I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Background:

Hello guys! My name is Reena (she/her/hers) and you can refer to me by name or by “judge,” whatever is the most comfortable for you. I have a local policy debate background from High School and have judged Public Forum, British Parliamentary, and American Parliamentary debates. I study computer science and psychology at Johns Hopkins University and have a basic understanding of most fundamental tech and bio-related issues and ethics.

You can reach me at reena.assassa@icloud.com for any questions about the round/RFD, as well as for sending evidence cards and additional case material (make sure to add me to the email chain!)

Preferences & Rules:

1. Generally prefer stock issue policy debates with a straight-forward line of reasoning and strong links for each subtopic/voting issue provided to the debate.

1. I want to see engagement between the two teams that go beyond shallow rebuttal (ie: instead of just listing the reasons as to why the other team is “not true” or “no solvency,” but rather provide as to why your side is additionally the better/morally ideal side to vote on.

1. I will attempt to flow at the agreed-upon pace established by both teams in the round, but I am rusty in flowing high-speed spreading and have a strong preference for 350-wpm max debates. Additionally, if you are spreading at an incomprehensible pace, please bare with me and I will attempt to flow as much as possible, but there is a high chance I will not catch everything that you have said. I will say “slow” or “clear” up to 3 times, and if this is not adapted it will reflect in my RFD.

1. As already established by other Johns Hopkins University judges: “if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. i believe that debate should be fair and equitable to all, so if you include any arguments that are prejudiced/bigoted or actively display any actions that belittle your opponents, I will drop you. No exceptions” - Tim Do

1. Please be respectful to both me and your opponents at all times before, during, and after the debate. I despise snappy or shallowly hostile attitudes displayed during a round. Debate (and in my opinion, especially policy debate) should be an educational experience for every judge and debater, and misguided malice is absolutely not tolerated in this space.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with neg Ks but am generally not well-versed in k vs. k or k aff rounds. I will judge any round if thoroughly explained enough (if you can cut through the jargon and unnecessary complexities then I will be happy to flow the round in any direction the teams have decided on.) There is a possibility, however, that if you are not explaining all aspects of your k arg I could confuse your point or be biased towards the policy; so please be wary in how you approach these rounds.

DAs:

If you are running a DA make sure to not only prove the DA but to analyze and weigh why the DA is on balance more harmful than all of the beneficial impacts provided by the opposing team.

Counterplans:

High pref for counter plans that fully solve for the aff and are related to the resolution. It is up to the debater’s judgment to determine whether or not their alternative is better than what is provided by the aff, but I need substantive reasoning as to how the counterplan’s world solves each issue provided by the aff as well as not deviating so far from the resolution that the plans are no longer comparative to a well-informed individual/debater/judge. I do enjoy counterplan rounds but I will set a reminder that it is the neg’s burden to not only provide their line of argumentative reasoning for their counterplan but to also disprove all solvency provided by the aff or establish why their solvency is inherently better/morally ideal.

Topicality:

I’ll judge topicality in the same manner that I would judge every other argument in a round. I do not have a preference for either side’s interpretation of the resolved, but I do believe the aff should provide a clear outline of their interpretations early on in the round. I will judge topicality violations through the lens of the average intelligent individual and am very unlikely to buy far-fetched interpretations/definitions over the more obvious/clearly defined interpretation.

Theory:

I am not well acquainted with theory args. There is a high chance that I will be unfamiliar with the language being used in the debate, and if your case is not perfectly clear on every aspect of your explanation I will have trouble being an objective and well-informed judge for these rounds.

Add me to the chain jess.berenson@gmail.com

Logistics/Background:

I am a former debater from Georgetown Day School and attended the TOC my senior year. I currently coach for the Washington Urban Debate League. This will be my fourth year as coach. Last year I judged between 40-45 rounds at local, regional and national tournaments. I'm fine with speed. 

If you have a question please ask.

I think the debate round is a sacred and safe space. I work hard to protect the safety, the education and to minimize the stress level in a round. I get it-- everyone wants to win and some situations are stressful (whether you are going to break, get a TOC bid or maybe its the beginning of the season or the end of the year or maybe its just a bad day). I am a human being and its not been so long since my time at the TOC that I've forgotten what its like. I try to understand.

My focus on a safe space means that I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism or otherwise bullying or harassing behavior.

I strongly believe that the debaters should choose the arguments not the judges. So if you have an argument that you think is worth running then you should run it. I will vote for the team that argues the arguments in the round the best. I work hard not to have bias FOR/OR against different frameworks, theory, kritiks, conditional counterplans etc. Its all about convincing me that your argument is the best which I think you do through a strong line by line debate. Don't rely on me to read a bunch of cards at the end of the round. I like to vote off my flow. The debaters who get the best speaker points from me (and often the ballot) are the one's who rigorously answer the line by line debate and develop arguments as they go.

Debate seems to ebb and flow with long overviews especially on the K debate. I have no problem with long overviews, however, when they come at the expense of the line by line debate I think you do yourself a disservice. 

I have spent a lot of time listening to, thinking about and voting both ways on performance affirmatives. I am not biased for one side or the other. That being said, I believe the best performance affirmatives that I have seen and am more likely to vote for are the ones that don't just expect me to compare apples and oranges but will provide a paradigm/framework for me to consider their case that rejects what the negative will be telling me the affirmative "has" to run. I especially like it when the affirmative frames that in the 1AC so I know what I'm listening to. All that said--I'll vote either way depending on how the round plays out, this is just my preference.

On the policy side of things-- my preference for a strong line by line continues. I think debating topicality and answering topicality is a lost art, as are things like counter plan theory. Slow down (on either side) and explain your arguments. Please don't just read blocks with two word answers. I don't know what to do with them and I rarely vote for them.

I will do my best to give a comprehensive RFD at the end of the round. However, sometimes time gets tricky and we get cut short. I keep my flows so please feel free to email me with other questions.

I am honored to judge you. Being a debater was an important time in my life and I'm happy to give back to the community by judging.

Rowland Hall-St Mark's '17

Georgetown University '21

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

I will add stuff to this philosophy occasionally. If anything is unclear or confusing, email me.

Pet Peeves:

--Do NOT read disinformation and actual "fake news." In my experience, debate has done a good job staying away from far-right conspiracies but has a weird obsession reading cards from authoritarian state-run propaganda outlets. I will be grumpy if you read evidence from the following sources: SputnikNews, RT, TASS, GlobalTimes, People's Daily, etc.

--Do NOT read evidence written by undergraduates. I will not evaluate it.

Judging Habits of Mine

--Academic and professional background tends to be more policy oriented, but I do not have any strong ideological predispositions that will inform how I judge debates

--I like to reward debaters that face their competition head on. For example, I dislike the following cowardly tactics: filibustering in CX, answering a different question than the one asked during CX, deliberately disguising arguments using obscure language, making the debate purposefully messy with the hopes an opponent drops an argument, and generally trying to win debates by avoiding clash with opponents.

--Smart and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue. This is especially true when refuting contrived CPs and stupid impact arguments.

--I tend to follow the Dallas Perkins view of evidence: "If you can't find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me."

--Terminal impacts and impact defense factor into my decisions less than most judges. Impact comparison still matters to me, but only insofar as you can prove a clear link that connects to that impact. Over focus on terminal impact comparison at the expense of link analysis is an easy route to lose my ballot.

--Debaters tend to rely on "extinction outweighs everything" far too much in most every debate I judge. I do not tend to find this sweeping argument particularly persuasive, as it is usually invoked as a substitute for robust debating on link analysis and as a way of avoiding comparative analysis of impacts. I am not likely to vote for you simply because you are the only one to have a tenuous connection to an extinction level impact; I am likely to vote for you if you acknowledge relative degrees of risk and recognize that many impacts (such as poverty, disease, economic collapse, etc) are bad regardless of whether they will potentially lead to nuclear annihilation.

Operating Procedure

--I flow on paper

--I will not be following along closely enough with speech docs to enforce any sort of clipping violations by myself. This is mostly because I think my flow will be harmed substantially if I am flowing from your doc and not writing down full arguments. Debaters should record debates and provide that recording when accusing the other side of an ethics challenge

--Each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. If it is not your speech and you say something, it will not be on on my flow.

--"Insert this rehighlighting" is acceptable in some instances and not others. I struggle to articulate a clear rule for this, but I tend to think inserting is legit when you are pointing out why the other team misconstrued or miscut their evidence. If you want to make a new argument (eg a new advantage CP from their evidence) you should read the rehighlighting.

Theory Issues/CPs

--Conditionality is good. I will still vote aff on conditionality bad if debated well.

--If no one says a word about it, I will judge kick for the neg.

--I judge legitimacy of CP's on a case by case basis. In the magical world of fiat, it feels tough to categorically exclude specific varieties of CP's

--Literature determines predictability. If your "cheating" CP is clearly in the lit, I will be more likely to listen to it and allow it in the debate. That also necessitates the literature clearly distinguishing it from the plan

--I am very open to voting neg on plan vagueness arguments

--Limited intrinsicness can be very good

No Plan/K Affs

--I will enjoy it more when the aff has a robust defense of what debate looks like in their model rather than just impact turning everything.

--I think fairness style impacts are generally more persuasive than portable skills style impacts for teams going for T

Ks

--I heavily prioritize framework in these debates

--I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the plan or other K arguments that may be considered theoretically illegitimate by many. Just be up front about it so the aff can respond and so you can have a real debate.

--Teams don't read enough cards because they presume I will fill relevant knowledge gaps. I want a qualified scholar explaining your theory of the world, not your summary of what you think that author says. This also obviously holds true for aff teams responding to the K.

Experience:

Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have a decent bit of experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school level.

General:

Email: Eric.clarke2019@gmail.com

If there are any unanswered questions definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email

Stop saying random acronyms without telling me what they are or having it somewhere on the card. It makes keeping up with arguments unnecessarily complicated. *This doesn't apply to international topics.

Pretty good with speed, but make sure you’re clear and emphasizing tags/claims. I typically flow by ear and only reference the speech doc when I've missed something, so try and make sure I can pick up on all of your arguments as they're being made

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks)

If the RFD is taking forever I'm probably reading your cards. If comparative analysis of evidence isn't clear/present in speeches, I'll usually do it myself based on the quality of cards. I'd recommend you do the analysis in your speeches instead of leaving it to me.

Kritiks:

I usually enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. Most teams fall flat explaining the alternative or thesis of the k.

Framework:

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. I don't think teams can ever go wrong by extending it in the 2NR

While I enjoy framework, please know that you won't have a leg up on the affirmative. You still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

Misc:

No hot takes about theoretical issues. Tend to lean tech over truth, so don't drop condo or disclosure theory.

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not I'm fine.

If possible, make sure the 1AC is in my inbox by the round start time. I won't hound you if it's not, but will appreciate you if it is.

Speaker points:

Hopefully nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. For example, you don't need to chime in every single time they speak. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

I love debate, and I am most excited about how it can help students develop their voice by understanding that no topic is beyond them and that all public policy is ultimately a reflection of those who speak up. While change in policy is only one way that change happens in society and communities, it is an important one and a focus on policy has broad educational value in learning that process while also comparing it with other processes that lead to change. This means that I value both traditional policy making approaches to debate as well as arguments about alternative means of speaking up and affecting change in society. The key to all of these questions for me is comparison. Ultimately, debate competitions offer incredibly realistic opportunities to develop personal voice and influence on change.

