UPDATE: FEBRUARY 2024

Include me on the email chain: Irvinalvarado@outlook.com

It’s been over a decade since I was last active in this activity. To put this into context it means that if you’re currently a high school senior, the last time I judged a debate round you were in second grade (and you weren’t even old enough to enroll in school if you are a freshmen). This has certain implications for you:

First, I am verbally/vocally out of practice – this means i may have trouble with understanding spreading and/or remembering the meaning of certain debatery jargon right off the top of my head,

And Second, technically/tactically—I have not flowed any debates in a very long time and I am old. This means I might not write as fast as you might be able to speak. NOTE: this does *not* mean you need to go slow In front of me or that you can’t spread at all – you can –what it *does* mean is that if you notice my hands are starting to cramp while I am trying to flow your speech, maybe slow it down just a little.

*Background*

I debated for two years in high school and three in college and coached/judged high school (as well as a few rounds of college) debate on and off for three years. I started debating in high school for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League where I learned how to debate and argue “traditionally” or “straight up”. I finished my high school debate career in the Octas of the NAUDL Championship Tournament. Once graduating high school, I began my college debate career debating for CSU, Fullerton where I transitioned into more “critical” modes of debate, mainly focusing on criticisms based on sex/gender, race, as well as performance based arguments. I also debated for Weber State University in Ogden, UT where my research and argumentation interests gravitated towards both high theory post-modern critical analysis as well as stand-point location race and whiteness arguments. I ended my career at Fresno State University where I focused largely on critique largely based on radical queer theory (particularly queer negativity – odds are you’ve probably heard about me if you’ve heard about that one college debater reading the AIDS Good AFF).

NOTE:

While it is no secret the debate community is more polarized now than it has ever been, don’t for one second let my debate careers argumentative evolution trick you into thinking that I am some critical debate hack who you can file away in your “check in” folder – doing so is a disservice to you as a debater and to me as a critic; I don’t think one style of debate is better than the other. You won’t get my ballot just because you read a K in front of me if you debate poorly. Put simply:

· If you’re a project/performance/k debater – I’m with you.

· If you’re a traditional/roleplaying/policy debater – I’m with you.

I’ll enjoy a good politix/xo debate as much as a one-off K debate any day.

What I’m trying to say is that you shouldn’t feel obligated to change or Taylor your strategy because of me. I loathe the way judges and coaches who’s days as debaters have long since been over continue to try and make the activity continue to revolve around them; debate shouldn’t be about me and what I like but about the current debaters themselves; read what you want, argue how you want – I’ll do my best to judge you to the best of my ability.

*SPECIFICS*

AFFIRMATIVES:

Traditional AFF’s: Run em. Love big economy/hege impacts. Have solid link/internal link chains and come decked out with overviews for each speech that extend/explain your case.

Critical AFF’S: Love em. One thing I will say, though, is I usually prefer a critical affirmative which has at least some relation to the resolution, meaning: if you’re going to run a critical AFF (whatever variation of), try not to just get up and read something completely random. Instead, read critical affirmatives that criticize the topic, have specific topic links, as well as solid reasons which merit justifying a critical affirmative.

FRAMEWORK:

Framework: I’m a little iffy about framework debates. On one hand, I like clash of civ showdowns, on the other, I dislike how dry and boring they can be. If you’re going to go for a framework debate, try not to rely on overused framework backfiles.

OFFCASE:

Disadvantages: Run em. Make sure you have a central overview for each speech and can keep up with the line-by-line. I have a special place in my heart for good politics debates or debates where the DA in question accompanies a good CP.

Counterplans: CP’s are pretty great. I’m down with Agent Cps, Timeframe CPs, Advantage CPs, but love a good word PIC or solvency PIC. As a competitor, I made learning how to debate PIC’s and Text/Funct comp theory a part of my overall staple as a debater.

Kritiks: Make sure you have clear links/impacts and an alt for your K. Overviews can’t hurt you, either. Something I’ve noticed about high school debaters running the K is that they often have a hard time in big k debates like cap k debates where the 2AC pummels the k flow with perms and impact turns. My advice is as follows: if they K is going to be the argument you’re going for in the 2NR (if you’re a one off K team), split the block strategically. That is, the 2N reads an overview and handles the link/impact debate while the 1NR handles the alt/perm debate. My coach always said “the 2NC is the beat down and the 1NR is the kill shot” so make it count and make sure that coming out of the block, you’re winning most of the offense on the flow. (Note: Please see Paragraph 2 of Final Thoughts for specific K information).

Theory: It breaks my heart with the first c-x of the 1N isn’t what the status of 1n off cases are. If you’re gonna debate theory, debate it well. Keep up with the line by line, impact out the theory flow. I tend to err neg on conditionality but should the neg drop theory, don’t be afraid to go all in – I’ll def sign the ballot your way.

PAPERLESS DEBATE:

I transitioned to paperless debate while debating at Fullerton after debating strictly on paper up to that point. While it was hard to transition to at first, I found that I quickly fell in love with the financial benefits and the efficiency in evidence production/sharing/transportation both at and on the way to tournaments. However, I have found that as a judge, I get extremely annoyed with bad paperless debate, and as a result I’ve established a few paperless guidelines:

If you need to flash, then you need prep: Prep time does not stop when you’re ready to start flashing evidence, it stops when the other team has the flash drive in their hands.

Don’t be a jerk, format your evidence with Verbatim: Compatibility issues are annoying for all involved. If you’re paperless, you should be using verbatim anyway.

Paperless/Paperless debates: in the event of a paperless team debating a paper team, I defer the responsibility of having a viewing computer to the paper team. If the other team carries around tubs full of tangible paper evidence for you to hold and see, the least you could do is make sure they can see the evidence you use against them.

Failure to adhere to the above paperless debate guidelines will result in the docking of your speaker points beginning from a tenth and increasing after the failure of adhering to the first warning. Nobody wants to sit and waste time they could possibly be judging an amazing and engaging debate round staring at a debater struggle to open a file you didn’t save in the correct format.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE:

I disperse speaker points based on a normative scale and try to shy away from low point wins. The most I can tell you regarding speaker points goes as follows:

Policy teams debating the line by line: The highest speaker points go to the winning team. If you are going too fast or I don’t catch an argument/don’t speak clearly, the burden is not on me to figure it out but rather for you to make sure I am following the debate. I don’t have my laptop open and am online during your speeches for a reason – take advantage of that. I refuse to do work for you. Speaker points will be dispersed anywhere between the scale of 27-28.5. On rare occasions I have been known to give a 29-29.4 but nothing higher than that. Don’t expect higher than that for me.

Critical/Pefromance teams: I’m all about the performance and the critical debate but that does not mean I will inflate your speaker points. Don’t think that just because you rapped a bit or spoke from a personal experience that you deserve the highest speaks – at best I might give you a higher ranking (see “Note” section above).

ETHICS CHALLENGES:

It seems as though ethics challenges are becoming more prevalent now both in the high school and college debate circles. I’m generally not a fan of them and have been taught to debate cheaters and beat them. However, if you feel like the team you are debating has an unfair advantage (such as in round discussions with coaches over an online medium, card clipping, etc) feel free to voice them. The round will stop and I will proceed to go to tab and proceed from whatever directions they give me from there.

Note: Be sure you are making a legitimate ethics claim, there is nothing more annoying than a debater who makes an ethics claim for something silly like “they gave us the cards in the doc out of order” – the purpose of the document is so that you can see the cards. Keeping a proper flow resolves most of the offense of that argument.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Unlike other judges, i'm comfortable with admitting my limitations and embracing my shortcoming. That being said, i should probably mention that while i don't often run into this problem, i have judged rounds where i had a very hard time flowing arguments being delivered at a very high speed. This by no means is me telling you you can't spread; instead, spread but be conscious that if you are going TOO fast, i might not catch some of what your saying (a clear sign of this is when you jump from one flow to another and it takes me a little while to finish writing the argument on the current flow before jumping onto the new flow).

Another thing i should include is that while i love the K and could probably be considered a "critical debater" based on my time at Fullerton, i'm not as well versed on all of the rez-to-rez debate philosophers (aside from Nietzsche, Foucault, Heidegger, Spanos, Said) but that doesn't mean i won't be able to judge them. If you think i'm struggling with your argument, include an overview with a clear summarization of the argument and do extra detailed link and impact work on the line by line.

All in all, Debate and debate well. Have clear and accessible overviews for your central positions. Respect your opponents and their property, make eye contact with me and not your opponents. Impact out your claims, extend your evidence properly (claim/warrant), and give me reasons why you deserve the ballot. At the end we’re all here to have fun and win, let’s make sure its enjoyable for everyone involved.

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Jared Burke

Bakersfield High School class of 2017

Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021

2x NDT Qualifier

NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021

CEDA Semifinalist - 2021

Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present

Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present

Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran

Other people who have influenced the way I have thought about debate: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: jaredburkey99@gmail.com debatecsuf@gmail.com

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.com

If you have any questions feel free to email me

Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared

I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)

New for 2023-2024:

Fiscal Redistribution: 11

Nukes : 13

LD Total: 89

NDT Update: I have been more involved in coaching Cal State Fullerton toward the second half of the year, this is not to say that I will know every intricacy of every aff, but from research I have done, I think I have a decent grasp on the topic.
If you are a senior,-and this is your last debate, congrats on an amazing career, but if you don't want to hear the RFD please feel free to leave.

Ramblings:
Gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose. If the 2NR is the fiat K I am not the judge for you.

If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debate matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks

3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st

4. on T most times default to reasonability

5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. Frame subtraction bad, one PIC good, 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes. Other T things - fairness is an impact and an internal link - role of the negative has been one of the most persuasive framings to me when comparing aff vs neg model of debate - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs - TVA are sure-fire ways to win these debates for the negative.

6. No plan no perm is not an argument

7. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

8. Theory debates are boring --- neg condo probably good --- I've been increasingly suspect of counterplans with conditional planks just because of how egregious they are

Ideal 2NR strategies

1. Topic K Generic

2. Politics Process CP

3. Impact Trun all advantages

4. PIC w/ internal net beneift

5. Topic T argument

Specifics

K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehighlight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.

T-USFG:I think the stuff that I have said on the clash of civs section applies a lot here - fairness is an impact and is an internal link - role of the negative as a frame for your impacts/TVA etc has been pretty persuasive to me - 2ACs that go for only this debate matters doesn't make sense to me

DA:I think in these debates (also almost every debate) I just come through cards --- which is also why my RFDs take forever because I sift through a bunch of cards --- impact turns good --- absurd internal link chains should be questioned

CP: Process CPs good, judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, multi-plank conditional counterplans I am somewhat suspect of just because they are sometimes are egregious --- permutations are tests of competition not new advocacies

LD Specific:

I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.

1 - Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil

If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.

