun, read whatever unless it's offensive/racist/sexist/queerphobic/death good/etc.
- explain why a dropped argument is bad
- flow and do line by line(!!!)
- K affs are fine but being block dependent + having a strategy based on confusing your opponent isn't debate.
I am a current senior at GBS (2022-23)
Please add me to the email chain email@example.com
My debate philosophy:
I am open to all forms of debate and have done extensive debate in both K's and generic policy args
Tech > Truth; and I will vote on even the most outlandish impact turns or scenarios as long as you meet the burden of proof.
Have fun with debate and don't be a jackass to the other team
Misc procedural things:
1. He/him/his; call me DML or Dustin, preferably not "judge;" if you call me Mr. Meyers-Levy I'll assume you think I'm old and I'll give you old person points
2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Michigan and Glenbrook North
3. Please add me to the email chain: dustml[at]umich[dot]edu. College debaters only: please also add debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).
4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards
5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're going above and beyond to wow me. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I gave a 30 one time a decade ago because I lost a bet. I doubt it'll ever happen again.
6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.
7. I feel like my decision times get shorter and shorter by the tournament. I highly encourage you to think about whether you really need to spend time making the other team send a copy of every card they marked and read or didn't read after their speech.
8. Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.
9. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.
When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:
1. At what scale should I evaluate impacts? How do I determine which impact outweighs the others?
2. What is necessary to address those impacts?
3. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?
4. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?
I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.
Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.)
I flow on my computer and I flow straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points.
Consider going a little bit slower. I think debate is easier when you slow down. I like when debaters do it; it makes it easier to flow everything you say. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.
Presumption always goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof.
I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of its function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).
I’d prefer that you read rehighlightings and not insert them, unless you’re rehighlighting a couple words. You will lose speaker points for inserting a bunch of rehighlightings, and I’ll happily ignore them if instructed to by the other team.
1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.
2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.
3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).
4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.
5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.
6. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.
Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:
I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.
I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:
1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.
2. There's a new trend of Ks about debt, debt imperialism, etc. I may not be the best judge for these arguments, simply because of my difficulty with understanding economics on its own terms, let alone in the context of a K. It's not for lack of trying to understand or familiarize myself, I just have tremendous difficulty understanding even basic economic concepts at a fundamental level, and this is seriously amplified when those concepts are being analyzed by relatively complex critical theory. This isn't to say these arguments are unwinnable in front of me (I've voted for them this year and in past years), but you may want to consider something else and/or investing a really large amount of time in explaining the fundamentals of your arguments to me.
3. I also don't really get all these new Ks about quantum physics in IR and stuff. Again, it's me, not you. I was an English major; every time I try to read these articles I get a headache. I'm interested, I promise, and if you can explain it to me I'll be very appreciative! But for transparency's sake, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to both explain the argument to me in a way that I can comprehend AND invest the time necessary to win the debate in your 36 collective minutes of speaking time.
4. I'm quite interested in emerging genres of critical legal theory. I think I would be a good judge for Ks that defend concrete changes to jurisprudence and are willing to debate out the implications of that.
5. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that contingent agreement on truth is possible and a better basis for action than nothing. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.
6. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #5; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.
7. "Philosophical competition" is not a winner in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent way.
1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I am surrounded by lawyers in my personal life, so I am better at keeping up with jurisprudential arguments about rights/duties than arguments about, like, the macroeconomic effects of copyrighting AI art.
For high school, 75-80% of my work has been policy-focused. I am pretty bored by impact turn debates. I wish neg teams would make more arguments about how the US does security cooperation and fewer arguments about NATO.
2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.
3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.
4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."
5. Here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:
--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.
--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and NATO, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)
--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."
--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.
--“…large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.” -Kevin "Kevin 'Paul Blart Mall Cop' James" James Hirn
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years. I'm currently an Assistant Debate Coach for Niles West. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. Debated policy debate in high school for six years at New Trier Township High School. #gotrevs (always already a preclusion...don't worry).
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara
I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.
In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.
If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.
Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.