Debating requires participants to deeply understand their topic and their arguments whether that means deeply understanding and developing their advocacy skills through policy comparison and discourse or advocating for desired changes through other means, nothing is outside the field of knowledge that debaters develop. However, just as in the real world, no single advocate ever knows everything, and the most effective advocates are also great listeners who learn quickly and seek understanding before they seek victory. The same is true in debate. The quickest way to lose is to ignore, mischaracterize, or misunderstand an opponent's argument. Research outside the debate, careful listening during the debate (not just reading the speech doc), and effective use of cross examination are all vital tools for developing deep understanding of different points of view. Sometimes direct refutation of those points of view is best, given the available evidence, but more often, some combination of what each side says that is beneficial leads to a winning third way that can be articulated and convincingly defended by either side. This is what I look for in a debate. Prove them wrong where they are and the evidence is clear, but where there is uncertainty (which is much more often), engage and assess the choice I have in light of that uncertainty. This is how you will most consistently win my ballot, and it is how you will best learn the lessons debate competition has for your future life using your voice and making a real difference in the world.

I have biases and assumptions that I bring, but when I am aware of them, I work hard to activate them only as needed to resolve questions left unresolved in the debate itself. I bring biases learned as a competitive debater with a heavy emphasis on the power of the policy making framework and a coach within a competitive system that structurally advantaged some schools over others and which had a powerful slant toward white male dominance. My years of experience in that world forced me to examine assumptions over time and increasingly see the ways that they excluded rather than included people in the activity that was the basis of my entire education. I learned and grew over time to broaden my appreciation and understanding of different perspectives and ways of debating, and I have become much more comfortable and experienced in judging arguments of all kinds. I have spent the past 15 years deeply immersed in the world of education policy, and there I have learned very directly that all forms of argument matter, and any of them can carry the day at a given moment in time. I appreciate more than ever how debate recognized this fact much earlier than those in the real world, and how debate experience builds voices and skills that result in much more effective change in society. For this reason, I am committed to resolving the arguments as they come. If I am less persuaded by some than others, I will acknowledge that perception when it arises, and we will work to learn from it together. In the process, your voice will become stronger, and my understanding broader. That's how education works; the student and the teacher both have plenty to learn from each other, and I thank you for that opportunity.

You should listen to those who tell you about my biases, because they are part of me, and understanding where I have come from will enable you to craft more persuasive arguments to get me to go with you elsewhere. It is true that I prefer substance over theory and that has meant that I have not voted on topicality alot over my career. However, it also means I will, if the violation actually undermines the substance that is possible in the debate, for example. Some will tell you that I do not like critiques; not true. What is true is that I developed strong theoretical perspectives on the value of a policy focus which have sometimes been deployed as if they were arguments for rejecting critique as a form of argument altogether. Not true. Not only do I believe there is good reasoning on all sides of the policy focus debate, I also believe that there are important directions that flow from the reality that neither point of view is always correct, and again, my experience in the real world of policy has made even more clear the power that critical argument has to make visible injustices and biases that exclusion of voices obscures to the detriment of the best policy decision grounded in equity, let alone more broad-based and deeply seated changes that our society needs.

Bottom line is that you can argue what you want, but no argument (even those that might align with my biases) is presumptively persuasive. In our competitive activity, I try to suspend my biases as much as possible and reintroduce them only as minimally necessary to resolve unresolved questions from the debate itself, acknowledging that this is an inherently artificial and incomplete approach. You will practice making your arguments as persuasive as possible, and in reality that never means winning all your arguments. Persuasion also requires you to demonstrate that you understand the other side well, agree where you agree, and very clearly explain where you disagree and why I should be more persuaded by your side of that. That's how it works in the real world, and there is no more important takeaway from this activity than that you develop your voice to be effective in driving the changes that you see deep need for.

Rest assured that I am your biggest fan, and I celebrate you just for taking part in this activity. One of you will win and one of you will lose today, but we will all be better for the experience and the world you will lead in will be better for your having participated today.

Michelle Du

tjhsst, uchicago (4 years as a 2a in high school, multiple elim rounds, 1 toc bid)

she/her

email: tjhsstdx@gmail.com (add this one)

General

no nato topic knowledge outside judging rounds

quality > quantity (1 off > 8 off) -- or at least narrow it down before the 2nr please

tech > truth but truer arguments are probably easier to win

DO IMPACT COMPARISON

present a concrete plan or affirmative

don’t be rude or sexist or homophobic or racist, don't steal prep, clip cards, etc. have fun and be polite to the other team.

i'll pretty much listen to/vote for any argument. will listen to both plan/planless affs (flex debater). will probably default policymaker unless told otherwise. don't adjust your arguments to my paradigm - just do what you do best. be creative and strategic!

DAs + CPs

go for them! make the net benefit & impact clear.

T

i like education as an impact. please don't just read generic blocks.

Case

love strategic impact turns and robust case debates, will vote on presumption.

K Affs vs. Plan Affs, FW

ran both K affs and plan affs.

If you're going to run a K aff, explain how it is related to the topic/resolution and why your specific affirmative is good & necessary for debate, not just that your aff is a good idea. why is the ballot key & what does voting for you affirm beyond this round?

answer predictability, clash, fairness, etc. clearly.

most of my 1NRs against k affs were FW and I’ve debated FW on both sides, so I love a good FW debate — if you're neg, make sure to extend the TVA and flesh out your impacts specifically. both sides - explain what debates under your model would look like.

cn easily be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Ks

i rarely took Ks in the neg block but they were a large part of our neg strat, familiar with K lit (cap, security, liberal militarism, etc.) and open to listening to most Ks but I need specific k links to the affirmative if you want to judge kick.

framing is important to me, especially if alt arguments aren't strong. general "state action bad" links are unpersuasive.

If you’re running something more high theory (baudrillard, deleuze, bataille, etc), be clear

Theory

generally think condo is fine. don't love theory debates — if you’re actually going for it, slow down and explain the significance of your arguments.

Danielle Dupree - danielledupree123@gmail.com - she/her

21 y/o DMV Debater at Howard University. 7 years of debate experience

Pretty go with the flow, any argument is on the table as long as its not racist, misogynistic, ableist, trans/homophobic, etc. My main concern is a fun, educational round.

The things you probably wanna know most....

Speed: I'm fine with clear spreading. Slow down on things that you need to stress, i trust my flow so what gets missed, doesn't exist.

Performance: I love an unconventional debate when its done well, meaning make it abundantly clear why your form of debate is necessary.

Theory: Well done theory thats not just a throw away that you ended up being stuck with makes my little heart sing.

K: I love them, beware though, I will always have speaking for others in mind so don't run things that advocates on behalf a community you're not part of.

Policy: Policy always has a place in my heart, as stated, as long as it's well explained, & well defended, game on.

Troll: I need to hear BOTH teams enthusiastically consenting to a troll round, otherwise at the end of the round you will lose. That is your warning.

The obvious/nitpicky reminders...

CP: NEED a net benny. And if you don't solve case tell me why that doesn't matter.

DA: Mostly useful in the 1NC

T: Violation & definition is never enough, no limits & grounds, no case. I appreciate creative violations, and T that is brought into the real world.

FW & ROB: I default the actor of policymaker unless directed otherwise. I need actual competitiveness on FW, not

"SV is most important"

"No extinction is"

"No SV is." give me a debate w/clash pls

All of that is to say, do whatever you want, just make sure you work hard on it and make it fun for all of us :)

Blue Valley Southwest: 2015-2018

Liberty University: 2018-2020

Email for the chain: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

Important Update:

1. I am now a stock issues judge. The stock issues are as follows: Inherency, Solvency, Harms, Disads and Topicality. The 1AC does not have to present Topicality.

Top Level:

1. Ignore my facial expressions.

2. Much better for policy than the K.

K on the Neg

1. The AFF gets to weigh the 1AC.

2. I do not understand high theory.

3. Links should be to the plan.

4. I often find myself voting NEG because AFF teams are bad at answering the K.

5. This is NOT a stock issue. BEWARE!

K on the AFF

1. Defend a material change from the status quo.

2. "Debates about debate" is an unpersuasive frame when the forum is two teams (one of which has to negate) and one judge. Outrounds may be different because there are observers; however, I tend to think most observers watch to improve their flowing, scout for their school, or support their friends.

3. Counter-interps are your friend. You are in a great spot if I believe your interpretation is predictable and good for clash.

4. Impact turns to procedural fairness, predictability, and clash are not persuasive.

5. These AFFs may not meet the Inherency, Solvency, or Topicality stock issues.

Framework

1. Ignoring case may lead to dropped DAs that could outweigh your best FW offense.

2. Procedural fairness is my favorite impact.

3. TVAs do not have to solve the whole AFF, but TVAs that solve none or few of the AFF's impacts are unpersuasive.

T

1. Not my favorite debate, but many AFF teams are bad at defending untopical plans.

2. Reasonability should frame the AFF's interp. Something like "Even if the NEG's topic is better, ours is [predictable, sufficiently limited, debatable etc.]. Voting NEG [justifies a race-to-the-bottom for bad interps, discourages topic research, etc.]."

3. Limits and contextual ground standards are my favorite.

4. TVAs are underutilized.

5. Slow down on caselists. Assume I do not know what AFFs look like on the topic.

CP

1. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. I lean AFF on Perm do the CP.

2. CP amendments are okay against new AFFs and add-ons. Not a big fan otherwise.

3. Perm do both explanations can be contextualized in the 1AR, but not the 2AR.

4. This is NOT a stock issue. BEWARE!

DA

1. A++.

2. Turns-case args should be couched in the internal links of the DA when possible.

3. Good 1NRs line up their speech with the 2AC (impact o/v is the exception).

4. 1NR should card dump if you have the goods.

Theory

1. Go a bit slower.

2. Conditionality is good, but strong impact comparison + technical proficiency can prove otherwise.

3. Perf-Con theory < conceding assumptions made by one contradictory position to take out the other.

4. Everything should be a reason to reject the team. Why artificially limit the impact of your argument?

Things I've noticed about myself as a judge

1. I highly value scenario/impact explanation. This is especially true for rebuttals.

2. Reading is difficult. If you think the debate should be won/lost on card quality or a key piece of evidence, make that known.

3. Impact turn debates are my favorite rounds to judge.

4. I am prone to confusion.

5. Long deliberation, quick rfd explanation kinda judge.

Hot Takes

1. Good for spark/dedev/co2 good.

2. I will flow/evaluate both policy and critical arguments. "Policy debate bad" or "The K does not belong in debate" are unpersuasive arguments.

3. I will evaluate arguments about an individual's or team's bad acts outside of the debate as a reason that individual or team should lose. However, I have a high threshold for two issues. First, the "link" evidence should leave no doubt that the act(s) happened. Assertion alone will not establish a "link." Evidence beyond 95% certainty will establish a "link." Second, there must be a reason to reject the team. Why should I punish a team for an act or acts happening outside of the round? Safety, detoxifying the activity, and deterrence are possible, but not exclusive, avenues.