I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice

I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both

Keep me on the chain por favor – ccarrasco244@gmail.com

If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back

general -

- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms

- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it

- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far

———- some more specifics ———-

I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well

Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too

On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.

On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.

Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically

on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible

Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

2017-2019 LAMDL/ Bravo

2019- Present CSU Fullerton

Please add me to the email chain, normadelgado1441@gmail.com

General thoughts

-Disclose as soon as possible :)

- Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't make sense of the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, that's on you.

-Speed is fine but be loud AND clear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t flow your arguments. Don’t let speed trade-off with the quality of your argumentation. Above all, be persuasive.

-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long or I’ll resume the timer. (I’ll let you know before I do so).

Things to keep in mind

-Avoid using acronyms or topic-specific terminology without elaborating first.

-The quality of your arguments is more important than quantity of arguments. If your strategy relies on shallow, dropped arguments, I’ll be mildly annoyed.

-Extend your arguments, not authors. I will flow authors sometimes, but if you are referencing a specific card by name, I probably don’t remember what they said. Unless this specific author is being referenced a lot, you’re better off briefly reminding me than relying on me to guess what card you’re talking about.

-I don’t vote for dropped arguments because they’re dropped. I vote on dropped arguments when you make the effort to explain why the concession matters.

- I don’t really care what you read as long as you have good reasoning for reading it. (ie, you’re not spewing nonsense, your logic makes sense, and you’re not crossing ethical boundaries).

Specific stuff

[AFFs] Win the likelihood of solvency + framing. You don't have to convince me you solve the entirety of your impact, but explain why the aff matters, how the aff is necessary to resolve an issue, and what impacts I should prioritize.

[Ks/K-affs] I like listening to kritiks. Not because I’ll instantly understand what you’re talking about, but I do like hearing things that are out of the box.

k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I love seeing offense on case. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.

k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make creative solvency arguments. Give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.

[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate you propose (impacts that happen outside of round).

[T/Theory] I have a higher threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory.

I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to procedural fairness. It’s not that I will never vote for procedural fairness, but I want you to contextualize what procedural fairness in debate would look like and why that’s a preferable world.

[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have good answers to theory.

[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.

I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here. Make me skeptical of your opponent’s impacts.

2023 Update:

TLDR: Speak clear, if I can't understand you I won't flow. I'll vote on anything as long as you impact why it matters. Have fun!!

Email: chrise505@gmail.com

Paradigm

Affs - For policy, please have a good internal link chain. For critical, explain to me why the ballot is necessary, if not I'll probably vote neg on presumption.

Topicality - Love topicality. That being said, if you're going for it in the 2NR, I need to hear a good explanation to the internal links [i.e. ground, limits, predictability] and your impacts [fairness and education]. I default to competing interpretations, but I find reasonability compelling when the aff explains how they increase the research burden just slightly and that the education is valuable. Effects/Extra T - I treat these as independent voters.

Kritiks - Just have solid links and I'll vote on it. Links of omission or to the state are not going to win my ballot unless the aff just completely drops the K. I like K's with interesting alts but that being said, I've voted just on the Framework debate.

DA - Have good links. I'm fine voting on generic links as long as you contextualize the aff to the warrants of your links.

CP - All counterplans are legitimate as long as you prove it's competitive to the aff. Less likely to vote on a CP with no solvency advocate.

Theory - I'll vote on any theory argument as long as you impact it out and prove the in-round abuse. For general positions on theory arguments:

1. Conditionality - 3 condo cp's are good, 4-5 pushing it, 6 or more I'll vote on theory.
2. Dispo - I never hear this one anymore so honestly it's up to who impacts it the best.
3. Vague Alt - I buy the argument when the alternative doesn't have an advocate
4. Process, Agent, PIKs, - all legitimate, but I can vote either way.

Speaker points - Super subjective but I base it off of how organized, structured and passionate you are about the arguments. If I feel like your making the right arguments you need to be winning I'm definitely upping your speaks. That being said, if you have a speech impediment that's fine as long as you are just clear. Generally I prefer people speaking slower than faster, ESPECIALLY in rebuttals.

Judge Intervention - I'll do my best to not involve at all, but if a team calls you out/ vice versa - I'll end the round and evaluate the call out and decide who wins and loses at that moment. Just be respectful to your opponents.

Northwood '22, UCLA '26, she/her

Email chain: alufang88@gmail.com

General

Competed for 4 years in high school and went to the TOC senior year (omg) if that matters. Tech over truth. I honestly don't have many opinions about debate because I don't think about debate that much anymore, so everything below is very subject to change. I think spin is more important than evidence quality (to a reasonable degree), but I will most likely default to reading important evidence after the round if both sides have no evidence comparison or haven't structured the debate so that x piece of evidence doesn't matter. Similarly, I will (obviously) intervene if forced to due to lack of argument resolution by the 2NR/2AR but I will pick the path of least intervention. Make my decision easy for me :)

Disclaimer: I'm a first-year out and clearly still working out my judging preferences/ideologies/etc., and probably unsure of how to determine debates sometimes. If that makes you upset...sorry..........I will work hard to make the debate still educational for you and a reward of the work you've put in!

JH 2022: I haven't judged any rounds on this topic, have no clue what the popular (or niche) arguments are, and don't know any topic-specific terms/acronyms.

Novices: Don't worry about anything on this page; just remember to have fun and be nice to each other :)

DA

I will probably never assign 0% risk to a DA unless it is blatantly wrong (ie. running the 2020 elections da). I think these will be easier to win in front of me if you have a CP paired with it that solves the aff (but obviously not impossible without). I don't LOVE generic links that don't say anything or barely mention the aff and bad ev, but I kind of get it. Still, my threshold for this kind of DA getting ended in cross is pretty low.

CP

I lean neg on condo and will judge kick for you. International fiat, private actor fiat, object fiat counterplans seem illegitimate. All other counterplan theory stuff I feel like I can be easily convinced either way.

K/K affs

I do not understand and do not like pomo!! Same for death good arguments. Please strike me if any of those are your main arguments. Mostly everything else is all equally fine (as in I wasn't a K debater and won't know your lit base that well but can probably at least still grasp it in a 2-hr debate). The way I judge K affs vs. anything else debates is more up in the air than anything else in this paradigm, so I would appreciate clear judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR the most here. I don't like generic "state good/state bad" links/arguments and links of omission.

T

Making this debate feel like a DA debate (with impact work, link work, etc.) is what will make it easiest for me to judge. I don't know how receptive I will be to arguments about what was read at camp, what the topic looks like so far, etc. but seriously go ahead and try anyways.

Case

I really like good case debating, knowing your aff, all of that stuff. You can skip the case overview and go straight to line-by-line in the 2AC :)

Misc.

You can stop prep before sending out the email chain but just keep everything reasonable. Clipping is bad :( Clarity on analytics is super important, please please please slow down so that I can understand all your smart strategic arguments and explain it back in my RFD :)

I won't vote on any arguments about out-of-round actions or that the general framework that allows us to debate is bad (ie. time limits, speech order).

About Me:

Bravo '20, CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

2024 ADA Champ, CEDA Semis, NDT Quarters, #3 Copeland Panelist

Currently coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

People I talk about debate with or have influenced me heavily: Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green, Geordano Liriano, Curtis Ortega, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega, Toya Green, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward, Jonathan Meza, Jared Burke, Elvis Pineda, Irshad Reza Husain, Tatianna Mckenzie, Khamani Griffin

TOC Update

nothing new, if anybody's interested in debating at csulb lemme know

How I Judge

• Judge instruction above all else. Tell me why your argument comes first (framing, recency, more contextualized, etc.) or why winning x part of the flow wins you the rest, and do the opposite to your opponent's framing. A long 2AR/2NR overview that identifies the 2-3 biggest issues to resolve is much more instructive to me than blasting off a pre-written block. I fully believe that the focus of the debate is completely up to the debaters to determine and will decide it only on what the flow says, not what I think it should say.
• When resolving arguments for either side, I tend to view it kind of like debate math. If one side has a full extension of their argument (claim, warrant, ev) and the other side is incomplete (claim, warrant, no ev), then I default to the side that has a more complete explanation of their argument. In scenarios where debating is equal, I listen to judge instruction and read evidence when necessary, but this a rarity. I hate having to insert my own beliefs about debate in order to decide which argument is better, which is why direct argument comparison and judge instruction are the most important things to do when I'm judging you.
• I flow straight down and heavily decide debates based on technical execution, so responding to the arguments in the order that they come in is preferable to me. However, I am completely fine with you going in your own order as long as you clearly state what argument you're responding to and still directly engage your opponent's arguments.
• I don't have the docs open during the debate and only refer to them during cx to read ev or if the debate is really close. I'm comfortable flowing any speed, but will not hesitate to say in the RFD that I could not catch an argument because the analytics were unflowable or the argument did not make sense. Please do not spread your analytics as if they're cards.
• Capable of writing a clear RFD for any style of debate, but my advice for improvement is better if critical literature is introduced. I only read K-oriented arguments in college, but was a flex/policy-leaning debater in high school.
• Following the above ensures that good, technical debating always overrides my personal beliefs (hate capitalism and psychoanalysis but vote on them all the time its concerning)
• No judge kick make your own decisions, inserting rehighlights is fine with me on the condition that you explain what the rehighlight says using quotes from the ev.
• Speaker points start at a 28.5 and move up and down according to execution: Rebuttals > Organization > Strategic pivots/ concessions > Sounding like you want to be here > Winning Cross-ex moments is probably my list of priorities when thinking about it
• boo being a bad person to your opponents booooo. i'm all for debaters standing on business, petty throwdowns, etc., but i am not for full-on disrespecting your opponents simply for the sake of it. every debate is a performance and you should be aware of how you come off.
• Format stuff -- title ur email chains [Tournament Name - Round x - Team A -Aff- v. Team B -Neg-), pls put ev in a doc before sending it out, etc.

Argument Preferences

I appreciate debaters who stick to their convictions and are confident in their ability to win what they're best at regardless if the judge is predetermined to agree with their set of arguments or not. The following is a list my personal beliefs about debate that only matter if there is a complete absence of judge instruction/technical debating by both sides. Anything that is not addressed just means I'm neutral for both sides about the argument and is overwhelmingly determined by the flow.

K Affs - Affs should be clear about the method/epistemological shift from the status quo they defend and why it challenges the impacts/theory of power outlined in the 1AC. I'm better for method-based K Affs than solely epistemological ones because I think the latter is susceptible to presumption arguments since I'm usually unsure about the scale that is required for the epistemological shift to solve the 1AC's impacts and why the aff is uniquely key. Method-based affs should be prepared to debate impact turns.

K Aff v. Framework - I strongly prefer a counter-interpretation than just a impact turn strategy. What it means to be resolutional must be defined in the 2AC through definitions or a different vision for engagement. I also strongly prefer that the counter-interpretation is in reference to models of debate established by scholars in the activity (DSRB’s Three Tier, Elijah Smith’s KFM, Amber Kelsie’s Blackened Debate, etc.). I think there is enough history of debate established for us to have substantive debates over the pros/cons of traditional/non-traditional models of debate.