Glenbrook North- he/him
Important update- I expect debaters I am judging to wear a mask the entire time I'm in the room, including while speaking. If you aren't okay with that, feel free to preclude or strike me. I promise I won't be offended.
T-Article 5 is the worst popular T argument I have ever seen. It is unwinnable. Don't even read it in the 1NC. The 2AC can entirely ignore it, I don't care it, I'm not voting on it.
Kritiks: Probably a bad idea in front of me
Non topical affs: You definitely want to strike me
Odds and ends:
This is not all inclusive of my thoughts. I have been in debate for a long time. Flow and respond to what the other team has said.
"Can you send a marked copy" is a reasonable pre-cx request. "Marked copy" means any cards they started reading but didn't finish should be marked. "Marked copy" doesn't mean the team sends a version of the doc that omits cards they skipped entirely. If you ask for the latter, I'm taking 30 seconds of prep away from you.
Everything needs to be in one speech doc. Getting everything together in one speech doc is prep. I stop prep when you've sent the doc.
No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). If you won't take the time to say it, I won't take the time to read it. This includes rehighlightings, perm texts, etc.
I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up.
yes email chain email@example.com
don't call me judge, claire is fine
gbn 23, she/her, 2N/1A
i am an aquarius sun, leo moon, and a leo rising. please take all of the above into consideration and adapt accordingly. debate is an activity rooted in persuasion, your job is to take my personal biases into account and alter your debating to the proper extent.
online debate: your camera should be on until the end of the 2ar. if my camera is off, i'm not at my laptop.
any k is fine but i'm slightly better for policy stuff
no death/racism/homophobia/sexism good arguments or anything of that nature -- ignorance is an auto-L and an email to your coach
debating off your flow and making the wrong arguments will get you better speaks than reading a script and making the right ones
tag team cx is fine
any predispositions/biases i might have can be mitigated through good debating :)
a clear roadmap and signposting is the easiest way to up your speaks, prioritize clarity over speed
be nice!! to the other team and especially to your partner
if you have any questions about this paradigm or really anything about debate email me before the round and i'll do my best to help out - debate is a great activity that anyone can succeed at and i hope yall have fun!
avi shah - new trier gs - '24 - he/him - 2a
add me to the chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
please title the email chain something relevant -- e.g: (Tournament Name) - (Round #) - (Team Code) v. (Team Code)
don't do or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or problematic, if you do I will give you an auto-loss and the lowest speaks possible at the tournament
dropped turns case is a dropped ballot
have fun! novice year is about learning and growing as a debater and a student, and I am here to help facilitate that. ask me any questions you have after the round, about the round, or anything about debate in general, I'm glad to help.
tech > truth
I like a good t debate - reading cards is important especially if you are going for predictability
I will listen to but be bored by the same process counterplan debates over and over again
2-3 condo is good - but try not to go for it if you're a novice
neg leaning of non-condo theory
turns case is important
yes, I know that nuclear war would result in climate change, make your turns case more specific to the link/internal link for it to be persuasive
make your link story specific - generic in the 1nc is fine and even if you don't have specific evidence try to contextualize the da to the aff in the block
I am familiar with most generic kritiks
contextualize the link to the aff, most affs on this topic probably link to your k beyond "they use NATO"
fairness is not an impact
if you go for it, I will not automatically vote you down, I just think that it is a larger time investment to explain than clash which seems more intuitive to me and probably accesses more aff offense.
I will give very high speaks. that being said, there are a couple of things to do to increase your speaks
show me your flows after the round. if they are good I will boost your speaks more
be funny, not overly serious. debate can get boring, a joke here or there can be helpful
don't steal prep. when prep is over, the doc should be ready to be sent. obvious prep stealing will result in a speaker point deduction, whereas being honest about prep usage and keeping track of your own time will result in increases.
tell me that you read my paradigm and tell me the take you most agree with before the round
she/her -- niles west 23'
email chain pls - email@example.com
do whatever u do best i'm willing to vote for anything but i like k's !!!
tech > truth
clarity > speed
line by line will be rewarded with good speaks
**any homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, or any other form of bigotry is an auto L and an email to your coach**
plz have fun. novice debate is suppose to be fun & educational so i encourage you to ask questions.