Public Forum

HUGE UPDATE: I am done with card calling. It is, by far, the worst part of PF, and I KNOW that most of y'all are not reading the evidence. If you call for ev. and do not reference it, recut it, or otherwise make it an issue, I will be docking speaker points. This should never be an issue if you make an email chain (see below for email chain explanation).

1. Arguments in the final focus must exist in the summary.

2. I care about line-by-line more than some judges. Meta framing is not a substitute for clash.

3. I'm curious about how the K would play out in an activity where the topic is yes/no to the rez. Framework would also be strange; is it the first speaker who sets the tone for K v. Framework, or is it based on being Pro v. Con? I will develop a concrete opinion after judging a few of these debates.

4. Signposting will get you very far very quickly.

5. Some teams do not read evidence in rebuttal - that seems bad, but nobody tells me why.

6. One team has expressed that FF and Summary speeches do not need to extend arguments or do line-by-line. I vehemently disagree.

7. I rarely evaluate Summary when making a decision.

8. Disclosure/Wiki theory should be read more in PF.

*9. Teams that email evidence/speech docs get a .5 speaker point boost.

*Teams seem confused by this request. Email chains allow teams to send evidence read in constructive/rebuttal/summary. You do not need to send your analytics/paraphrasing, but you SHOULD send all of the evidence you plan to use before the speech. This should solve two problems. First, "card-calling". My least favorite part of PF is the card-calling nonsense *See above*. We lose an average of 5-10 minutes every round waiting for debaters to find and send evidence. Second, it deters bad evidence practice. Y'all read bad evidence. Like really bad evidence. Being forced to share evidence (especially constructive evidence) should encourage the pursuit of better, well-researched evidence.

House Keeping

1. Be polite and don't be offensive. You will lose for discriminatory language or policy.

2. I think death/suffering good arguments are unpersuasive. Arguments about inevitable death/suffering are unimportant.

3. Mark cards during the speech.

I reserve the right to end the debate due to anti-blackness

Lexington '21, Sarah Lawrence '25, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain---amandacxdebate@gmail.com

title the email chain something along the lines of Tournament---round x---aff team (aff) vs neg team (neg)

general:

tech>truth

I debated for four years at Lexington and debated at Michigan last year before transferring. I have always been a 2a.

*online debate: please try to keep your camera on if at all possible

Counterplans:

I think that these are great. I would prefer if there is some form of a solvency advocate but what that looks like is up for debate. Smart perms are preferable to theory debates on a process cp. Links should be a sliding scale and proving the cp links less than the aff should be sufficient. I probably default to judge kick but it doesn't take much to convince me not to.

Theory:

I think that conditionality is probably good but again this is open to debate. I think new 2nc cps are probably abusive unless in response to new 2ac offense. I think cp's should be functionally and textually intrinsic which means making perms to test either textual or functional competition (functionally competitive but textually intrinsic perms or vice-versa are great). Object fiat, private actor fiat or lopez cps are probably not theoretically legitimate. Otherwise, almost all other theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and winning them, especially if they aren't going for the cp, will be an uphill battle.

Disads:

I really love these, I think I give pretty much every 1nr on a da, mostly politics. I would prefer specific links against generic ones. Other than that specific da to the aff are great and I would love to hear them. Everything else here is pretty straightforward.

Topicality:

These debates are okay, I don't really know what the topic should look like so make sure to impact out all of your standards and what limits your interp places on the topic. I don't think plantext in a vacuum is a fantastic we meet but I have voted on it before because oftentimes teams don't have an alternative model. If you can't explain the alternative to plan text in a vacuum you aren't in a great place there. RVI's are not a thing. I also tend to default to competing interpretations.

Impact turns:

I love impact turns! I’m willing to listen to anything. I love space!

K:

In general, I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier. I also think you need to impact out the links and explain how they turn each case. I will probably let the aff weigh case and I have never heard a persuasive reason why they can't. I would prefer if there aren't super long overviews that require a new sheet of paper. If there is a floating pik please make it clear in the block.

Kaff:

The stuff I said about K's applies here. I probably won't understand your aff that well and I probably haven't read most of the lit. However, if you are reading a kaff please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key. I am going to need a specific thing to vote on and if you are hedging all of your bets on one arg please make sure to impact it out. More often than not kaffs will have a blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, please develop your arguments fully, nothing annoys me more.

Aff:

I prefer extinction affs and am probably more familiar with these as I pretty much solely read hard right affs. That being said I do not think I am a terrible judge for soft left affs I just need you to actually explain framing and apply it to the other flows.

Framework:

I am probably neg leaning here. Debate is probably a game, and while it can in some ways be more than that, I think at its heart debate is a game. Fairness is the most persuasive impact and I also personally think it's the best impact. Make sure to have a reason why the aff can't weigh its self and preferably get to case in the 2nr.

k v k:

I have never been in one of these debates. However, I think the aff should be able to get a perm. I would like both sides to explain their specific theory comparing it to either the alt or the aff.

Speaks scale:

I try to average around a 28.5 and move up or down depending on what happens during the round. If I go below a 27 something happened in the round that I probably talked to you.

If caught clipping lowest speaks possible (this does mean zeros) and auto L

things that are important but had nowhere else to go:

Speech times in HS are 8 min constructive, 3 min cx, 5 min rebuttals, and however much prep the tournament allows, this is non-negotiable. CX is binding. There is only one winner and one loser. I won't vote on things that happened outside of the round (disclosure, prefs, etc.). If you feel unsafe or something offensive happens I will assist you in going to tab. I also will not vote on spreading theory, and will be very annoyed to have to listen to it for 2 hours.

You have to read rehighlightings you can't just insert them.

I'm becoming annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am more annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away. A marked copy does not mean the cards that weren't read are removed

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

LD:(stolen basically directly from Eleanora)

I have neither competed nor frequently judged in lincoln-douglass; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Four years of HS Public Forum Debate, Four years of HS Congressional Debate, Two years of HS Extemp Debate, Two years of University-level policy debate, two years of British parliamentary debate personal experience.

Key Points:

§ Speed: I can generally handle national circuit speed, though I prefer you going at 80% of your top speed, focusing on clarity. As this is still a speech competition, I also appreciate efforts to be emotive and persuasive outside of what a debater reads in their cards. If I don’t hear/understand/flow a card, it didn’t happen. There may be instances in which I ask for the speech beforehand, but I will only use it as an occasional reference and will not read along. Normally, I’ll call cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to examine your citations.

§ Theory: I have a high threshold on theory, especially Topicality, and believe that these debates trade off with more educational, common sense arguments. I will be skeptical if a Negative team reads Topicality claiming that the Affirmative destroys Neg ground, and then follows up with 5 strong off-case arguments that link to the case.

§ Performance: I am interested in and have debated against cases that had at least some performative elements, and I have also seen quite a few such cases as a judge. Please be clear why you are performing and take a few extra seconds to explain to me why performative aspects were integrated into the case.

§ Shadow Extending: Although I do my best to flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, sometimes the speed and the difficulty of an author’s name make it difficult for me to catch them. I do not want to call up every card I miss because it unnecessarily extends the length of the debate and breaks its flow. Therefore, if you are trying to extend your evidence, do not just give me an author name. Extend evidence properly by explaining it, or I may have no idea what you are talking about.

Ks must provide an alternative and reasons to evaluate the round within that framework.

Two years of University-level policy debate, two years of British parliamentary debate. Will vote on theory if it goes unanswered. Ks must provide an alternative and reasons to evaluate the round within that framework.

I was a nationally ranked debater in high school and college in the 1980s. I've only judged a few rounds since -- all at WUDL tournaments. I haven't judged any rounds on this year's topic, but am looking forward to doing so given the truly interesting topic.

C I don't have any predisposition on the scope of that topic, but do think cases have to be topical. I also haven't memorized that topic, so please make the argument clear if you're going to make a topicality argument.

I'm willing to listen to any arguments, but don't have much experience w/ Critique arguments. Also, while I'm not inherently averse to speed, I prefer a reasonable pace given limited judging in recent years. I may ask to see a card or two after the round, but am not inclined to wade through a lot of cards I couldn't fully understand on listening to them.

Looking forward to judging.

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

Samuel Hanks--debated at GSU in the mid-2010s, now a public interest lawyer in DC--alyoshanks@gmail.com

Overview stuff: I was a flex debater: ran a lot of Ks, ran a lot of 8-off, cut a lot of politics updates, love a fun CP+DA. I'll vote for just about anything as long as it's explained well. I may have less experience with the literature behind performative debate, but I believe that performative debate belongs in a performative speech activity. Do you.

I entered the debate world later than most, which I say to flag that every so often there are elements of debate culture or lingo that I missed. If you get into extremely niche arguments or acronyms, it may benefit you to explain in full rather than just saying "X bad". On the other hand, because I got into debate in college I have a very clear idea of debate's pedagogic/argumentative benefits, and highly value good educational arguments. Particularly if you can provide real examples of how we use this space to better ourselves as advocates and speakers.

• Speed: Go as fast as you want, but you're not as clear as you think you are (bring back the wide-mouthed frog and pen exercises). I'll say "clear" if I need to, but if you're still unclear after that then you're probably losing speaker points or arguments, neither of which outweighs you getting through four more definitions on T. Conversely, if an argument is important, slowing down 10% will make me assume you meant to emphasize it.

• Improving your speaks: I think one of the key lessons we all get from debate is how to prioritize arguments, so my two favorite words are "Judge, look". When you have a mess across eight flows and you're still able to understand the macro picture and point out to the judge (a) what is happening in the debate, (b) what is important given the development of the debate and (c) why your important arguments outweigh, you're debating well. I don't mind overviews in the rebuttals IFF you're using that time to explain the larger picture of the round and tell the judge where they should be making their decision. That doesn't excuse you from doing good line-by-line.

• Tech: Please don't delay the tournament because of tech issues--I usually have a flash drive on me if needed. We consistently debate in spaces with bad wifi--this is a predictable issue.

• Shadow extending: I don't flow author names in the 1AC/1NC. The second time you refer to a card name, you better still be mentioning the warrants. By the third time I should know the author's name, but if you're bringing up a card in a third speech then it's probably important enough that "extend Smith" isn't enough.

Specific argument notes:

• Ks: Don't run Ks if you can't explain them without reading your card titles. Ks are great, but it's not fun to watch two teams try to battle over high theory they don't understand.

• Theory: I have a higher standard for what will win a debate. I have little desire to vote on 'condo bad'. Explain why it matters. As mentioned above, I highly value education impacts, on both sides.

• T: I enjoy a good T debate, but you probably won't win on just 30 seconds of T in the 2NR. Lean alllll the way in.

Otherwise, run whatever you want, and I'm always happy to discuss the round after. Finally, don't be racist, sexist, or homophobic. This is an incredibly important space for academic learning and personal growth and oppressive language destroys that structure.

Noah Hinnant

Former Debater

Speed is fine but being intentional is better than WPM... I still need to be able to understand what you're saying so I can flow it and if I can't.. well.. shrug. With that being said, I am not keen on email chains. When I first started debating, everything was on paper and would prefer to be handed a card than e-mailed. I typically won't ask for cards because if I couldn't flow it then you didn't do enough to win the point. It also makes it harder for people who don't have computers to have access to debate. Which also means that I prefer the round flow smoothly and not be held up due to tech issues. Policy action NEEDS to be substantial. I will vote for any case if it is explained well enough and is flushed out. Kritiks are welcome but as long as the advocacy is robust - I love creative thinking and original research.