Framework v. K Affs - Clash/Skills with Fairness as an internal link instead of as an impact on its own. SSD over TVA unless you have a solvency advocate. A combination of limits arguments and no clash turning the case is needed in order to win these debates in front of me. The only "engage the aff's case" I require is defense agains the aff's theory of power and their "ballot key" arguments since those two are usually cross-applied to become offense against framework.

K v. K - The biggest thing to clarify is how competing visions/demands about society structure your offense against each side of the debate. Each form of offense should have a material example of how your theoretical distinctions manifest into real impacts.

PIKs - Affs should always explain that the component that the negative has PIK'd out of is necessary for aff solvency, and that the PIK is a worse version because of it. Offense by the aff is often underdeveloped and I wish neg teams would be less afraid to go for PIKs since its usually cleaner than other flows.

Policy Affs - 2ACs overviews need to explain what the plan does and why it solves the impacts of the 1AC as opposed to just impact calculus at the top. Negative teams should be more willing to go for analytics that call out wonky internal link chains and solvency claims.

Extinction Affs v. K - Affs should defend the representations of their plan beyond "if we win case then reps true + extinction outweighs" by thoroughly explaining why the impact scenario is true as opposed to the 2AR saying "no case defense, flow our stuff through for us". I truly don't understand the new trend for every debater to rattle off "debate doesnt shape subjectivity + fairness is nice" and think that its sufficient to beat the K without addressing the link or the alt. I'd much rather hear a 2AR that substantively defends the case and impact turns the links. I absolutely hate when heg teams say "china evil cus uyghurs" or "russia evil" and refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy in defending the United States (enslavement, genocide, current support of Israel, just history and today in general.). If you want to win heg good in front of me, I need a substantive impact turn to the link and an offensive push for why the alternative on the K is worse than the status quo, not just "fwk - weigh the aff".

Soft-Left Affs v. K - These are my favorite debates to judge. Affs should spend more time explaining why the case is a good form of harm reduction as opposed to trying to beat the ontology of the K with "progress possible + pessimism bad" arguments. I usually think that these arguments do nothing for the aff since none of the cards are about the case, and they'd be better off explaining why the aff is better than the status quo even if the neg's ontology is correct, and that a perm would resolve the links enough.

K v. Policy - K teams should have a "link turns case argument" even if the 2NR is a huge framework push, but I prefer the strategy to extend an alt that solves the case and resolves the link debate. Case defense is appreciated. I'm not the best for K 2NR's that invest most of their time into the ontology debate because I think its better for neg teams to go for specific links that turn the case or have an argument that the impacts of the K should come first before the aff, and winning a link means the alt comes first before the aff. At most, I think the ontology of a Kritik should be used to frame which impacts matter most, and it usually does not make-or-break debates for me. I don't require "specific" link evidence versus the aff, but I appreciate link contextualization in the block and I think K's are best when the 2NC/2NR pulls specific lines from the Affs speeches and explain how their method's underlying assumptions turn itself.

Counterplans - Neutral for each side about theory/competition arguments. Counterplans that only rely on internal net benefits are less likely to win in front of me since I think a combination of aff theory + a permutation can beat it.

Disadvantages - PLEASE INTRODUCE IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2AC/2NC, I hate when the first time I'm hearing it is in the rebuttal speeches from both sides. Direct evidence comparison above all else, i appreciate an overview of the impact scenario at the top of each speech. I'm a lot more concerned by whose impact scenario has more overall risk of occurring than a "turns the case/DA" argument.

LAMDL/UDL Stuff

• ONLY TO LAMDL/OTHER UDL KIDS - Email me with questions, speech redoes, questions about debate, and I will try my best to get back to you with advice/feedback. Not having coaches and learning debate by yourself is hard and I can’t guarantee responses all the time but I try to respond to mostly everybody that reaches out to me.
• WIKI RANT - have a wiki up by your 2nd tournament or I’m capping speaks at 29. Cites of the arguments/evidence you have read are the only thing needed, not open source. Not disclosing on the wiki diminishes the quality of debates LAMDL produces and exacerbates the gaps we have in resources as UDL schools, and it does nothing to help up and coming varsity debaters who don’t know how to start prep against teams that refuse to disclose. Debate is competitive and we’re all here to win, but it sucks when part of the reason nobody’s prepped to be negative is because nobody knows what anybody is reading.

other thoughts

• Highlight Color Rankings - Yellow > Blue > custom light pastel color > any other color is ew
• Water > Coffee > any energy drink like Red Bull or Monster is disgusting
• Tagline quality. They’re either unflowable (too long/wordy) or way too flowable (no warrant/2 word). The way people feel about highlighting trends is how I feel about tags. I hope for the perfect middle ground.
• If you run critical arguments about an identity you don’t belong to, I need you to explain what my/your role as a judge/competitor is to that literature, even if the other side never brings it up. I think it’s valuable to understand how we position ourselves in relation to literature that isn’t about us and see how it affects our decisions to use it as an argument, as well as develop ethical relationships to it.
• I think variations of the Cap K (escalante, racial cap, abolition democracy, etc.) are great and the majority of Affs mishandle them. Defending it as a methods debate as opposed to a "cap root cause + extinction ow + state engagement good" strategy is better in front of me and the affs common responses of "racist party + accountability DA + aff theory is root cause of cap" can be easily beat assuming the negative has actually read the literature behind the cap k. Despite the fearmongering by framework teams, the Cap K is a great generic and more teams should be willing to go for it.

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com

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

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

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

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, so I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it.

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

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

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

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

Hi!

My name in Matheno. I have been a participant of this activity for about over 17 years. I started to debate in High School out of the DKC Urban Debate League. I emerged onto the national circuit my novice year in 2004. I have attended debate camps at University of Iowa, University of Missouri Kansas City as well as the University of Louisville. "Performance" debate is mostly how I approached debate as a framework. Do not call it Performance debate. Debate itself is a performance. I do understand what many call "traditional debate." It's how I got introduce to this activity. I just felt better equipped as a debater dozing into what felt more authentic for me. I judge my debates on what is on the flow sheets. If its not on the flow then I cannot evaluate it. Speed does not mean to forfeit persuasion. I will listen to mostly everything. I like new and different arguments. I was a big fan of K arguments and of course ran many Kritiks. I am now a staff member at the Bay Area Urban Debate League as a Program Manager. I have been a judge every single year since I left debate as a competitor. I love this activity! I have assisted BUDL, DKC and also Atlanta Urban Debate League. Write the ballot for me. If I have to do a lot of framing and impact calculus myself then I don't think you did much coverage of handling the flow. Write the RFD for the judge. Who knows what may happen if you leave it in my hands. I have a very queer mind.

Email thread: bfandbo@gmail.com

Policy @ Northwood -> UCLA '26 (Environmental Science/Conservation Biology)

Email Chain - alexfu004@gmail.com

LD and PF paradigm at bottom

TL;DR

Debate is a game, do impact calc, I'm more familiar with Policy strats, clipping is bad, and clarity on analytics is important. Tech determines Truth.

F'23 Update: I'm only vaguely familiar with the topic (~15 rounds judged) so if you start using fancy econ jargon I might get lost, please slow down on analytics, especially in the T debate.

General

Don't be a bad person, you've seen it on other paradigms, no racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, etc.

DA/CP

I love them! Your disads should be specific to the aff, but generic links are ok too if you can spin it well enough. Condo is probably good, int'l/private/object fiat is probably bad. I mainly read process counterplans and states in high school so make of that what you will.

K

I'm pretty familiar with a few Ks but don't go for that many of them, barring things like Cap and Security. Case specific links would be great! The Aff should explain the perms instead of just throwing them out there, at least by the 1ar but preferably in the 2ac. I'll treat framework like an impact debate, but I tend to lean weighing the aff.

Ks I'm more familiar with: Cap, Berlant/Suffering, Yellow Peril/Orientalism, Security, Militarism

Ks I'm less familiar with: Deleuze, Bataille, "pomo"-esque Ks (with reason)

T

I'll vote on it, but I'm persuaded by reasonability more than other judges. The neg needs to win a clear instance of abuse beyond just "it's what they justify," and the Aff ideally should have specific reasons why the counterinterpretation resolves or turns neg offense.

Nontraditional Affs

I have very limited experience with reading K affs (maybe 2 or 3 times), but I'm receptive to them. I think that having a stasis is necessary for debate, and I think that fairness is good, whatever fairness means. That said, I do think that K Affs can provide unique educational value, and if the Aff can prove their aff is important to talk about certain issues I can still buy it. Framework is probably your best 2NR against K Affs, I went for education and movements mainly in my junior and senior year in high school but I can be persuaded to vote on fairness as well.

Theory

Reject the arg, not the team is persuasive in almost every case, condo aside. I lean neg on condo; I can be persuaded otherwise, but it's an uphill battle for the aff to win on it. International and Object fiat are probably illegitimate, and require more work to be done on theory if you want to win on them as the neg.

Speaks

• being creative, strategic
• clarity, especially when spreading through analytics
• efficiency between speeches, sending out docs, etc
• if you're funny
• clear signposting!
• i was inspired by another judge but please get me food (+0.1? speaks) (but dont bankrupt yourself it's not worth it) (better to just speak better probably)

LD

I'll judge it like I judge a policy round, and I'm not familiar with a lot of LD theory. I'll try to adapt but please exercise discretion.

Public Forum

I used to do PF, don't worry about having to adapt too hard

Everything above applies, don't spread if your opponent is not okay with it though. Don't read policy-esque arguments just because you can, PF probably should be a bit more accessible. I'm more receptive to Ks than most PF judges, but don't read incomplete arguments i.e. a K without an alt just because PF doesn't have advocacies.

email (yes, include both): lpgarcia19@damien-hs.edu; damiendebate47@gmail.com

LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.

My Beliefs:

Debate is good

Tech > Truth

Clarity above all else

Clipping is bad

My leanings:

Util good

I, as the judge, am a policymaker

Fiat is a good thing

A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev

There's not an excuse to avoid line by line

Topicality

I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.

Kritiks

If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.

K-Affs (Includes Framework)

I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.

Theory

The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.

Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.

Disads

I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.

Impacts

I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.

I would love to be included on the email chain please bobby.gibsoncapital@gmail.com

Countless rounds on previous years topics. I have helped research and cut many arguments for the inequality topic and have judged practice rounds but this will be the first tournament I judge economic inequality this year.

4 years hs circuit policy/ 4 years college policy / lots of coaching and some breaks in between

He/Him Don't care to be called judge a whole lot. Please feel free to call me Bobby. I prefer cameras on especially during speech time.