Nothing racist, sexist, homophobic or just problematic- immediate loss and I will tell your coach.
Claim warrant and flesh it out otherwise I don't consider it an argument
On this topic I err neg on theory and competition
Overall, just have fun, this is the year to try new things and argue what you want. I will listen to whatever you want to argue, don't change your strat too much because of me.
I coached high school policy debate full-time for 12 years, National Service through Legal Immigration. I've been around debate, first as a debater and then as a coach, since 02. I sat out Legal Immigration and Arms Sales, but I judged and researched some for the Criminal Justice Reform topic and the Water Resources topic. This year, I'm mostly just working with first year debaters...so if you get me in a higher-level debate, take it easy on ya boy. Debate is not my full-time job – I work in higher education as a program/product manager – so I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, etc. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "deficiently."
Yes email chain: jvoss1223 AT gmail DOT com. I don't read along during the debate, I just like it so that I can ensure nobody's clipping cards and also so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.
-- NATO topic: TBD but seems real bad. If both teams agree, debate the 08-09 alternative energy incentives topic and the floor for points will be 29. I think I'm only kidding...but try me.
-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive negative line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.
-- I don't generally need nor want a card doc at the end of the debate. I have everything in my inbox already. I know what cards you did/didn't read because I was flowing. I'm honestly a little skeptical of debaters providing judges a lens through which to evaluate different controversies after the 2AR has ended. And to be frank, most of these debates aren't so close that judgement calls on ev are necessary to determine who won.
-- Sort of a related point, but I thought it might be good to separate this out. I have found myself mentally exhausted at the end of almost every Zoom debate I've judged. There is something about flicking your eyes across three screens while transcribing an entire debate that's occurring in my headphones that is so much more draining than what debate looked like back in the day. I think this impacts how I judge. I certainly don't have any inclination to spend the decision time reading a bunch of evidence if I can avoid it. I don't think that's laziness (but maybe...) -- I'm just tired of staring at a screen. Anything the 2NR / 2AR can do to help craft a simple path to victory that allows me to minimize the number of "decision tree" questions I need to resolve is highly recommended.
-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.
-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.
-- Clarity, or lack thereof, has been bad for awhile, but online debate really exacerbates the problem. I won't use the speech doc to bail you out. Just speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.
-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.
-- I am generally better for a narrow solution that tackles an instance of oppression than an undefined/murky solution that aims to move the needle further than the pragmatic alternative. Some of this new stuff about philosophical competition and associated negative framework arguments that block the AFF from leveraging the 1ac as offense is wild.
-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.
-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction.
-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).
-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.
-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. I also suspect the Trump presidency and the associated exposure of explicit racism within the United States may have made me a better judge for affirmatives that do not instrumentally defend the topic/federal government action. I'm not sure how much better, though, and I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:
**Won't vote on any sort of argument that amounts to, "debate is bad, so we will concede their argument that we destroy debate/make people quit/exclude X population of student, that's good."
**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.
**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a studeny and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.
sun - aquarius
moon - gemini
ascendant - virgo
put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
be nice and have fun
don't be queerphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc. - i will dock speaks and vote you down
don't assume people's gender(s)
flow and do line-by-line - skill development is more important than reading perfect arguments from a script
don't call me judge, calling me by my first name is cool
prioritize clarity over speed
tech over truth
tell me the main reason why I should vote aff/neg at the top of 2ar/2nr
tag team cx is cool but only if you're not interrupting your partner
i will not count args made after the timer goes off - but cx is binding
please don't call me judge
scorpio sun, taurus moon, gemini rising - adapt accordingly
- don't be racist, queerphobic, sexist, ableist, etc. - i will vote you down and give you lowest speaks possible
- death is bad - do not say death is good
- tech > truth but explain the implications of a dropped argument
- other than what's above, good debating can overcome my predispositions, so read what you like
be nice & have fun, if you have any questions feel free to ask!