·Do:

o Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

o Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

o Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

o Make it clear what the role of the ballot is. Whether it is for a plan of action or "democracy". This is key.

Don’t:

o Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another.

o Read a K you can’t explain in your own words.

Sportsmanship is key and will have an impact on your speaker points.

Open/Closed Cross Ex is up to you. I don't have a preference. But if your partner constantly asks and answers for you, they're stealing your speaker points.

Joe Karam

Attorney – Commercial Litigation

Overview:

I was a college debater and have spent the last three and a half years as a volunteer judge, fundraiser, and occasional stand-in coach for the Washington Urban Debate League.

Key Points:

§ Style: I was a flex debater and generally like and will upvote any argument, as long as it is run well.

§ Speed: I can generally handle national circuit speed, though I prefer you going at 80% of your top speed, focusing on clarity. As this is still a speech competition, I also appreciate efforts to be emotive and persuasive outside of what a debater reads in their cards. If I don’t hear/understand/flow a card, it didn’t happen. There may be instances in which I ask for the speech beforehand, but I will only use it as an occasional reference and will not read along. Normally, I’ll call cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to examine your citations.

§ Theory: I have a high threshold on theory, especially Topicality, and believe that these debates trade off with more educational, common sense arguments. I will be skeptical if a Negative team reads Topicality claiming that the Affirmative destroys Neg ground, and then follows up with 5 strong off-case arguments that link to the case.

§ Performance: I am interested in and have debated against cases that had at least some performative elements, and I have also seen quite a few such cases as a judge. Please be clear why you are performing and take a few extra seconds to explain to me why performative aspects were integrated into the case.

§ Shadow Extending: Although I do my best to flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, sometimes the speed and the difficulty of an author’s name make it difficult for me to catch them. I do not want to call up every card I miss because it unnecessarily extends the length of the debate and breaks its flow. Therefore, if you are trying to extend your evidence, do not just give me an author name. Extend evidence properly by explaining it, or I may have no idea what you are talking about.

§ Pre-dispositions: I live in the Washington D.C. area, and over most of the last 4 years, I have lived within a stones throw of the White House (not that I would ever throw a stone at the White House). While the government doesn't have the best track-record on many issues, I find generic "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I also find vague and generalized Politics arguments centered on political capital or backlash to be unpersuasive. If you run those arguments, make sure the links are not generic, and you have a strong internal link argument. Finally, I enjoy and appreciate creativity as this is intended to be a learning experience for everyone involved. I enjoy critical arguments, and will happily vote for critical affirmatives, as long as they provide a strong framework.

Notes About Technology: I do not like it when the round is delayed because of technology. E-mail chains are the devil. Use a flash drive. I always bring an extra one to the round.

1. Evidence Sharing: If you can't share evidence quickly, you shouldn't be debating on a laptop and will get low speaks in you are in a Varsity Division. (Lenient for Novice/JV). If it takes to long to share evidence, I will run your prep time.

2. Viewing Laptops/Accessibility: If you don't have a way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or printed out copies of your speech), you will get very low speaker points—this is a big accessibility question for the activity that I am very aware of as someone intimately involved in the Urban Debate League

Guaranteed Ways to Irritate Me

1. D Rules—In a vacuum, no such thing; stop looking for an easy way out. Ex. “You must always reject a team that reads arguments that violates the Constitution" or “You must reject utilitarianism/consequentialist arguments.” If you go for this without reading the appropriate framework cards, I will be sad. You will see the sadness in my eyes.

2. Debaters that are rude, racist/sexist/etc., and condescending. Just…don’t, okay? Please? (I will decimate your speaker points if you say these things intentionally.)

Specific Arguments

· Solvency: If you are the affirmative, read this. In your first speech. Please do not make me vote on Neg Presumption

· The Disadvantage: I like. Always appreciate seeing a good one from the Neg.

o Politics DA: Make sure they are well-run, researched, and up-to-date. I read a lot of current events. I will know if they are not.

· The Counterplan: I like a substantive counterplan debate. PICs are fine if they are well-researched and have a legitimate net benefit. Do not read a nonsense net benefit, ignore it, and default to theory in the 2AC. This is another thing that will make me sad.

· Procedurals/Topicality: Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately and is well-supported. Please prove abuse. Have good sources and intent to define. Slow down. Less jargon, more examples, particularly on the voters (fairness and education).

· On Case Debate: It makes me happy when you do this. The point of debate is to engage, not to ignore everything the other side says.

· The Kritik: I am a fan. I think Ks are part of a well-balanced Neg strategy. I also like critical affirmatives, so long as they are topical. If you only provide ultra-generic links or do not read an alternative, I will not likely vote on the K.

o Literature: I have read some K literature but am not familiar with everything you could possibly run (and it is unreasonable to expect me to be). Overviews and non-jargony tags are great to provide the thesis of your argument in your own words.

· Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are A) very clear what that is in your first speech, B) and why it is net beneficial.

Started coaching in 2016 for a small team in Washington D.C. As a high schooler, I was not on a debate team; however, since coaching, I have dived in to this as a way to support my team.

What I look for when I judge is that both teams address stock issues as well as ensuring that all arguments are addressed. Debaters should be knowledgeable on the topic. It should be evident that you understand the evidence and analysis that you are making. One of my pet peeves is if a debater reads evidence, but doesn't explain how it addresses the resolution.

Background:

Director of debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain: georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com

For questions or other emails: gkoo@gds.org

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Framework:

I've read and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at.

Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your Aff as offense. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA a least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved.

Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my experience because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard.

Things I like:

• Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.
• Topicality. I have no idea what this NATO topic is supposed to look like so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Affs without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
• Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense does exist and that presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
• Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are.
• Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
• I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
• Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early.

Things I do not like:

• Stealing prep, I will dock your speaks. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, the biggest way to annoy me is having dead time between speeches and prep.
• Debaters saying "skip that next card" or teams asking about stuff not read in a speech doc. It is your job to flow.
• Open cross, in my opinion it just hurts your prep time, ethos, and speaks. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
• 2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 2NC FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
• I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judges role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." Now that better debating may convince me that the I should judge in a certain way. Hence why impact calc or framework arguments are answer to ROB ROJ arguments.
• 10 off should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument.
• Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

• Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
• If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
• You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
• Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
• If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
• Kritiks in PF, go for it!

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is not a voter and going for it will wreck your ethos (and speaks). On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD: I have judged very little lincoln-douglas; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Present and Past Affiliations:

Current High School Affiliation - Head Coach and Math Teacher at the Mamaroneck High School

Former College Affiliation - Assistant Coach at the University of Michigan ('20-'21)

Former Assistant Coach - Pine Crest ('18-'21), Strath Haven ('19)

Former Debater - University of Pittsburgh ('16-'20), Qualified to NDT ('19) D7!

Former Debater - Glenbrook South ('12-'16)

-

My Email for the Chain: jakelee8771@gmail.com

HS Debaters ALSO add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

In-Depth Judging Record: View this Speadsheet (if you are into data and stuff)

-

Important Note:

Before the start of every round, each debater is going to go around to say their name, their pronouns, and one fun fact about each other. You all come to tournaments too stressed and forget to have fun at debate tournaments. Having this little icebreaker makes rounds more enjoyable since we all are here to have fun and compete in a safe, friendly environment. It does not matter if you know each other, it helps reduce the tension in the room.

No more of this "can you send a marked copy of the doc, and take out the cards that you did not read". No more, you all should be FLOWING! This is a terrible excuse for not paying attention. Any team that asks for this request, I'm going to run your prep time, the other team can stall as long as they want because you decided not to flow. I don't care if they purposely run your time to ZERO, FLOW! You have the doc in front and all you have to do is listen. If I can flow without looking at the doc, you can too!

-

Top Level:

Tech > Truth, a dropped argument on the flow is a true argument on the flow.

Will not vote on Death Good, Racism Good, Sexism Good, etc.

Explanation matters more than evidence. Cards only matter to break ties in arguments when warrants/arguments are explicitly contested.

Condo is probably fine. New affs justify condo and maybe perf con.

You are NOT allowed to insert the re-highlighting of a card. You MUST read you re-highlighting. I will not flow it

Number your arguments - Debate like Dartmouth, makes the flow so much better

Stop Calling me Judge, just say my name lol

-

NATO Topic Thoughts:

Majority of the debates this year I have judged have been clash/K rounds. I think the one thing that bothers me about these debates quite often is the topic if just forgotten and these debates become generic framework/extinction outweighs debates rather than something specific to the topic.

My stance on international fiat: I think it is bad, but a persuasive counter-interpretation can definitely change my mind. AFF this is not an auto win if you just read international fiat bad, you have to make the argument and debate it well

T-A5 is the worst argument on this topic.

Most DA's seem pretty weak right now, but I can be convinced otherwise with good evidence spin

Is there a good Biotech AFF? One team has so far shown me a good biotech on this topic.

-

Consider the Following:

1) Implicate Arguments: A lot of you are able to explain what the claim of an argument, good. Some of you are able to tell me what the warrants to the claim are, great. Barely any of you implicate why your arguments matters in the debate, oh. Yes, an argument has a claim and a warrant, but you also need an implication as to why this argument matters to the flow. Let's use the following as an example for what I mean. 95% of you would say the following: "the economy is collapsing now which leads to war, so vote neg". Okay Good that's just a claim. 4% of you would say the following: "the economy is collapsing now, wages and jobs declining, inflation rising, all means the likehood of war is high because of diversionary war, so vote neg". Okay now we got some warrants. The very 1% of you say this "the economy is declining now, the AFF's evidence does not answer our warrants about wages and jobs declining and inflation on the rise which means we win the UQ debate of the DA--this increases the likehood of war due to diversionary war tactics which none of their impact defense address which you should prevent the 2AR from making new answers--vote neg". Okay now see why this argument is just substantially better then the argument extension at the start. IF you do not tell me why I should care about this argument, or what I should even do with this argument at the end of the debate, you are making it a lot harder for me to judge the round for you.

2) Theory Debates: Please just stop reading pre-written blocks in these debates. I know you think you are "answering" the argument, but you are really not. Do Line-by-Line as you would normally do on any other flow. Just say "they say neg flex, their interpretation cannot solve neg flex because x which proves our interpretation is better". That is just so much better to listen to because it actually shows you are actively listening and thinking about your opponent's arguments in the round.

3) Warrant Comparison: The best speakers in debate not only do evidence comparison, but they also do warrant comparison. It's good that some of you really do care about evidence quality such as "this card is too old" or "their evidence is from paid off hack". Obviously implicate why that matters as directed in the subpoint above. To go a step further, you should compare your warrants to your opponents. "Their argument about jobs falling is wrong, our evidence from yesterday cites numerous charts and graphs from the government that jobs are rising, their data is from one small town in Rhode Island, prefer our evidence". This sound of argumentation just sounds so much better then just "they are wrong, jobs are rising because our card is newer". Compare and Implicate Warrants, you will get boosted speaks for doing it.