I believe first that ya'll should have the debate ya'll want to have. I do not believe the round is about the judge rather the judge is there to evaluate who was more persuasive in the round everyone decided to have. I will reward your technical debate ability unless however your framework arguments are urging me to reject that ability in some way. I do believe though that over time people develop their own preferences, and it's unavoidable to not lean into those preferences unless educated as to why I shouldn't. So I will share some brief thoughts on debate and where I generally stand on a few things, keeping in mind that what I said first here is most important. I come from a Policy Debate oriented background so if I am judging you in a progressive LD or parli round you may want to keep this in mind. In LD I evaluate value criterion as an impact value for framing not an impact itself. However like I said I will evaluate the type of round you want to have just explain the judging framework you are putting me in.

I have developed some auditory issues in my left ear. You should not have to sacrifice speed because of this. I can hear just fine, but sometimes there is a little echo so I appreciate good sign posting and clear tags. And while speed is great, disorganization is not.

K debate - Over time I find that I tend to evaluate from a policy making standpoint. This doesn't mean you should strike me if you are a K debater. I have been helping cut and dive into more of these arguments as of late. Keep in mind I may not be immersed in the same literature though. This is going to make your Link wall extremely important and might warrant slowing down a touch. I'm not sure where we are at in 2023 on judge kicking the alt, however I would like this to present itself as an option in the debate rather than making my own decision. This is also reserved for a strong link story and DA's embedded into the links that will serve as a turn to the aff.

Theory - Win the tech and impact out. I see many doing the former but forgetting that second step. I would guess my history as a judge puts me closer in line with condo good, unless out of control. However everything is debatable.

T - You do you. Would love to see a high quality T debate at the HS level.

CP/DA - Lets do it.

Aff - Pretty straight forward if you are a policy aff or soft left. Updated this part on Kritikal affirmatives.... I like to think I am open to the debate arguments you want to run. The disclaimer on K affs is that I don't have any experience running them myself. I have seen many of these rounds and feel comfortable in my ability to evaluate these now, however remember that I am probably not deep into your literature so lots of judge instruction and clear distinction.

One of my more important preferences however would be courtesy. I believe everyone should be respectful toward one another and I highly value kindness. I will award speaker points based on how well you performed your speaker position role, but I will dock these points if I believe rudeness has gotten out of hand. Don't confuse that with passion, confidence, and competition because I love all three of those things. I think most of us know when it crosses a line.

Have a fun Debate!

Please add me to the chain: rosgoldman8@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23,UCLA '27

She/her

I was 2N who went for primarily policy args, but I will work to evaluate all arguments fairly and without predisposition.

TL

Tech > truth

Ev quality is VERY important to me. Cards with 6 words highlighted out of context and/or grammatically incorrect are highly unpersuasive. The other team pointing this out will be rewarded with high speaks and most likely a win (presuming they have better cards).

Be clear!!! Slow down on analytics/tags/overviews/anything you really want me to understand and number your arguments (in every single speech). I am not the most exceptional flow in the world, so prioritizing clarity of a few good args over proliferation of lots of meh args will work in your favor.

I have no topic knowledge, so do not assume I understand your acronym or jargon and please err on the side of over-explanation of topic specific stuff, like mechanisms, norms, and processes.

CP

I am super comfortable in these debates.

I love thorough, well-researched advantage CPs and agent CPs.I do not love process CPs with contrived internal NBs, but I understand that they are sometimes necessary. If you must, please reads cards that are actually about the process you fiat in the context of fiscal redistribution and do your best to explain why the INB links to the aff. If you are aff in these debates, I am most likely to be persuaded by an intrinsic perm, but you must have a theoretical justification for it and explain how it resolves both the aff and the NB.

I lean heavily neg on theory and think most theory args vs CPs are meaningless affirmative whining. Condo is good probably up to 5 and then I maybe start to become more sympathetic to the aff, so long as they can explain the impact of IN-ROUND abuse. Even then, I will vote for whoever does the better technical debating. You need to explain your model of the topic and what impact it solves (and ideally, how it also resolves the other side's offense). Do not speed through a prewritten condo (or any) block at top speed; I won't be able to flow it. I find this is often a problem more for the 1AR, but all rebuttals from both sides need to have a clear interpretation, internal links to impacts, and answers to the other side's offense. Lastly, I'll probably default to judge kick unless the aff wins a theoretical reason I should not. It's better for the neg to start these debates early rather than say one line in the 2NR and let the 2AR quadruple your time here.

DA

Please make a complete argument. DAs need UQ, a link, an internal link, and an impact. Every single part needs to be present in the 1NC and clearly extended throughout each speech, with evidence to support ALL of it.

The neg should make as many turns case args as possible, at each level of the DA (i.e. link turns case, IL turns case, impact turns case) and the aff needs to answer all of then or it's a pretty rough recovery.

Do impact calc and do it well

K

I am comfortable in K v Policy debates, but will be least qualified in K v K debates.

It will probably be best for you to assume I am unfamiliar with your args and lit base and so you should clearly explain your theory of power, why the aff/topic is bad, how you resolve impacts, etc.

I don't think a strong link wall necessarily needs a ton of cards(although it won't hurt), but does need to be very specific to the aff's cards, scenarios, and CX explanation.

I am probably pretty neg leaning in FW vs K aff debates. I often struggle to understand how the aff can resolve the material impacts explained in the 1AC without material change in or beyond the debate space. This means the aff needs to be very clear on what change to the squo they defend and how it overcomes structural problems in debate and the world. The neg team should always go for some sort of presumption argument on case. I also think a TVA is great defense on FW, but the neg needs to explain why it means the aff can engage under their model. Likewise, the aff cannot neglect the TVA portion of the debate.

T

Both sides must have a case list and both sides must explain why theirs creates a better topic.

PTIV is a bad arg and a cop out, but the neg needs to explain why. Also, the neg should check that the word is, in fact, in the plan text, because I've seen this happen too many times.

I honestly really love a short (but competent) T extension in the block because I think it puts a disproportionate amount of time pressure on the 1AR. But, it's a fine line and I will hate if you spend 45 seconds spewing through nonsense words without establishing proper offense or defense.

Misc

You cannot insert rehighlightings unless the words you have rehighlighted have already been read by the other team.

Time your own speeches and don't steal prep

Be nice, but not too nice: there is zero reason to yell at or attack your opponents, but assertive and sassy debaters are fun to watch.

A quick guide to getting good speaker points:

-get to the point, and be clear about it
-"extinction" or "nuclear war" is not a tag
-a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
-Ks need alts- i have a low threshold for voting aff when the neg is kicking their alt and going for a framework argument 
-cross x is a speech-i figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points


Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:

While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity.

Also, "extinction" is not a tag line. I don't even like tag lines like "causes nuclear war." I need complete sentences, with claims and warrants.

Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.

Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer

Calling for cards: I will do this, but I don’t like to read every card in the debate. If you opponent is making well explained arguments you should be very wary of just saying “extend our smith evidence”.

Theory/topicality:

Arbitrary interpretations are one of the worst trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team.

Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact (in policy debate). 

While I'm fine with conditionality, I am persuaded by other theoretical objections (multi actor fiat, uniform fiat without a solvency advocate, etc). I also think that a theory argument that combines objections (conditional multi actor CPs) could be a reason to reject the team.

My personal belief is that the negative can only fiat the agent of the resolution, and that competition based off the ‘certainty’ of the plan (consult/conditions) is not productive. This does NOT mean I have an incredibly low threshold in voting aff on agent/actor cps bad, but it does make my threshold lower than most. To win these theory debates on the aff, see above point about cutting to the core 2-3 issues.

On topicality-you need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.

Counterplans: I spoke above about my theoretical beliefs on counterplans. I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.

Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.

Politics:

The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc. Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to my meta-approach to debate-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.


Ks:

I’m generally not compelled by framework as a voter against a Neg K-I think all Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.

That being said, I don't like Ks that are just framework arguments. Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments. I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it.

In the 2ac, don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded. Perm do the alt is not a perm. Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.


Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.

K affs:

T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.

Case debate:

These are great. Impact defense is kinda meh unless it's real specific. Solvency and internal link answers are where it's at. Make alt causes great again!

Disadvantages:

It’s all about probability-magnitude is ok but only when you’re discussing it in terms of “our impact causes yours”. Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction). Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.

Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Tessa -- I use she/they pronouns and will openly laugh if you call me "judge" at any point during the debate.

Got a few First Rounds to the NDT at Wake Forest University, alongside a generally high level of competitive success writ large. My college career was spent reading solely critical arguments, although I spent quite a lot of time as a policy debater in high school as well. Since leaving debate, I have spent time both in the cybersecurity and AI industries as well as the academy discussing AI and critical theory. I am heavily involved in grassroots organizing as well.

Currently coaching for University of Iowa and Head-Royce Highschool.

Yes I want to be on the email chain -- ask for my email if you don't have it (Don't put your emails online in searchable places like this, kids!).

***Spark Notes***

Do what you love. If you have no passion in your heart, then do what you are good at. Debate is about scholarship, rhetoric, and competition, so do one or more of those well and you will probably have my ballot. Care about one of those and you will probably get good speaks too.

I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them, whether it is a hyperspecific CP/DA strategy or a complex new interpretation of a critical theory.

All of my assumptions and proclivities are endlessly negotiable and if a team makes an argument I will do my best to put that before my own thoughts on the matter.

Judge instruction is the single most important aspect of the debate, especially the final rebuttals and how both teams frame and compare offense will massively influence how I approach my flow. Explicitly comparing and evaluating offense in the 2AR and 2NR will be the surest route to my ballot regardless of the content of the debate. Extending offense without instructing me on how to compare it to the other side will leave me in the unfortunate position of having to think too deeply about the debate, which neither of us want.

I tend to view arguments > evidence. Debate is a communicative activity, and therefore how I evaluate evidence is filtered through what I am told about it, all else being equal. For me, reading evidence after the debate occurs when it is sufficiently flagged by one or both teams as central to a key issue in the debate. Good evidence is not an excuse for a bad articulation, but can be a net benefit to a good one. That said, quoting, rehighlighting, or otherwise engaging with both your own and opponents evidence will greatly influence the weight I assign to arguments and the speaker points I award.

If you do wish me to toss out the flow but please tell me to do so explicitly, early, and give me a clear alternative way to adjudicate the debate. I will likely take notes on the debate even if told to toss out the flow, but that is likely comments to share in the post round.

***Clash debates***

Okay, I know this is the only part of a paradigm anyone ever reads so...