4) Framework Debates: These debates are often quite frustrating to resolve at the end of the day. To win Framework on either the AFF or NEG, you need to do impact calculus! This gets really left out in these debates and ends up being two ships passing each other. Use the language of the other team to really help me guide the debate. The other thing that annoys me that teams do not do is explaining their interpretation of debate. Both sides just breeze through this when this actually matters to me a lot as to why you resolve your own offense and why they link to your own offense. Debating and refuting each other's interpretations matters a lot and gets you a lot farther in the debate.

5) Counterplan Texts: Counterplan texts need to not be vague or incredibly short to the point where it does not make any sense as to what the counterplan is doing. Example "The USFG should develop a data strategy that promotes innovation". Okay, so what does this actually do? What is a data strategy? How does that promote innovation? If you cannot answer those questions, then you have shot yourself in the foot by reading a bad counterplan text. The counterplan text should describe what the counterplan is doing. Bad counterplan texts make you and your partner bad in cross-x.

6) Hiding ASPEC and other Tricks: It seems to always happen at Blake, but there was a proliferation of teams reading ASPEC/other small voting issues and then HIDING it. Cowards! Any team that does this, the AFF team just needs to say CX Checks and then move on, no need to justify the "new" argument. I will ONLY vote on these arguments IF they are on a SEPARATE FLOW and DEVELOPED PROPERLY in the 1NC.

7) Impact Calc???: Where did it go? A lot of people are forgetting to do impact calc? I'm not sure why since we do those fun impact calc tournaments! Please do impact calc to help with impact framing!

-

Miscellaneous:

High Schoolers - Some College Debaters you should look up to: Kelly Skoulikaris, Michael Scott, Andrew Pak, Henry Mitchell, Maya El-Sharif, Josh Harrington, and Nate Glancy

High School Coaches I agree with - Jeremy Hammond, DB, Gabe Koo, Eric Forslund, Allie Chase, Tim Lewis, Peter Susko, and Yao Yao Chen

Schools I have Judged the Most: Lexington, GBN, Calvert Hall, New Trier, Berkeley Prep, and GDS

Top 5 Favorite Topics I debated/coached (top was favorite) : Domestic Surveillance (2016), Executive Authority (2019), Transportation Infrastructure (2013), Alliances (2021), Oceans (2015)

Top 5 Least Favorite Topics I debated/coached (top was worst): Education (2018), National Health Insurance (2018), Space (2020), Latin America (2014), NATO (2022)

Old Wordings of My Paradigm can be found here on this document

-

(Old Thoughts from Previous Topics)

CJR Topic Thoughts:

The lack of to no 1AR cards being read is happening too often.

Topicality is becoming very meh to me. I have yet to hear a persuasive interpretation that does not make impossible to be aff without complaining about how being neg is too hard. Like yes being neg on this topic is probably hard, but just saying that is not persuasive to me to vote neg.

So what is the DA now since Elections is done?

Been more sympathetic to process CPs on this topic. Still needs to meet the requirements outlined below.

Why are people talking about Space Elevators on this topic?

The abolition critique is cool.

It feels really ironic that teams who have "framing contentions" do not do any framing at all. Both aff and neg are at fault for just reading cards and not "framing" anything. Please make some role of the ballot/judge or something to frame the debate if there is one.

Alliances Topic Thoughts:

Assurance and Deterrence DAs are the best on this topic. Please put these DAs on case when relevant, just makes things flow easier

Topicality debates seem interesting on this topic

Maddie Lee, lee.madeline.a@gmail.com.

Hello! I will score students more favorably for sound arguments and frequent signposting, as well as a diverse number of facts from reputable sources (either primary or secondary). Respect for your opponents is of the utmost importance; logical fallacies or ad hominem attacks will be motivation for lower scores. Speed will be a neutral factor in my decision, but if you are able to include additional arguments while clearly going quickly, that will work in your favor purely on an evidentiary volume basis. I will also score more highly for students who demonstrate active listening throughout the debate and who refine/tweak their arguments as the debate progresses in response to their opponents counterpoints. My goal in these debates is to learn from you all about these issues and for you to show all of the work you've done.

My own experience is in public forum debate on the west coast high school circuit, and I judged this circuit as well. I currently work in public policy and regularly evaluate the integrity of my colleagues arguments and positions in the workplace.

I look forward to judging and am happy to answer any questions!

Founding Board Member, WUDL (Washington Urban Debate League), 2013-current; former travel policy debate coach at Thomas Jefferson (VA), 2014-19. Debated nationally in HS and at Harvard (1990 NDT champion and Copeland Award winner) before starting a foreign policy career, including a stint in the State Department, earning a Ph.D., and have run the Washington Quarterly journal (you've probably cut or read a bunch of foreign policy cards from it) since 1998 as my full-time job.

I judged about 50+ rounds a year (now maybe 20 in WUDL), but don't teach at summer camps so better to explain topic args early in a year. In the spirit of David Letterman and Zbigniew Brzezinski (and ask a coach if you don't know who they are), here's a top 10 list of things you should know about me, or about what I believe makes you a better debater with me, as your judge:

10. I don't read speech docs along with you while you are speaking (except to check clipping); I use them as reference docs.

If I don't understand you, and it's not on my flow, it didn't happen. This is a speaking activity. Speed is fine, and I'll say "clear" if you're not.

9. Better debaters structure their speech (use #s) and label each new piece of paper (including 1AC advs) before starting to read tags/cites.

Ever listen to Obama speak? It's structured. Structuring your speech conveys the important points and controls the judges' flow (don't use "and" as that word is used in cards ALL the time). The best debaters explain arguments to the judge; they don't obscure arguments to hide them from the other team. Points will reflect that.

8. I generally prefer Affs to have plans as examples of the resolution.

I am indebted to the activity for opening my eyes over the years to the depths of racial tensions and frustration in this country, particularly among today's students, and constantly learn about them from coaches and students running these arguments well. All that said, I do intuitively believe the resolution divides ground and is vital for the long-term viability of this activity (aka I will vote on framework, but neg has to do more than say "you know old school policy debate is valuable...you did it").

7. Portable skills (including switch-side benefits) are real, and will pay off over 1-2 generations when you are trained and in charge.

What you do in this room can help train you to improve government (from inside or outside) even if it takes patience (think a generation). I am an example of that and know literally dozens of others. The argument that nothing happens because the aff doesn't actually get adopted overlooks the activity's educational value and generally feeds the stereotype that this generation demands instant gratification and can't think over the horizon. It's a process; so is progress.

I also intuitively believe teams shouldn't get the right to run an argument on both sides of the topic. The best way to challenge and sharpen your beliefs is to have to argue against them.

6. I'm not a good postmodernist/high theory judge (this includes psychoanalysis).

5. I am more likely to vote on conditionality if there are strategic contradictions.

4. Top debaters use source quals to compare evidence.

Debaters make arguments and use cards--cards don't make arguments themselves. Cards effectively serve as expert testimony, when the author knows more about the subject than you, so use the author's quals as a means of weighing competing evidence.

3. Permutations should be combinations of the whole plan and part or all of the CP or alt to test whether the CP or K is a reason to reject the Aff (aka competitive).

I've found permutation theory often painfully poorly debated with the neg block often relying on trying to outspread the 1ar not to go for perms in HS. Perms are not inherently illegitimate moving targets. Conversely, don't assume I know what "permute: do the CP" means; I find debaters rarely do. MAKE SURE THE TEXT OF A PERM IS CLEAR (careful when reading a bunch at top speed and text should be written in your speech doc for reference and is binding).

POTENTIAL UNCOMMON VIEW: I believe affs have the right to claim to adopt permutations as the option the judge is voting for (the neg introduced the CP/alt into the debate so it's not a moving target) to solve a DA and can offset the moral hazard that "you can't straight turn a CP so why not run one/more", but this must be set up in the 1ar and preferably 2ac.

Finally, I will resort to judge-kicking the CP or K if nobody tells me what to do, but somebody (before the 2ar) should.

2. Good Ks have good alts

At its core, policy debate is about training your generation to make a better world. That means plans and alts are the key to progress. I prefer not to hear generic Ks with either nihilistic (burn it down, refusal, reject the Aff) or utopian (Ivory Tower) alts. But show me a K with an alt that might make a difference? Particularly with a link to the Aff (plan specifically or as example of resolution) rather than the world? NOW we’re talkin’ ...

1. The most important thing: I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

If you win a debate on the flow, I will vote for it. Seriously. All the above are leanings, absent what debaters in the room tell me to do or what I tend to do in evenly-matched, closely contested debates. But you should do what you do best, and I will vote for the team that debates the round best. You are not here to entertain me, I am here to evaluate and, when I can, teach you.

I save this for last (#1) because it supersedes all the others.

PROCEDURAL NOTE: If you're not using an e-mail chain, prep time ends when your flash drive LEAVES your computer (or if you are on an email chain, when you save the doc) -- before that, you are compiling your speech doc and that's your prep time. I tend to get impatient if there's too much dead/failed tech time in debates.

This is a working philosophy, which I'll update periodically, so please feel free to ask me any questions and if I hear the same one/s a couple times, I'll be happy to update this.

I came back because I believe policy debate was invaluable in my education, loved the competition, learned from and started a career based on the research I did and heard (and still do learn from it and you to this day), and want to create opportunities for others to benefit from competing in policy debate. I owe my career to this activity, and other members of my family have benefited from it in many ways too. I'll do my best to make each round fun and worthwhile.

Compete, make each other better, and have fun. There's no better intellectual game. Enjoy...Let's do this...

background

Mamaroneck ‘21, Johns Hopkins '25

Add me to the chain - twl.debate@gmail.com

+0.3 speaks if you open source all of your docs and tell me.

Tech > truth, but everything needs a warrant.

I was 1a/2n.

topicality

I will default to competing interpretations.

You need an alternative to plan text in a vacuum.

policy

Tell me to judge kick.

Smart perms destroy process cps.

You can insert perm texts.

You can insert rehighlightings.

The more specific the disad, the better.

Impact turns are fun (excluding wipeout).

ks on the neg

Ks should have specific links to the plan. Pull quotes from their aff for links.

Reps links are bad.

If the other team doesn’t understand you, don’t assume I will.

Policy teams that can't answer the K deserve to lose.

k affs

Framework: Procedural fairness and clash are impacts.

I can very easily be persuaded by presumption against k affs.

If argued by the neg, k affs probably don’t get a perm.

theory

Condo is good but you can persuade me that it is not.

Neg leaning for most theory.

Will vote on conceded aspec and other theory arguments.

non-negotiables

Follow speech times, don’t ask for high speaks, don’t ask for double wins, and don’t try to destroy the game.

Georgetown '17

Stuyvesant '13

You should debate what you're best at. To me, the game of debate is more important than any particular argument. I think it's most important that debaters try to write the ballot in their final rebuttal and leave as few issues unresolved as possible. 

While I am doing work for Georgetown this year, I'm probably somewhat less familiar with the topic than you are, so please try to be clear and explain specific terms/acronyms. 

Be respectful of your opponent, partner, and judge. 

Counterplans

I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states. Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. 

Disasdvantages

"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical. 

Topicality 

Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic. 

Kritiks 

Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well thought out case arguments. 

Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels

As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient. 

masking is the considerate thing to do. please wear one. if you need one, i will have extras, so just ask me. i will forget at times as well, don't be afraid to tell me to mask if you see me without one. if the debate is online, i do not care if your cameras are off but verbal/chat cues to make sure everyone is ready would be nice.

i am the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of that, i'm double majoring in public health and black studies at johns hopkins university. i'm also a researcher in asian american critical theory with emphases on pedagogy and afro-asian history. my current projects are about asian identity debate and the history of aapi communities in baltimore. if you ever want to discuss these strategies, please reach out to me! irrelevant but also important, i am tim do's league of legends gf.

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com for the email chain, the subject should indicate what i'm judging. contact simdebates@gmail.com for other inquiries. do not email either asking for speech documents or email chains, they will not be sent to you.

i have hardly judged a debate that i haven't before, and i like surprises. debates on both side of the argumentative spectrum are so stale and innovation in this activity is so rare. you should push the limits and read new literature! i care infinitely more about form than content, but don't take that to mean i vote algorithmically. debate is a communication activity and you should be working to persuade me. oratorical skills are a fundamental component of form. seriously -- there is nothing more irritating than spreading through blocks that you whip up when you hear a trigger word. debate has turned into a game of document compilation and that is simply not a style i reward. if you can give a coherent speech with nothing but your paper flow and make eye contact, i will give you nothing less than a 29. evidence comparison and true engagement with their warrants are necessary. you need to give me a way to evaluate competing claims besides seeing what is conceded on the flow by the end of the round. not doing so is lazy debating and will result in me being a lazy judge -- do not make me have to intervene. in a lot of rounds, the role of the judge/ballot becomes irrelevant because neither team uses it to frame out their opponent's arguments or weigh. every bit that you extend in speeches should matter at the end of the round and you need to tell me why.

i care about proper technical extensions and will not "shadow extend" for you. yes, this means you need overviews and jumping into the line-by-line and neglecting a core component of your argument in a speech means it is a non-starter for the next one. for example, it does not matter if they did not clash with your solvency in the 1nc! the warrants for it must be extended into the 2ac onwards or i'll rip up my case flow. i am not the judge for you if you neglect extensions and world building. if i cannot explain your solvency back to you at the end of the round, i'm not voting for it. plain and simple. call me interventionist, call me a presumption hack, i don't care.

i do not have very many specific thoughts on arguments since i find that debaters do not care what they are and will read what they wish. as long as you can resolve clash, implicate your warrants, and tell me how to write my ballot, i'll vote for whatever strategy.

i reserve the right to stop the round. do not make me have to stop the round. if you read the above and you go "wow this is my time to break out my "racism good" arguments," you need to get a better coach or read more books or something. i am not very tolerant to unabashed violent behavior and that intolerance will be reflected on my ballot.

for public forum: i'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge in this format. if you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, or you don't send a doc prior to your speech with evidence you are about to read, i will immediately vote for your opponents. if both of you happen to be cheaters, i will pretend i am a parent judge and vote based on who sounds the best and vibes. i might even vote for the team i just simply agree with the most. if you do not want to act like debaters, i will not treat you like one and this is now a speech event.

for ld: pretend you are in policy debate. i don't know what tricks are and i don't want to know. kant is a person, that's as much as i know. i will not exert much energy after speeches are over to go back and try to understand your arguments, have strong explanations if you do not want to pretend you are in policy. if i don't know how to judge your round, i'll roleplay as a parent.

i would never pref me above a 3. maybe not even above a 4. i am not a good judge.

no issue if you read cards from the gds wiki or those of my old teams. copy and pasting cards from identity affsthat are deeply personal with heart and soul poured into it and then deleting the initials off the citation is rude, be it mine or my kids'. i'm not one to be protective over cards, but ripping identify affirmatives without going through the effort to recut the cards is a odd and not giving credit more so.

i consider debate a rigorous academic activity, but we all need better vibes. just relax a bit. i promise if u try to find joyful things every weekend that are not dependent on the ballot (usually in the form of finding a good restaurant to doordash from or making a new friend), tournaments become infinitely more fun. league of legends is also very fun, so if you make league analogies or jokes during the round i will give u nothing less than a 29. unless u are making jokes about league being bad, then you will get nothing more than a 27. i'm a support/adc main and i'm a ~ lux/ashe ~ otp. champions i do not like: draven, darius, teemo, tristana, karma, qiyana, janna, kai'sa, blitzcrank, zilean, heimderdinger. pro players i like: meiko, keria, gumayusi, berserker, danny, vulcan, kanavi, jackeylove, corejj, philip. the better and more specific the jokes, the higher the speaks. 2010-style memes accepted but not preferred. as much as i would like, i cannot accept boosting bribes in exchange for the ballot. if all of ur taglines are league of legends metaphors/analogies i will give you a 30.

If there is an email chain please add me: nwdebatefm@gmail.com

Background

Debated policy for three years for Northwestern High School as part of the Washington Urban Debate League.

General

Speed is fine but i'll make sure to let you know if you're unclear. No penalty for tech issues but please communicate what is going wrong to the room.

Racism, anti-blackness, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia, misgendering and other forms of violence are an immediate L and 0.

Topicality

Aff - Counter-interpretation cards are critical. Tell me why your interpretation is better or neutral for the topic. Examples of what ground the aff team loses under their interpretation are critical. Treat your reasons to prefer as impacts and make comparisons in your rebuttals.

Neg - Make sure to draw a clear distinction of what the the aff doesn't meet. Examples of what affs are topical under your interpretation are super helpful. Treat your standards as impacts and explain why they matter.

Disads

Neg - I enjoy listening to disads. I like politics disadvantages however make sure your uniqueness evidence is up to date. Often disad debates lead to both sides having a risk of extinction so please make it easier for me and provide impact calc in your final rebuttal.

Aff - Same as the neg, evidence quality matters the most and please do impact calc in the final rebuttal

Counterplans

Neg - I enjoy listening to counterplan debates. Make your net-benefit story clear by the block and explain how the CP prevents it or doesn't link.

Aff - Too many aff teams rely on perms on cp debates. Make sure to explain solvency deficits and how your aff and only your aff prevents your impacts.

Kritiks

Neg - I am not familiar with as much K literature but I am open to listening to kritiks and becoming educated on them. Kritiks that use links as disads to the aff are especially persuasive to me. Make sure to explain the alt a little more to me as I may not be familiar with your authors and their theories.

Aff - I think the aff has to do more than tell me I should weigh the aff. Make sure to defend the process of policy-making and scenario planning.

T - USFG/K Affs

AFF - I enjoy listening to K affs that have a relation to the topic. I am probably not as familiar with your theory or authors so please make sure to simplify it for me during your final rebuttals. I never read a K aff when I debated but I believe there is value in challenging the resolution.

Neg - I was often debating T against K affs. If you read T - USFG make sure it's more than "state good" or "policy making" good arguments. Explain the impacts of moving away plan-focused debate.

Theory

I lean towards condo good. Agency CP's are probably legit. Some K alternatives could probably be utopian and vague. Plan texts can also often be vague. Just make sure to prove to me what ground/education you've lost.

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1999. I attended my first debate camp that year. I returned to camp in 2000 and 2001. I competed in high school from 2000-2002. My sister was my debate partner. I am a proud graduate of Baltimore City College, class of 2002. I have participated in both the Baltimore Catholic Forensics League (BCFL) and the Baltimore Urban Debate League (BUDL). I also competed in many national invitational tournaments throughout the years. I competed in an array of other events in high school. I was successful as a competitor, as I received numerous awards, praise, and accolades. I won the majority of my debate rounds. I also taught at a debate camp for BUDL in 2006.

Since 2002, I have judged at local tournaments for both leagues and national tournaments. I also judge at various elementary and middle school league tournaments too.

I have been described as a liberal judge. I try to let the students dictate the round based on their argumentation and preferences. I like all of the arguments. I encourage every student to run their arguments well-structured and organized. I can handle speed, spreading, and all argument types. I like off-case arguments, such as Kritiks, disads, counter plans, topicality, etc. I am very open-minded. My rounds are usually fun and they can be a bit unpredictable, as my motto is "it is all good." I really like it when the competitors are able to demonstrate an understanding of the arguments they are running.

I do provide my email address on every ballot. It is listed below for your convenience. My ballots are usually detailed based on the flow of the round. I flow (take notes) nearly the entire round. I believe that we can all stand to learn from one another. I am also an advocate of research. Analytical arguments are good too. I encourage students to be as organized as possible for each round as well as prepared.

These are some of the key things that I notice at each tournament: students do not flow (take notes) as well as they could, which leads to lots of dropped arguments. There is not a lot of clash and refutation within the rounds. People don’t always number their arguments or present their positions in an organized manner. As a result, as a judge, I have to figure it out to the best of my ability. Since the usage of laptops is prevalent, students are unprepared should there be a technological issue (for example no WiFi). My advice is to always have a backup plan (hotspots, USB flash drives, paper copies, Ethernet cables, broadband devices, etc). Anticipate everything prior to the round (yes, this might be my OCD talking). I am also an advocate of students using all of their speech time.

At recent tournaments, I have judged in other events as needed, such as Student Congress, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum. I have also judged the various speech events at some of the tournaments as a fill-in judge. I am pretty flexible as I love speech and debate.

I try to give back to the program that did so much for me during my youth. As an extremely introverted and quiet student who was a troubled child, speech and debate has helped me to come out of my shell. It is where I found my voice. Speech and debate have molded me to be the studious and detail-oriented person I am today. I utilize the skills that I acquired on a regular basis. I am a firm advocate of the speech and debate program.

I can be reached via email at Lisadebate02@gmail.com. I hope this helps as well as provides you with some insight into my background, experience, and philosophy. Thank you for your time. Enjoy your day. Best wishes and good luck. I do save my flows for a period of time in case I receive an email. You can also email me about my college experience/advice as many students have. I am very responsive and I try to respond as soon as possible, which is usually the same day.

I debated at Mary Washington and coached at Wake Forest, then for several national circuit high school teams. I have coached a DC UDL team for the last four years and judge around 100 debates per year. This season (2020-21) I have judged at Kentucky and GDS.

Overall, I will vote for the team that does the best debating. But I do have certain predispositions. That doesn't mean a good team can't overcome them - I've voted for lots of arguments I don't love over the years. But it is harder to win my ballot if you depend on those arguments. A few examples:

(1) Kritik Affs that are not centered on the resolution:

**You should probably strike me.**

I have voted for many K Affs over the years, but it's easier to get me to vote Neg.

Negative arguments I find interesting/compelling:

- Disads can link to the Aff advocacy. Does the Aff advocate universal gun control? That would require legislative action and would likely be extremely controversial/unpopular with a huge part of the electorate. May link to Politics. And so on.
- Existence of a Topical Version of the Aff means I vote Neg: I believe most K Aff teams are trying, at least in part, to avoid debating Disads and Counterplans. If the Neg can show me there is a policy or topical action that would allow for the same criticism or Alt, I'm much more likely to vote Neg.
- Forum selection: I'm still puzzled about why Policy debate is the right space to advocate non-policy actions. If you show up to a tennis tournament, don't expect to win because your Rook took the Queen. Tennis is not Chess, and Policy debate is about ... policy.