1. I judge *a lot* of these debates. Almost all of my ballots end up being focused on execution and top level framing. Be on top of those two and you'll have a good shot at my ballot regardless of what you read. This applies to form, not just content. I am very happy when explicitly told why I should vote on procedural impacts over content, or vibes/truth over line by line, or prioritize methods over aesthetics, or whatever other form argument you might be implicitly making.
2. "Intrinsic goods" do not exist. Procedural impacts might, but I must be convinced as to why and how they interact with other concerns about how we should use this pace. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first because debate is a game" will rarely get my ballot if given a similarly tagline aff response. I tend to vote for impacts other than fairness far more often as it seems notably difficult for many debaters to articulate fairness beyond such an internal link or tautological defense of old school debate.
3. Defense is underrated in these debates. Most of my decisions in these debates are heavily influenced by small, smart defensive arguments that break ties between well-crafted pieces of offense on both sides. This is especially true for FW arguments on the aff or neg. I find that most affirmatives lose by underestimating small negative defensive arguments at the level of a FW with both policy and critical affirmatives.

***Can't believe I have to say this but...***

- Anti-blackness, other forms of racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, etc. will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue. Impact > Intentions.

- clipping is an autoloss as well and results in the lowest possible speaks.

- I do not believe the other team has the burden to call these things out and will stop the round if I feel it is unsafe or un-educational for anyone involved.

- Disclosure is good for debate and should generally be reciprocated absent safety concerns.

- And, an unclear/unflowable argument is a blank space on my flow -- I will not evaluate arguments I cannot hear and understand. Yes, even if you think you are hot shit.

Judges for: Sonoma Academy (2019-present)

Previously judged for: Peninsula, MBA, Meadows

UCLA '23

Add me to the email chain: gibran.fridi@gmail.com

Email Chain Format: [Tournament Name Round # : Aff Name vs Neg Name]

Speed is fine, but clarity over speed. I will yell clear, but after the second time if I don't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. Also please disclose on the wiki.

Some Clarifications for this year because these things keep happening in round:

-cross-ex is not prep

-sending marked docs if it takes more than a minute is prep.

-marked docs don't need to have cards that weren't read taken out, that is your job to flow. The only time u should be sending out marked docs is if you actually mark a card.

- if we are having tech or wifi issues, try to resolve it best before the round starts. I would rather start late but everything working than stop after every speech due to wifi issues.

TLDR

Do what you do best. Trying to adapt to me as a judge is a waste of time. Although I am more familiar with policy arguments, I will vote for any argument you run as long as you do it well. K v K, Policy v K, K v FW, Policy v Policy.... i will vote for anything.

Arguments are claims, warrants, and impacts -- means that "dropped" arguments are true only if you explain why they matter and the reasons they're true. I need more explanation than just "they dropped the DA- we win!"

Tech>Truth

Topicality

I'm down to see a good T debate. I think T is vastly underused by 2Ns. If your 1N is a killer T debater, use it to your advantage. Most affs to some extent are untopical, so make them stop cheating. Have a good interp/counter interp and give me some good clash on the standards debate. I don't defer to reasonability or competing interps, so I will be convinced by both.

Theory

If condo is a legit strat for you it should be a big part of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. I will vote on condo, but there has to be in round abuse. If they read states and neolib, I will not be very convinced to vote on condo. And I definitely believe that neg should definitely have condo to test the aff. Other theory args aren't as convincing to me unless the other team completely drops it.

DA

Probably my favorite debate argument. I love a good CP/DA neg start.

A good advantage CP with a sick DA can be a killer neg strat. But have some good evidence on how and why the CP solves. Usually, 1AC evidence can be used as solvency advocates for ADV CPs. Also, the CP better be competitive, cause then I have no reason to vote for it.

K

Yes, most K's are cool and I will definitely still vote on the K even though I'm most familiar with policy arguments. I think Ks are very interesting and probably produce the most real-world change. But if you don't understand your K and can't explain it to your opponents, I will have a hard time voting for it. Have some good links that you can explain. Also, the alt better solve or at least do something. If you can't explain what the alt does and what voting neg does, then please don't read that K. There's nothing more embarrassing than watching a K team not know what they are talking about in cross-ex. What K lit I know well (Cap, Set Col, Gnoseology, Security, Orientalism, Foucault). Bad K debates are worse than bad policy debates.ngl if ur a POMO team, don't pref me lol. I really don't want to listen to Bifo, Baudrillard, D&G etc debates.

Policy Affs

Do what you do best. Have solvency advocates, win the case solves something.

K Affs

Used to err neg on these debates, but as I judge more and more rounds, I feel differently now lol. I don't really have a preference anymore and yes I will vote for K affs. I am more experienced with policy but recently I have really enjoyed K aff rounds. Same rules apply as the K above.

Case

Destroy them on case. Nothing makes the 1AR harder than amazing case debate in the block.

Speaks

Don't steal prep. Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless it becomes an issue in the round. If you're very unclear, I will dock your speaks. Please don't clip. That's the last thing I want to deal with. You will lose the round, get a 0 and I will have to have a conversation with your coach. Also please don't make sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. comments. You will lose the round and get a 0. Don't be mean to the other team. Friendly banter is always welcome.

Tech>Truth

Signpost.

If you are problematic, you’re getting dropped.

Have Fun!

pronouns - she/her

email: 429devinmh@gmail.com

In high school I was a 2N and 2A with 2 different partners. I went to Meadows and graduated in 2021. Make me laugh so I'm not bored :)

Plan Affs - I read one in high school. Don't assume solvency is a given.

K Affs - I might know what's going on but assume I don't and explain the important stuff because I won't make those connections for you

T - ORGANIZE !! Yow won't win a T flow in front of me if you don't signpost and order your arguments. I'm not super familiar with the topic so precise, credited definitions will make my decision.

Ks - This is what I'm most comfortable with, explain your arguments and you'll be fine

CPs - I've never gone for a CP but as long as you have a net benefit and impact calc you should be solid

DAs - You're gonna have to do a lot of work to convince me your impact outweighs if your internal link chain is shitty

Overall: Have fun and don't take it too seriously

If spreading please consider sending written materials so I can follow along - if permitted. If spreading try to articulate so I can hear, understand and follow. I prefer competitors not interrupt opponents, including during cross-examination.

ryanryan.koh@gmail.com

Debated for Fullerton Union High School - policy for 4 years

- 2a for my entire career only ran affs with plans. 2a's be creative. I want to give you credit, but you have to justify it. 2ns flag stuff and close doors.

- 2n senior year, only went for politics, process CPs, and T. Not too much T as a 2n tho, but I love it. Ev matters. Predictable Limits >

- cheating CPs are fun, but have a good theory block. If I don't catch your args and the 2a goes for theory, I will assume it wasn't said. I won't fill in gaps.

- not a fast flow. Explanation and clarity plz.

- I'm probably not the best for K affs. I didn't understand them when I debated at a high level, so the threshold of need for explanation in debates is probably much higher, but I will vote for them.

- I went for FW against K affs. Fairness impacts need to pair with an arg about why fw is good for skills or something.. try to solve their offense plz and not just complain.

- take advantage of drops

julian kuffour (any)

julianjudging@gmail.com

slower = better. won't flow until the 1nc on the case (reading the cards), won't clear you or say i understood what you said if you're unclear or i do not follow your argument.

Email: minnalkunnan@gmail.com

I debated for Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Rutgers University under Policy Debate, APDA and BP formats. I have judged BAUDL tournaments in the past and currently judge/coach for Gabrielino High School.

1. I generally don't prefer any one style of debate over another so please feel free to debate however you like. Just make it clear what my role as the judge is in the round and what my vote means.

2. Please attempt to be "normal". Debate seems to encourage anti-social and fringe behaviors that I am increasingly intolerant of. Technical analysis and argumentation is fine, but I often find some rhetorical framing and "truth" or at least belief in one's own arguments are important.

3. Please do not assume that I am familiar with the literature you are reading. I have a general sensibility of the evidence we have chosen to use in debate but I am unlikely to be well versed in your specific authors.

4. If you are going to go for theory in the round please be very specific and clear about what abuse occurred and why it creates a bad debate. I generally do not enjoy debates where either side is attempting to win using a frivolous theory argument.

5. If there are a variety of impacts in a round please provide me some way to compare them. Provide me a metric or framework for weighing different impact claims and prove to me that yours is more important.

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

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

leland '22 | ucla '26 (computational and systems biology major)

he/him

yes, i would like to be on the email chain: yongjindebate@gmail.com

idk if anyone reads paradigms nowadays...if you do, add me on the email chain without asking. thanks!

update for long beach:i have been meaning to leave the activity for a while now, so this will probably be the only tournament i will be judging throughout the entire year. i don't know the topic at all so when you are in front of me, i would expect you to not throw around acronyms around.

tech > truth - this should be the general philosophy of every judge but there is no such thing as tabula rasa

top-level:

1. i thank Allen Kim, Young Park, Allison Harper, Caitlin Walrath, and Ms. Northrop for molding my views and perceptions on debate and how a debate should be held. that means that a lot of my preferences of what i would like to see in a round is a collaboration and hybrid of their amazing opinions on debate. so, if you are ever confused throughout my paradigm, their paradigms should be a lot more concise and straightforward and i wouldn't blame you if you defaulted to searching theirs up.

2. debate is a discussion between the debaters, i'm only an adjudicator of the round - do you what you do best, whether you are running wipeout to agenda ptx to baudrillard, my only job is to listen and flesh a clear ballot that gives me the easiest way to vote - any arguments that you can explain THOROUGHLY is on the table and it is your job by the rebuttals to write the ballot for me

3. BUT... i will not tolerate any arguments that pertain to sexism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, classism, etc. i will stop a round if i need to, if i find that the debaters are uncomfortable and will cap your speaks to the lowest it can possibly be. respect needs to be earned between the debaters; but, there is a fine line between aggressive and passionate debating and ad hominem incivility

4. speed is fine and be comfortable in the round - whether you spread at 450 wpm or you go at Cal MS's speed, i'll flow whatever claims, warrants, or evidence you are communicating to me - but if i yell clear once and i can understand a drunk donkey better than i can understand your speech, i'll give up flowing :)

5. tag team CX is fine, you don't need to ask me beforehand - but if your partner is clearly speaking for you in CX, i'll make sure to tank both of your speaker points so...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

6. as i might have sounded passive-aggressive in some parts, i'm usually (HOPEFULLY) not too mean unless you break one or more of the stuff listed here. i wish you the best of luck in your rounds and if you have me as a judge, have fun and touch some grass after the round please

7. pre-round disclosure is good...that's a nonnegotiable

policy specific:

1. t: usfg- i put this at the top because you probably ctrl+F'ed my paradigm for this so you're welcome - these are the best debates to see or the absolute worst debates to see - i have been on both sides of these debates debating for and against framework so i welcome K v FW debates openly

- for FW debaters, i see the utility of both fairness and education/clash but i believe fairness is an internal link for education and clash FOR STRATEGIC REASONS, NOT PERSONAL ONES. in all the FW debates i've been in, 99% of explanations of fairness impacts become tautological, repetitive, and defensive by the 2NR and there are no intrinsic or external benefits to having fairness ALONE being good for debate. Additionally, my pet peeves for FW debaters are that they throw out TVAs without explaining why their TVA resolves any literature provided by the 1AC. i view TVAs as crucial for evaluating the round but without any justification for your TVA, there is an extremely high threshold of winning on it

- for K debaters, it is your job to defend why your model of debate is a better alternative to normative debate practices and impact or internal link turn the FW impacts for offense. Also, explain your counter-interpretation and why that has a net benefit to the model of this round or model of debate as a whole.