Merely saying the above won't win a Negative ballot. A good Aff can overcome these arguments. But I am predisposed to them.

(2) Kritiks on the Neg:

I'm much more open to Neg K's than non-topical K Affs. I have voted Neg on every K imaginable, even though many of them seem incredibly generic and frankly dumb. A few are topic-specific and much more compelling. Arguments that interest me include:

- Is the Alt a speech act or a counterplan? Just because the Neg advocates an Alt, I don't assume it will happen. It's the Neg's burden to explain how voting Neg in a debate advances their Alt worldview.
- Is "serial policy failure" an actual solvency takeout? Most of time time it is not. Neg teams should explain why AND HOW the Aff's flawed assumptions/process actually takes out their specific solvency mechanism. "State action always fails" is deeply unpersuasive to me. For example, if the Aff has credible evidence that US arms sales lead to human rights violations, generic "state action bad" claims are unlikely to persuade me that banning the arms sales can't solve. Of course that action may create other problems - and that's very debatable.

(3) Policy Arguments:

I like Disads with specific links and CPs with specific solvency. I'm totally open to Agent CPs and disads, and believe Politics DAs, while generic, are essential to Policy debate.

I believe a DA can have zero risk, either because there is no specific link, no uniqueness, or no internal link. All of these things should be explained and supported with evidence and analysis. I pay attention to dates on Uniqueness cards. If the 1NC is reading uniqueness evidence from Summer 2020, you should probably lose.

On the Policy Aff side, a lot of 1ACs lack internal links to impacts, and 1AC cards are highlighted down to almost nothing. There is value in pointing these things out.

(4) Other issues:

- ****MAKE ANALYTICAL ARGUMENTS. These are almost extinct, but I will vote on good ones.****
- Speed is fine. If I say "clearer" then you should SLOW DOWN.
- Organization of speeches is critical. Jumping around the flow = bad speaker points.
- Be civil. Don't be mean or overly harsh. Don't make the round personal.

Here are the answers to questions that you probably have.

Who are you?

Right into the existential questions, it seems...

I debated for 4 years in high school and then for 4 years in college (at Emory). I coached at the college level for about a year after that, but I've been on a competitive-circuit-hiatus for many (nearly 10) years, mostly working with various UDLs.

Why are you here?

Question I ask myself pretty regularly.

I'm here to enable others to participate in an activity that I find valuable. I think that activity should be inclusive, educational, and (to the extent this is possible) "fair".

Describe your judging paradigm.

I do my best not to impose my opinions on your debate. Make smart arguments; tell me what I'm voting for/against. Try to do that in very specific terms, using words that are familiar to people who haven't read Of Grammatology.

But, everyone has predispositions. What are yours?

I agree. Anyone who tells you that they can check their opinions at the door is lying. Here are some things that I generally believe to be true:

- There's value to life. Death is bad.

- Empiricism is a good way to understand the world.

- My ballot does nothing except decide who won the debate.

- Actual abuse is a much more compelling theory impact than potential abuse.

- The truth claims of the aff can't be thoroughly tested if the aff isn't topical.

- "Just read your K aff when you're neg" is rarely a good argument.

- Good evidence > Good analytic > Bad evidence > Bad analytic

- Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive.

All of these, obviously, are debatable. Teams have won (and will continue to win) that they are not true in front of me. However, these teams have fought (and will continue to fight) uphill battles to get there.

How do you feel about speed?

It's been a hot minute since I've been active on the national circuit at either the high school or college levels. I suspect that's made me less able to follow incredibly fast debates. My suggestion, therefore, is the same suggestion I'd give to any debater -- if there's something you absolutely need me to have on my flow and understand in order to vote for you, slow down a bit. Debate is a communication activity. I encourage you to communicate.

How do you feel about critical arguments?

These were never my cup of tea, as a debater. I impact turned the K vastly more than I went for it. As a consequence, I hypothesize that I am "better" at evaluating policy-style arguments. All that said, as a judge, I've grown to appreciate a well-executed critique. Unfortunately, I've also become a bit of a K-snob. A well-executed critique is great; a poorly executed critique is painful. You need to contextualize the criticism vis-a-vis your opponent's arguments. Please, don't assume that I understand the lingo; I have a vague concept of what "the liberal legal subject", "afro-pessimism", and "ressentiment" are, but not enough that I will understand how the concepts apply in the debate without you explaining them.

How do you feel about theory?

Do what you gotta do. If you can avoid it, probably go for substance. But, some stuff is legitimately bad for debate and the team doing it should stop. The best way for me to make that happen is to vote against them on theory.

What can I do to improve my speaker points?

Make smart arguments. Be funny. Be nice. Don't steal prep. Make paperless debate run efficiently. (I am old enough to have debated with paper, so I will always be thinking about how much time paperless debate seems to waste.)

Oh, and I love a good impact turn debate. De-dev, ice age, hegemony -- I'm so here for it. I will happily give double-30s to a team that goes 0-off and straight impact turns the aff.

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. This paradigm will provide my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow.

I graduated from Mamaroneck High School in 2019. I debated there for three years and coached the team during the criminal justice reform and water resources topics. I am currently a grad student at Georgetown and work for the debate team. My good debate opinions come from Ken Karas.

NATO/emerging tech - medium topic knowledge. Worked at the Georgetown camp, but haven't thought about the topic much since since then. I did international relations for undergrad, so I know a little about NATO stuff. My graduate degree involves a little bit of emerging tech, particularly the biotech side of things.

Legal Personhood - low topic knowledge. I haven't judged a round on the topic yet. I have watched a couple of Georgetown rounds and know the stuff we have been reading and researching, but haven't paid attention to what other teams are doing yet.

Note for college debaters: this is my first year involved with college debate. I have extensive experience judging and coaching high school debate, but keep in mind that I am new to college debate. Use my paradigm as a guide, but understand that it was written with high school debate in mind. I will adjust things on here as the season progresses and I learn what is relevant to include for college debate.

Put me on the email chain - eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com - email title should be "Tournament + Year - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team" [Example: Mamaroneck 2022 - Round 1 - Mamaroneck RS v. Mamaroneck LS]

(!!) PLEASE open source all your evidence after the debate. If you tell me before I submit my ballot (try to do this right after the 2AR since sometimes I vote really quickly), you get +0.2 speaker points. I will also look at everyone's wikis before the round starts, and good wikis will receive between +0.1 and +0.3 points depending on how good the disclosure is.

Call me Eleni, not judge.

Be respectful.

Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

Please tell me how to write my ballot in the rebuttals.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say "clear" three times before I stop flowing. Use your best judgement for online debate. Send analytics if possible because audio issues in online debate can cause me to miss important arguments otherwise. Cowards delete analytics. I flow on paper, so keep that in mind too.

Keep my flow clean. Give the order when you finish prep/when you are sending the docs. Give an order to case.

Cross examination is so important. You can gain key offense here, so do not waste your time or mine.

I am a pretty expressive judge. I tend to nod along if I think you are making a good argument. I also will look confused if I cannot find the argument on my flow or if I do not think the argument is good for you. I will look annoyed if you aren't making fully fleshed out arguments or if you are making my flow messy. I will laugh if you are funny. See my next point for ways to be make me smile for the rest of the debate.

Being funny will give you good speaks. Jokes about my friends/any current or former Mamaroneck or Georgetown debater or coach will give you +0.2 or +0.3 speaker points depending on how good the joke is. Bad jokes will be -0.1 or -0.2 points depending on how bad the joke is.

Do not ask for a 30 or high speaks. That's not how this works. You get what you get and you don't get upset.

I adjust speaker points based on the division and quality of competition. I generally start at a 28.5 and move up or down from there. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping or cross-reading will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously as I have caught a couple debaters doing so and promptly reported the situation to tab and gave L 1 to the debater at fault.

Violence and threats of violence will result in L 1.

Please remember to mark cards. I try to follow along to read the evidence, but it can be hard if you mark or skip a lot of cards.

For my younger debaters, limited tag-teaming/open cross ex is fine. I prefer closed cross ex, but you do you. Do not take over your partner's cross ex or let them take over yours.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and yours is better without comparing warrants.

Re-highlighting evidence :) [Read the re-highlighting. Do not just insert it because I will not flow it]

I prefer that you have a plan text. If you don't, at least be somewhat related to the topic and have an explicit advocacy statement.

Protecting the 2NR >

Aff gets to weigh the case unless they take a big L on framework. I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout or warming good.

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. Intrinsic perms are fun, and negative teams should do more than just theory to answer them. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I like topicality debates, but they often become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum. Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

I will vote/have voted on conceded aspec. BUT, aspec (or other procedurals) hidden on non-topicality flows or unformatted in the speech doc will cause you to lose speaker points.

Condo is good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. That being said, I haven't voted for condo bad yet and doubt I will unless it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow and it's 3-4+ condo.

For other theory, I am probably also neg leaning. Theory debates are not fun to resolve, so please do not make me evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, BUT you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I am also a good judge for education.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to win specific solvency and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am most familiar with the basic Ks like capitalism and security. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have involved teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Your explanation is key. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often.

My ballot in clash rounds is usually on framework on the K or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates has mostly focused on aff vs alt solvency.

I am Unique Palmer and the team captain of the Towson University Debate Team. I debated four years at Baltimore City College as a krikal debater. I often ran race and gender centered arguments and will continue to do such in my next three years in college debate. I have very few prefs:

1. I believe in the burden of proof for the aff and neg if there's an alternative. Don't be inclined to use debate lingo and statistics, especially if you don't use the word correctly.

2. Win the meta level of the debate. Big picture debates are cleaner.

3. IF YOU ARE DEBATING ANY THEORY, please relate it to real world context and explain solvency clearly. If its unclear to you how you solve, don't run it. If its unclear to me how you solve, I won't vote for it.

4. Respect pronouns. My preferred pronouns are she/her.

5. Don't post round me. I will debate my reasoning back to you and win.

6. You don't have to spread to win with me in the back. You can if you'd like but make sure you're clear. 

I flow on paper and take notes speech by speech to give individual comments at the end. 

If you have questions about any of my paradigm or college debate in general, please email me at Upalme1@students.towson.edu

Hi! My name is Allison Pickett, and I am a former debater, coach, and institute instructor. Most of my experience is with LD, but I also did extemp and congress. LD was TOC national circuit, extemp and congress were largely local and regional; all of this was "a long time ago." (By the way, though I do something different now, I was a public high school teacher for several years.)

I am policy debate "familiar," but not a policy debate expert. Probably judged about 50-75 policy rounds at local and regional levels at this point. When competing, I was a medium to fast LDer, but with more time and distance, I prefer slower rounds -- fewer, better, and more substantive areas of clash rather than everything on the page. I can handle medium speed, but top speed policy is genuinely lost on me. I can probably flow 80% of it, but if you want me to track dialogues across the round, taking the edge off is a smart call.

What does this mean in practical terms?

1--I'd rather see well-explained responses on a handful of issues than line by line coverage on every issue. But don't drop a key issue just because you don't think you can win it -- acknowledge it and emphasize something else.

2--A card alone is not a sufficient answer to me -- quote wars aren't enough; I want to know what you -- the debater -- have to say.

It is very important to me that all participants have a positive, supportive in round experience. Principled competition and spirited engagement are good; rude one-upping and intimidation are unequivocally bad. Though everyone won't agree with me on this, I believe it is everyone's responsibility to create the opportunity for a positive experience for each participant before any counting of wins, losses, and points. I'm far more focused on the person you reveal yourself to be versus the competitor you want to prove you are.

If you have any questions, please ask!

BACKGROUND:

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

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

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

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

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High School Policy Specifics:

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

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

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

High School LD Specifics:

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

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

NFA LD Specifics:

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

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

In Depth Stuff:

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

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 11/20/21)

We still exist in a world of COVID. If this changes, I will update this part of my paradigm. You should plan to wear a mask when you aren't speaking - even if the tournament or your coach doesn't force you to. You are welcome to take it off while you are speaking, but please put it back on when you finish your speech. If anyone in the room (either team, a spectator, another judge, etc.) asks you to wear a mask while you are speaking then you should. I will have my mask on the entire round. This is an issue of safety. If you are asked to wear a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give.

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

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: aubrey.semple@successacademies.org

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (Present)

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-2019)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director - New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - July 2020)

Director of Debate - Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (August 2020 - Present)

Debater Background
New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
Paul Robeson High School (New York Urban Debate League) (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Policy Short Version:

** 12/1/21 - 2021 NY FALL FACE OFF UPDATE**

This will be my first tournament on the water protections topic and my first time judging remote in a while so I ask that you prioritize clarity over speed as I will be flowing on paper and if I can't catch your arguments because I can't hear you then those arguments will not be evaluated in my decision.

I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I grow older in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due to these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot fails to explain what your argument is and not tell me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex Kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that make no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well-thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the ongoing mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the ones you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

David Trigaux

Former Debater (HS+College), increasingly old / experienced coach 15+ years now, Director of the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

Summary:
I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I judge a lot of rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates.

I work with 500+ students per season, ranging from brand new MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community, accessibility is a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship and strategies as presented to me in round.

I have some slight preferences (see below), but do your best, be creative, and I am excited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now). 80% Speed + Emotive is always better than squeezing in that last card or two.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well.
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
• Performance: I have coached a few performative cases, and find myself more excited about them....when there is a point to the performance. Spreading poetry and never talking about it again doesn't qualify. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.
• Shadow Extending: I literally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here, developing the fundamentals and trying to extend something even if it isn't perfect is important.
• Email Chains: I don't often look at email chains during the round unless you are particularly fast or unclear. This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.
• About "the State": I was born and live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues. This has shaped a pre-disposition that governance of some kind is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specifics and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
• Creativity + Scholarship: I heartily reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research. Be clever, do something I haven't heard before. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads you can't contextualize) Go do some research!

Don't / Pet Peeves:

1. Be a douchebag--I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. There is a racialized history of erasure and abuse of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible. If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, and complain to your coach. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person. This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot, many of our debaters still use paper files.
4. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by a coach who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
5. Multi-Minute Overviews: Enough Said
6. Death Good: This is an objectionable school of argumentation that usually has some nasty racial undertones. Don't be a troll, get a better strategy.
7. Intentionally Troll Affs: If you just want to demonstrate how good you are that you can make up nonsense and win anyway, strike me. There should be a point to what you say which contributes to our understanding of the world and change somehow.

In the Weeds on Specific Argument Structures:

Do: Better Speaks, increase likelihood of winning the round

Don’t: Worse speaks, decrease likelihood of winning the round

Disadvantages:

· I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ Research! Cut Updates! Quote a card from this week! I am a huge sucker for new evidence and post-dating, and will bury you in speaker points

§ Creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§ Read an Elections DA after the election is over

§ Not know when an election is

§ Be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs.

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily, enjoy C-SPAN, many of my best friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

· Counterplans:

· I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).

§ Clearly explained net benefit stories.

§ Questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) that are supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§ Forget to perm.

§ Faking a net benefit story

§ Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

· Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively. If you go into the average round hoping to win on Condo, strike me.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Have qualified evidence and intent to define

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations

o Don’t:

§ Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially if this isn't a Varsity round

· Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

§ Make fun, non-problematic Impact Turns

o Don’t:

§ Concede the case for no reason

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or repeating warrants already in the 1AC

· Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater, and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, or a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ -Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words or one that can’t articulate why it is being discussing a competitive forum or what my roll listening to your words is.

§ Generic Links. See note about "The State" above

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Security, Cap, Fem, Anti-Blackness, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech

David.trigaux@urbandebate.org

Public Forum: (Stolen from Sim Low, couldn't have said it better) I'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. I'll be grumpy, and tell you why PF was created as a result of white flight and the American pursuit of Anti-Intellectualism far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF). If you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you happen to ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, and vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I agree with more. I also might extend my RFD to the length of a policy round to actually develop some of the possibilities of your arguments. Without academic integrity, this is a Speech event and will be judged accordingly.

coleweese1@gmail.com

4 years of high school debate (18-22), am no longer debating.

Zero topic knowledge, err on the side of maximum explanation.

Top:

Tech over truth, but truer arguments are easier to win. Any argumentative preferences I list below speak to which arguments I find more true/intuitively persuasive than others. Preferences are certainly not set in stone and I will be swayed by good debating.

My flow is the most important determinant of who I vote for. I will vote on dropped arguments, even if they are quick. At the same time, I will not vote for arguments that I don't have flowed even if you think you made them. I will read evidence, but I will only read evidence that is extended through the end of the round. I will give more weight to evidence that is explained more fully.

Speaks:

I try to keep an average of 28.5 and am not afraid to give low points.

Policy v K:

I find it easier to understand policy arguments and was policy in high school, but am definitely willing to vote for Ks on the neg and think they are strategic. I'm a little less willing to vote for K-affs, but will do it.

Framework/T-USFG:

I am most persuaded by fairness impacts, but if you feel more comfortable with others, feel free to go for those. Interpretations are important to me. I feel like judges often find a middle ground between an aff's framework interp and a neg's counterinterp, I will not do this.

T:

People don't go for reasonability enough. I also think predictability outweighs limits.

Theory:

I am more likely to vote on theory than your average judge. Default position is that condo is good, and judge kick is an extension of that, but can obviously be convinced otherwise.

Misc:

Don't spread through analytics and be clear.

I think people let vague plan writing off too easily. If the plan text could be interpreted as something other than what the aff thinks it does, that's probably a solvency deficit.

I would prefer you read rehighlightings, but don't care enough to penalize you if you insert them.

Might be a hot take, but I think the perm double bind is fire.

New affs probably don't justify neg cheating.

I’m Zach, freshman debater at Georgetown.

Yes, I want to be on the chain: zinobzach@gmail.com

TLDR: Anything is fine if you stay big picture, tell me what the central question of the debate is and how I should evaluate it.

Long Thoughts:

I am here because I wanna judge good debates. I don't care what you read as long as you think it's you doing your best. That being said, I have some thoughts that could be useful: I tend to read the K and am familiar with most K lit bases (primarily "high theory" if it means anything to you), but will vote on anything as long as you win your offense. DON’T CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY OR OVERADAPT! I’m just making you aware of how I tend to debate, but will vote for the team that wins.

T/Theory:

Condo is fine until I look annoyed, then 2A’s are invited to go for it. I think perf con is the biggest independent reason to reject a team, especially if you’re reading a K aff. Topicality debates bore me and I’m quick to vote on reasonability. I think critical theory args are cool but you have to impact out your offense as much as possible.

Case Debate/Impact Turns:

LOVE THIS. I love when the neg talks about the aff, challenges their impact directly, challenges their advantages, it’s literally my favorite thing. From death good to Dedev, the impact turn is definitely one of my favorite kinds of debates. I think 2NRs/2ARs here should be smarter and sit on the bigger picture arguments, instead of extending six pieces of evidence on four separate issues that don’t really matter to the debate more broadly. Especially against K affs, I think impact turning their method (resiliency bad, IDpolitics bad, party bad) and presumption are really underutilized.

DA/CPs:

2NR/2AR need to write my ballot. I understand most of what is going on, but need you to do the work on what that means for the world of the aff. Impact calc is a MUST. Know that I have not been involved in a lot of these debates so I am a little out of my comfort zone judging them. That being said, explain what’s happening at the important parts and be clear as to what is winning you the debate and you’ll get my ballot.

FW Vs. K Affs:

Aff: More offense. Counterinterps rarely do much and if they do you have to explain them to me. What does your model of debate look like? How does it resolve their offense? How does it resolve yours? I am reluctant to vote on “they excluded our aff/scholarship/position” type arguments if there is a warranted TVA or switch side claim in the 2NR (not just a random extension, but contextual defense), I think that these exclusion type args are substituted for offense against their actual framework claims. It is very easy to garner offensive turns on most of the shitty truth testing/cede the political turns that no negative team will actually go for and you can now force them to have to defend. Just win your offense and why it outweighs.

Neg: Don’t change your strategy for me. If you like going for fairness, go for fairness. If you go for movements, go for movements. But know that I need a lot more impact explanation if you go for a framework arg that isn’t something to do with education and political engagement. I tend to find “they also rely on fair judging” and “debate is a game” as annoying args with no real purpose by the end of the debate. My biggest piece of 2NR advice is to flow the 1AR closely. K teams almost never do enough 1AR work on framework and you can take advantage of 1AR drops/warrantless arguments to make most of their offense go away. Win why your offense turns the aff or their offense, and talk about the aff as much as possible.

Ks on the Neg:

Neg: Mostly read kritiks but it means I’ll have a pretty high threshold to vote on it-you have to explain the theory and can’t expect me to vote on “they dropped ressentiment, ontology, information is dissuasive, etc.” without any further warranted explanation of what that means for the debate. I think people underestimate the benefit of reading one off. I also think K teams have most of their trouble on the alternative, explaining the alternative, or winning that it’s enough to overcome deficits in framework. As far as the 2NR goes, you should try to give some kind of judge direction, write my ballot if you can. You can use framework to overcome problems with your alt, but I’m hesitant to completely moot an aff based on a dropped FW DA that hasn’t been impacted out.

Aff: Stick to your guns. Most of these Ks try to distract you from talking about what you want to talk about (your aff), so use it more. Your advantages are also offensive reasons why most of their theory isn't contextually true. Use the 1AC more. I’m not talking about adding a bunch of framing cards to the bottom, but instead you should use the advantages, impacts, and value statements behind your aff as offense against the K instead of links. This only works if your advantages are good, though. I think terror and disease advantages are terrible against the kritik and generally K teams have a very easy time answering them.

KvK Debate:

Hinges almost completely on the perm. I’d almost recommend negatives kick the alt in the 2NR if you’re winning enough offense and turns case analysis. “No Perms in Method Debates” is an arg that isn’t super convincing but 1ARs almost always drop or mishandle it. Aff perms are broken in these debates and need to be very thoroughly addressed by the neg. That being said, I love these debates even if they are hard to evaluate. The brunt of your work on the aff and neg should be offensive reasons why the perm is or isn’t true.

Ethics:

--- Do not clip. if you don't know what that means, it refers to representing that you read evidence, or parts of evidence, that you didn't. It's cheating.

---"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 > 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. Where that line is is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Feel free to email to ask me anything before or after the round or any clarifying questions about this paradigm.