2. k affirmatives - i love them a lot and i've experimented with them throughout my high school career - while i see the value of K affirmatives and i do not auto default to "defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan" - this does NOT mean i'll understand the nuances of your aff without explanation

- it is your responsibility to:

1. explain the thesis of the 1AC

2. warrant the method/solvency of the 1AC

3. justify my relationship as a judge to the ballot and the round

4. explain the 1AC's relationship to the resolution whether that be positive or negative.

Lack of sufficient explanation of these 4 things increases my chances of voting presumption and/or FW in the debate

3. k v k debates - one of the most underrated debates to have - for K affirmative, explaining the 1AC's theory of power, perm, root cause, and comparisons between the 1AC and alt will help me understand the interaction between the 1AC and the K - for K negative, explaining the link and its relationship to the 1AC and method v method will isolate the ballot for me

4. policy affs - case debate are great to see - whether that entails impact defense, impact turns, specific case defense or offense, every reason provided to the 2NR are reasons to lower the threshold of voting aff - presumption is a thing and i do vote on it

5. cp - i'll reward teams who read specific solvency evidence pertaining to the aff's plan while it is not a necessity - but, what is a necessity though, is internal and/or external net benefits to the CP and how it competes against the aff solvency - i like to see unique and strategic counterplans whether they are abusive or not - but, the more abusive a CP becomes, the more i'll grant aff leniency to theory, i.e. international actors or private actors

6. da - i believe that link portions in a disad are extremely underrated - more and more i see disad links become generic links to the plan and the internal link story of the disad becomes really sketch. in the end, it ends up being an impact framing debate by the 2NR and 2AR

- while i highly regard top-level impact framing and turns case arguments and i'll reward a team that does one well, i do believe that a disad should have a coherent link and i/l story to decrease my threshold on it - i would rather see an impact turn round than see a 1NR mindlessly read 10 UQ wall cards on Biden's midterms

7. k- this is the area where i have interacted the most in my junior and senior year - framework and link debates are the most important to me and this is where your debates should be focused on anyway - whether you read a 2 minute o/v on your K or do line-by-line, i want to learn about how your literature is affected by the 1AC, the 1AC's politics, or the 1AC's rhetoric. And, i want to know what is my relationship to the K and how i should evaluate my ballot.

- i do not want to listen to your prewritten blocks and overviews discussing the nuances of your literature; i could've spent my time better reading comments from 40-year-old moms on Goodreads about your book than you spreading to me 8 minutes in the 2NC about it.

- if you pull lines from the 1AC text contextualizing the aff to the link, i'll heavily boost your speaks - for the alternative, i expect you to tell me if you are judge kicking it or not. if you aren't, i hope listen to a coherent story on how the alt resolves the links and examples of the alt happening either within debate or in politics

- most importantly, explain your buzzwords because it becomes so easy to see when a debater is vomiting random words because they are unfamiliar with the literature. Remember, debate is a discussion between you and the opponent, and your speaks will reflect if you make the debate inaccessible to them.

8. t - i could care less if you read 4 T shells out of your 10 offs, but your decision to go for it in the neg block and the 2NR, purely relies upon your ability to articulate: 1. the warrants of your standards 2. the impact it has in-round and out-of-round and what their plan justifies 3. the credibility of your interpretation and why the aff violates it. When it comes to competing interps and reasonability, i default to competing interps unless given instruction and explanation why reasonability outweighs competing interps.

9. theory - my general ideology on theory or any miscellaneous theory args is: go big or go home - while it defers to a round-by-round basis, i want to hear a 5-minute theory speech than a shoddily extended 45-second theory shell in the 2NR or 2AR. it is your job to justify why the opponent provides an abusive world of debate and how that led to issues in-round. i have no biases in voting for quirky theory arguments (i refuse to call them frivolous bc that's what PF and LD call them and i don't want to associate myself with them). Theory debate legitimately makes my day and i love to see a round that invests their time in one.

miscellaneous:

my speaks start at 28 and will go up or down depending on how well u speak, coordinate w ur partner, being nice to ur opponents, etc. but here are some pet peeves...

1. pet peeves:

- stealing prep (DON'T U DARE TOUCH UR COMPUTER WHEN UR PARTNER IS GOING TO THE RESTROOM)

- taking a millennia to send out the doc (marked or not)

- speaking over each other in cx

- asking "did you read 'x' card" more than once in a cx

- calling me judge instead of yongjin or you

- card clipping results in max 20 speaks - but, card clipping accusations need to be debated in-round for me to assign a loss - however, i will only assign an auto-loss if it is a bubble round because i believe that those who card clip should not be in elim rounds

- not disclosing the aff and 2nr strats pre-round unless its new

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

Hi y'all! I am a former speech and debater for Bellarmine College Preparatory in the Coast Forensics League. I have finished my undergrad at UC Berkeley, studying Political Science and Philosophy. Although I have done speech for a majority of my four years competing in high school, I have done a year of slow Policy Debate and was a Parliamentary Debater during my senior year of high school. I am now an Interp coach at Bellarmine College Prep and a Parliamentary/Public Forum Debate and Extemp Coach at The Nueva School. These past few years, I have been running Tabrooms at Tournaments as compared to judging. And even if I have been judging, I am almost always in the Speech and Congress judging pool.

The tl;dr: Be clear, concise, and kind during debate. I will listen to and vote on anything GIVEN that I understand it and it's on my flow. Spread and run arguments at your own risk. Evidence and analysis are a must, clash and weigh - treat me as a flay (flow + lay) judge.

If you want more precise information, read the event that you are competing in AND the "Overall Debate Stuff" if you are competing in a Debate.

Table of Contents for this paradigm:

1. Policy Debate

2. Parliamentary Debate

3. Public Forum Debate

4. Lincoln Douglas Debate

5. Overall Debate Stuff (Speed, Theory, K's, Extending Dropped Arguments, etc.)

6. IE's (Because I'm extra!) (Updated on 01/2/2024!)

7. Congress

For POLICY DEBATE:

I feel like I'm more policymaker oriented, although I started learning about Policy Debate from a stock issues lens, and am more than comfortable defaulting to stock issues if that's what y'all prefer. I'm really trying to see whether the plan is a good idea and something that should be passed. Offensive arguments and weighing are key to winning the debate for me. For example, even if the Neg proves to me that the plan triggers a disadvantage and a life threatening impact, if the Aff is able to minimize the impact or explain how the impact pales in comparison to the advantages the plan actually offers, I'd still feel comfortable voting Aff. If asked to evaluate the debate via stock issues, the Neg merely needs to win one stock issue to win the debate.

Evidence and analysis are absolutely crucial, and good analysis can beat bad evidence any day! Evidence and link turns are also great, but make sure that you are absolutely CLEAR about what you are arguing and incredibly explanatory about how this piece of evidence actually supports your argument.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Topicality - Yeah, it's a voting issue. It's the Negative's burden to explain the Affirmative's violation and to provide specific interpretations that the Affirmative needs to adhere to. Further, if T is run, I must evaluate whether the plan is Topical BEFORE I evaluate the rest of the debate.

For Theory, Ks, etc. see the "Overall Debate Stuff" below.

I'm not too up on most arguments on this year's topic, so again, arguments need to be explained clearly and efficiently.

For PARLI DEBATE:

In Parli, I will judge the debate first in terms of the stronger arguments brought up on each side through the framework provided and debated by the AFF (PROP) and the NEG (OPP). If you win framework, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such. If it's a Policy resolution round, I tend to judge by stock issue and DA's/Ad's (see the above Policy Debate paradigm). If a fact or value resolution round, I tend to judge through framework first before evaluating any arguments that come afterwards.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Similar to Policy, by the end of the 1 NR, I should know exactly what arguments you are going for. Voting issues in each of the rebuttals are a MUST! Crystallize the round for me and tell me exactly what I will be voting on at the end of the debate.

In regards to POO's, I do not protect the flow. It is up to YOU to POO your opponents. New arguments that are not POO'd may be factored into my decision if not properly POO'd. POO's should not be abused. Be clear to give me what exactly what the new argument/impact/evidence/etc. is.

I expect everyone to take at least 1-2 POI(s) throughout their speeches. Anything short is low key just rude, especially if your opponent gives you the opportunity to ask questions in their speech. Anything more is a time suck for you. Be strategic and timely about when and how you answer the question.

For PF:

I strongly believe that PF should remain an accessible type of debate for ALL judges. While I do understand and am well versed in more faster/progressive style debate, I would prefer if you slowed down and really took the time to speak to me and not at me. Similar to Policy and Parli, I want arguments to be clearly warranted and substantiated with ample evidence. As the below section explains, I'd much rather have fewer, but more well developed arguments instead of you trying to pack the flow with 10+ arguments that are flaky and unsubstantiated at best.

For PF, I will side to using an Offense/Defense paradigm. I'm really looking for Offense on why your argument matters and really want you to weigh your case against your opponents'. Whoever wins the most arguments at the end of the round may not necessarily win the round, since I think weighing impacts and arguments matters more. Please make sure that you really impact out arguments and really give me a standard or framework to weigh your arguments on! So for example, even if the Pro team wins 3 out of 4 arguments, if the Con is able to show that the one argument that they win clearly outweighs the arguments from the Pro, I may still pick up the Con team on the ballot. WEIGH , WEIGH, WEIGH. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH! Really explain why your impacts and case connect with your framework. Similar to LD, if both teams agree on framework, I'd rather you focus on case debate or add an impact rather than focus on the framework debate. Though if both teams have different frameworks, give me reasons and explain why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

The second rebuttal should both focus on responding to your opponents' refutations against your own case AND should refute your opponents' case. If you bring up dropped arguments that are not extended throughout the debate in the Final Focus speeches, I will drop those specific arguments. If it's in the Final Focus, it should be in the Final Summary, and if it's in the Final Summary, it should be in Rebuttal. I will consider an argument dropped if it is not responded to by you or your teammate after the rebuttal speeches. For more information regarding extensions, please look at the "Overall Debate Stuff" section of this paradigm.

Please use the Final Focus as a weighing mechanism of why YOUR team wins the round. I'd prefer it to be mainly summarizing your side's points and really bringing the debate to a close.

Most of all, be kind during crossfire.

For Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Similar to PF, while I did not compete in LD, I have judged a few rounds and understand the basics of this debate. I am more old-school in that I believe that LD is something that focuses more on arguing about the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The Affirmative does not need to argue for a specific plan, rather, just needs to defend the resolution. However, I have judged a handful of fast rounds in LD and do understand more progressive argumentation from Policy Debate. I have also judged policy/plan centered LD rounds.

So there's framework debate and then we get to the main meat with contentions. With the framework debate, I'm open to essentially any Value or V/C that you want to use. If you and your opponent's Value and V/C are different, please provide me reasons why I should prefer your Value and V/C over your opponents. Weigh them against each other and explain to me why you should prefer yours over your opponent's. Please also tie your contentions that you have in the main meat of your speeches back to your Value and V/C. For example (using the anonymous sources resolution from 2018-2019), if you're Neg and your Value is democracy and your V/C is transparency because the more transparent news organizations are the more accountable they can be, your contentions should show me that in the your world, we maximize transparency, which allows for the best democracy. The best cases are ones which are able to link the Value and V/C seamlessly into their contentions.

If you win the framework debate, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such.

If you and your opponent agree with V/C and V, move on. Don't spend extra time on stuff that you can spend elsewhere. Add an impact, add a DA, add an advantage, add a contention, etc.

By the time we get to rebuttals, I should have a decent grasp about what voting issues I will be voting on in the debate. A lot of the 1 AR should really be cleaning up the debate as a whole and weighing responses by the Neg with the Aff case. 1 NR should really spend a lot of time focusing on really summarizing the debate as a whole and should give me specific voting issues that the debate essentially boils down to. Feel free to give voting issues at the end of throughout your speech. They usually help me crystallize how I will be voting.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on which side best persuades me of their position. While this debater is the one which usually wins the main contentions on each side of the flow, it may not be. I usually think of offense/defense when deciding debates! As a result, please WEIGH the contentions against each other, especially when we get into the rebuttal speeches. Even if you only win one contention, if you are able to effectively weigh it against your opponent's contentions, I will have no issue voting for you. Weigh, weigh, weigh - I cannot emphasize this enough!

***Here's an example of how I decided a round with the Standardized Testing resolution: The AFF's value was morality, defined as what was right and wrong and their V/C was welfare, defined as maximizing the good of all people. The NEG's framework was also morality, defined in the same was as the AFF's but their V/C was fair comparison, defined as equal opportunities regardless of background. Suppose AFF dropped framework, I would then go on to evaluate the debate under the NEG's Value and V/C. AFF had two contentions: 1. Discrimination - Standardized testing increases discrimination towards low income and minority communities, and 2. Curriculum - standardized testing forces teachers to teach outdated information and narrow curriculum thus, decreasing student exposure to social sciences and humanities. NEG had two contentions: 1. GPA Inflation is unfair - standardized testing allows for the fairest comparison between students since GPA could be inflated, and 2. Performance Measurement - the SAT accurately measured academic performance for students. Thus, in making my decision, I would first ask, how do each of the contentions best maximize fair comparison and thus, maximize morality. Then I would go down the flow and decide who won each contention. I do this by asking how each argument and responses functioned in the debate. For example, did the AFF show me that standardized testing discriminates against people of color and low-income households? Or was the NEG able to show that adequate resources devoted to these communities not only raised scores, but also ensured that these communities we better prepared for the exam? Another example, was the NEG able to prove that if colleges no longer accepted standardized testing scores, would grade inflation result in impossible comparisons between students? Or could the AFF prove that grade inflation would not occur and that there would be heavier reliance on essays and not GPA? After deciding who won which contention, I analyze the debate as a whole - Was the GPA contention outweighed by other issues throughout the debate? (ex: Even if NEG won the GPA Contention, did AFF win the other three contentions and prove that the other three contentions outweighed NEG's winning contention? Or if AFF only won one contention, did that ONE contention outweigh any of the other contentions the NEG had?) Ultimately, the winner of the debate is who BEST persuaded me of their side through each of the contentions brought forth in the debate.

I'm also totally fine with policy type arguments in an LD round. However, while I did do a year of slow Policy Debate and feel more comfortable evaluating these type of arguments, I think that Policy and LD Debate are two different events and should thus be treated as such. Unless both debaters are comfortable with running Policy Debate type arguments in round, stick to the more traditional form of debating over the morality of the resolution. If both debaters are fine running more policy type arguments, go for it!

Overall Debate Stuff:

I'm kinda stupid - write my ballot for me. It is your job to help me understand complex arguments, not the other way around. Don't expect me to understand everything if you're spreading through an argument and you can certainly not expect me to vote on an argument that I don't understand. In other words, "you do you", but if it's not on the flow or I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.

Speed - Consider me a slow lay flow judge. While I can handle medium-slow speed, I'd prefer it you just spoke in a conversational manner as if you were talking to your parents at the dinner table. If you want to run a Kritik, Counterplan, Theory, etc. go ahead and do so, just make sure that you say it in a speed I can understand it in. Remember, if you go too fast to the point where I just put my pen down and stop flowing, your arguments aren't making it on my flow and I will not vote on them. I will yell "SLOW" and "CLEAR" a maximum of three combined times in your speech if you are going too fast or I cannot hear/understand you. If you see me put my pen down and stop flowing, you have lost me completely. Moreover, try to avoid using fast debate terminology within the round. I may not be able to understand what you are saying if it all goes over my head.

Truth v. Tech - I feel like I have a very rudimentary understanding of these terms, so if you are a debater who loves running K Arguments, Theory, 10+ DA's, likes to spread a bunch, and is unwilling to adapt to a lay judge, do us both a favor and strike me. I run a very fine and nuanced line with truth v. tech. I feel like I'm slightly tech > truth, but ONLY SLIGHTLY so. I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round solely based on the flow, but I do think that there are arguments that are just bad, like (generically listing) "racism/homophobia/ageism/poverty good" or just linking everything to nuclear war. Let me illustrate this with an example:

The Neg tries to prove that an excess of immigration within the United States will result in Trump starting a nuclear war against country "x" as a diversionary tactic because he is losing his hardline immigration battle. Personally, I do not believe this will happen, but if this is the only argument left in the round and the Affirmative drops this and the Negative extends this throughout the debate, I will have no choice but to vote Neg to prevent more lives from being lost. However, if the Affirmative is able to show me that nuclear war will not occur or can effectively delink or turn the Negative's argument of nuclear war or can outweigh nuclear war (i.e. benefits of passing plan outweigh the possibility of nuclear war, which only has a close-to-zero percent chance of happening), I will be more inclined to believe that the Affirmative has won this argument based on any evidence/turn they give me, but also based on what I personally believe will happen. I will not arbitrarily insert my own beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters create a situation in which that case occurs, as with the example seen above, I will be inclined to vote for the debater that has the more true argument and the argument that makes more sense logically with me.

Tabula Rasa - As seen with the example above, I'm not Tabula Rasa. I really don't think that any judge can truly be "tab," for who am I to decide what is true? Again, I won't arbitrarily insert my beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters have an argument that I believe is "true," I will be more inclined to buy that argument unless a team convinces me otherwise. In other words, there exist arguments that I am more likely to agree with and arguments I am more likely to buy and vote on. Either way, I will evaluate the round from what I have written on the flow. Furthermore, take these examples:

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California while the Negative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. In making my decision, I will side with the latter based on outside knowledge and because it is the argument I think is more "true" based on outside knowledge.

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California. The Negative does not respond to this claim. While I do not think that the Affirmative's claim is true, the Negative does not respond to this argument and thus, I will consider the Affirmative's argument as valid and evaluate the round as such.

Judge Intervention - Take this as you will, but I strongly also believe that I as a judge should not arbitrarily intervene during the debate and should listen to the arguments presented in the round as brought up by the debaters. So like what I wrote under the Policy Debate part of the paradigm, go ahead and run whatever argument you want. As long as I understand it, I will put it on my flow. See "Speed" and "K's/Theory" portion of this section for more information about what arguments you should run if I'm your judge. It is ultimately a debater's job to help me understand their/his/her argument, not vice versa. Moreover, I will not weigh for you - that being said, if neither team runs arguments that I understand and neither team weighs, I will be forced to intervene.

~~~

Brief note: OK, so I get that the non interventionist approach contradicts the fact that I am more inclined to vote for an argument that I think is "true." As a judge I can promise you that I will flow what I can listen to and will evaluate the round holistically. I am an incredibly nuanced person and I think my paradigm reflects this (perhaps a little too much)...

~~~

PLEASE CLASH WITH ARGUMENTS! CLASH! CLASH! CLASH! Don't let the debate devolve into two boats sailing past each other in the night. At that point, it's completely pointless. I'd also prefer fewer well developed arguments over that of many arguments loosely tied together. Please don't brief barf or pack the flow with pointless arguments which aren't well developed. I may not include undeveloped arguments in my RFD if I deem that they are pointless or unimportant to the debate overall. Also, over the course of the debate as a whole, I would prefer fewer, but more well developed arguments, rather than a ton of arguments that go unsubstantiated.

Tag-Team CX/Flex Prep - I'm fine with this, just make sure that you're the one talking for most of the time. Your partner can't and shouldn't control your time. It is your Cross-Examination/Cross-fire after all. Same with speeches - essentially, don't have your partner be constantly interjecting you when you are speaking - you should be the one talking! If it seems as if your partner is commandeering your cross-examination or speech time, I will lower your speaks. Also totally fine with flex prep - you may use your prep time however you'd like, but since this time is not considered "official" cross-ex time, whether or not the opponent actually responds to the question is up to them. While I do not flow CX, I do pay close attention and if I look confused, I am more often thinking intensely about what you said, rather than emoting disagreement.

Roadmaps + Overviews - Please have them, and roadmaps may absolutely be off-time! I literally love/need roadmaps! They help me organize my flow make the debate/your speech a lot easier to follow! There should be a decent overview at the top of (at the minimum), each rebuttal - condense the round for me and summarize why you win each of the major arguments that comes up. Don't spend too much time on the overview, but don't ignore it.

K's and Theory - I'm not familiar with any literature at all! While you may choose to run K's or Theory (it is your round after all), I will do my very best to try and understand your argument. If I do not understand what you are saying, then I will not put it on my flow or vote on it. If you go slow, I will be more inclined to understand you and flow what you are saying. Again, not on the flow/don't understand = I won't vote on it.

Conditionality - This is fine. Though if you decide to kick anything, kick it earlier in the debate, don't wait until the 2NR unless it is strategic to do so. Please also make sure that your arguments are not contradictory - I have had to explain to teams about why running a Capitalism K on how the government perpetuates capitalism and then also running a CP where the Federal Government is the actor is ironic. In any case, kick the whichever argument is weaker and explain why Condo is good. Also, don't advocate for an unconditional position and then proceed to kick it or drop it. That would be bad.

Cross-applying - Don't just say "cross-apply my responses with Contention 1 on the Aff Case with Contention 2 on the Neg Case." This doesn't mean anything. Show me specifically how you group arguments together and explain how exactly your responses are better than your opponent's. Moreover, show me how your cross-application effectively answers their arguments - Does it de-link a disadvantage? Does it turn an argument? Does it effectively make Aff's actor in the plan powerless? Does it take out a crucial piece of evidence? What exactly does your cross-application do and how does it help you win the debate?

Dropped Arguments + Extensions - In regards to dropped contentions, subpoints, or impacts, I will personally extend all contentions, arguments, impacts, etc. that you individually tell me to extend. For all those arguments that were not extended and were dropped by the opponent, I will NOT personally extend myself. You must tell me to extend all dropped arguments or I will consider it dropped by you as well. All dropped contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. should not be voter issues for the side that dropped it. I will drop all voter issues that were stated in the rebuttal if they were dropped by your side.

I did Interp, so my facial expressions will be turned "on" for the debate. If I like something, I will probably be nodding at you when you speak. Please do not feel intimidated if I look questioned or concerned when you speak. It does not show that you are losing the debate, nor does it show that you will be getting less speaks. However, if I seems like I am genuinely confused or have just put my pen down, you have lost me.

In regards to all debates, write the ballot for me, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Tell me why you win the round, and weigh arguments against each other!

ALSO, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, and SIGNPOST. The easier you make it for me to follow you in the round, the easier I can flow and be organized, and the easier you can win. Trust me, nothing's worse than when you're confused. KEEP THE ROUND CLEAN!

Don't be a jerk. It's the easiest way to lose speaker points. (Or even perhaps the round!) Good POI's/CX Q's and a good sense of humor get you higher speaks.

Links/Impacts - Be smart with this. I'm not a big fan of linking everything to nuclear war, unless you can prove to be that there is beyond a reason of a doubt that nuclear war occurs. So two things about impacts/links - the more practical and pragmatic you can make them, the better. I'm more inclined to buy well warranted and substantiated links to arguments. For example:

Plea bargaining --> incarceration --> cycle of poverty (These arguments are linked together and make logical sense. If we added "nuclear war" after "cycle of poverty," I'll just stare at you weirdly.)

Second, truth v. tech also applies with impacts and links, so if the Aff brings up a nuclear war will be caused by Trump as a diversionary tactic due to more immigration, and the Neg refutes that logically by taking out a link, I'll probably buy their argument (see the truth v. tech example I give). If the Neg doesn't respond, then the argument is valid. However, if the Neg is able to essentially group arguments and respond to them while weighing and shows me that even if they didn't answer this argument, Neg wins most everything else, I may still vote Neg.

I firmly believe that debate is not a game. It is an educational opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to communicate efficiently between groups of people. Please don't try to make debate more complicated than it already is.

In regards to evidence in all debates: Yes, you need it - and should have a good amount of it. I know you only get 20 minutes to prep in Parli, and that you're not allowed internet prep (at some tournaments). But I need you to substantiate all claims with evidence. It doesn't have to be all subpoints and for every argument, but I will definitely be less inclined to vote for you if you only have one citation in the 19 minutes you speak, while your opponents have 7+ citations in the total 19 minutes they speak. Do not give me 7 minutes of analytics with no evidence at all. More evidence = more compelling. That being said, make sure that you also have a very strong amount of analytics as well. Don't just give me a lot of evidence without good analytics. Good analysis props up evidence and evidence supports good analysis. I would also much rather have a 4-5 good/solid pieces of evidence over 10+ trashy cards that don't help your case or add much to the debate. Essentially what I'm trying to say here is that good analysis > bad evidence any day, any round, and QUALITY > QUANTITY!!!

Do not CHEAT and make up cards, or clip cards, or anything of the like. Just don't. I will give you an automatic loss if you choose to do so. (Please don't make me do this...)

Time yourselves using whatever method you feel comfortable with! iPhone, SmartWatch, computer timer, etc. If you are taking prep, please announce it for me and your competitor to hear. Flashing or sending documents does not count as prep, though this needs to be taken care of in an expeditious manner. If you are caught abusing prep time, I will tank your speaks.

WEIGH - WEIGH - WEIGH!!! This is SO IMPORTANT, especially when debates come down to the wire. The team that does the better weighing will win the round if it's super tight! I won't weigh for you. Make my job easy and weigh. Again, as pieced together from previous parts of the paradigm, even if a team drops 3 out of the 5 arguments, if the team is able to show that the two arguments they do win outweigh the 3 arguments they lost, I will be more inclined to vote for that team that does the better weighing. I also love world comparisons, so weigh the world of the Affirmative and Negative and tell me which one is better for society, people, etc. after the implementation or non-implementation of the plan!

I will not disclose after the round (if I'm judging in the Coast Forensics League)! I usually disclose after invites though, given enough time. Either way, if you have questions about the round, please feel free to come and ask me if you aren't in round! I'll make myself visible throughout the tournament! If you can't find me, please feel free to contact me at xavier.liu17@gmail.com if you have any questions about the round! Please also feel free to contact me after the tournament regarding RFDs and comments!

FOR IE'S:

Ok. Now onto my favorite events of Speech and Debate. The IE's. First, I did Interp for a lot of my years competing, specifically DI, DUO, and OI. I've also done EXPOS (INF) as well. Take the Platform Events paradigm with a grain of salt. While there are many things that you could do to get the "1" in the room, I am particularly looking at several things that put you over the top.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

For Extemp (IX, DX) - I will flow your speech as thoroughly as I can. Please expect to have CITATIONS - at the minimum: news organization and date (month, day, year). An example: "According to Politico on February 13th of 2019..." If you have the author, even better - "John Smith, a columnist for Politico, writes on February 13th of 2019..." Please note that fabricating or making up citations or evidence is cheating and you will be given the lowest rank in the room and reported to Tab. You must have strong analysis within your speech. This analysis should supplement your evidence and your analysis should explain why your evidence is pertinent in answering the question. Good evidence and analysis trumps pretty delivery any day. Most importantly, make sure that you ANSWER THE QUESTION - I cannot give you a high rank if you do not answer the question.

For Impromptu (IMP) - I will flow your points as thoroughly as I can. I expect to see a thesis at the end of the intro and two to three well developed examples and points that support your thesis. While you do not have to have citations like Extemp, I would like to see specificity. Good analysis is also important and you need to make sure that your analysis ties into the thesis that you give me at the top of the intro. I also don't really like personal stories as examples and points in the Impromptu. I feel like personal stories are really generic and can always be canned. However, if done well and tied in well, personal stories do enhance the Impromptu! Use your discretion during prep time to decide if you want to use a personal story in your speech and how effective your personal story is. I also give bonus points and higher ranks to originality rather than canned speeches. Most importantly, make sure that you clearly develop your points and examples and explain why they apply to your thesis. I will default to California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules for Impromptu prep - 2 minutes of prep, with 5 minutes speaking - unless told otherwise by Tab/Tournament Officials.

Time signals for Impromptu and Extemp: With Extemp, I will give you time signals from 6 minutes left and down, Impromptu from 4 left and down. 30 seconds left will be indicated with a "C," 15 seconds left will be indicated with a closed "C," I will count down with my fingers for the last 10 seconds of the speech, with a fist at 7 or 5 minutes. I will show you what this looks like before you speak so you know what each signal looks like. With Impromptu prep, I will verbally announce how much prep is left: "1 minute left," "30 seconds left," "15 seconds." I will say "Time" when prep has ended. If I forget to give you time signals: 1. I fervently apologize; 2. This is probably a good thing since I was so invested in your speech or getting comments in; 3. You will NOT be responsible any time violations if you go overtime because it was my fault that you went overtime in the first place. #3 only applies if I literally forget to give you time signals; ex: I give you a time signal for 6 minutes left, but not 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. If I forget to give you a signal for 4 minutes left, but get everything else, you're not off the hook then. I will also not stop you if you go beyond the grace period. Continue speaking until you have finished your speech.

For Original Advocacy and Original Oratory (OA/OO) - I will be primarily concerned with content. I will be looking for establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over exaggerated.

For Expository Speaking/Informative Speaking (EXPOS/INF) - Again, primarily concerned with content. While Visual Aids (VAs) are important, they should serve to guide the speech, not distract me. That being said, I do enjoy interactive VAs that not only enhance the piece, but make me think about what you are saying. While puns and humor are both important, jokes should have a purpose in guiding your speech and enhancing it, and should not be included for the sole purpose of making anyone laugh. While I think that there doesn't necessarily need to be a message at the end of the speech, I should most definitely be informed of the topic that you are speaking to me about and I should've learned something new by the end of the 10 minute speech. Transitions from aspect to aspect in the speech should be clear and should not leave me confused about what you are talking about.

General Stuff for Platform Events:

1. Content > Delivery (Though I did Interp, so delivery is pretty important to me as well. Kinda like a 60-65% content, 35-40% delivery.)

What I have below is taken from Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm for Platform Events:

2. Projection and Enunciation are not the same as volume.

3. Repetitive vocal patterns, distracting hand gestures, robotic delivery, and unneeded micromovements will only hurt you.

4. Pacing, timing, and transitions are all important - take your time with these.

5. Natural Delivery > Forced/Exaggerated

6. Time Signals for OO, OA, and EXPOS - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I am most well versed in DI, OI, and DUO, but as a coach, I've worked with DI, OI, HI, POI, OPP, and DUO.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations, and Dramatic Original Prose and Poetry (DI, DUO, OPP) - Subtlety > Screamy, any day, any time. I'm not against screaming, but they should be during appropriate moments during the piece. Emotions should build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations, and Humorous Original Prose and Poetry (HI, DUO, OPP) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. What I mean by this is that you should be thinking throughout your piece. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

For Oratorical Interpretation (OI) - Please err on the side of natural emotion over forced facial expressions. I am not a big fan when speakers try to force emotion or simply convey no emotion when speaking. Script selection is obviously a big deal in this event. Choose a speech with a promising and important message and see if you can avoid overdone speeches.

General Stuff for Interpretation Events:

A lot of this and my Interpretation paradigm is very much similar to Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm. He and I agree on a lot of things, including what I will write below.

1. Subtlety > Screamy - I tend to enjoy the small nuances of emotion. Build the emotion throughout, don't go from "0 to 100 real quick." Don't force emotion.

2. "Acting is reacting." - Each movement and action should have a purpose. Swaying or distracting micro-movements are bad. When one character or partner says something or does something, there should be a reaction from another character or by the other partner. Watch what is happening and react accordingly.

3. Let the eyes speak. Eyes are underutilized in Interp - I feel like everyone is so focused on facial expression and eyebrows/body language, that they forget about the eyes. Intensity can be portrayed in absolute silence.

4. If I am not laughing during your speech, it's not because it's not funny. I am just super focused on you and watching every little part of your blocking and your facial expressions.

5. Please watch body position - misplaced feet, hands, or mistimed blocking is a big no-no.

6. No blocking > bad blocking - you don't need to be doing something ALL the time. Sometimes, standing still and doing nothing is better than always doing something.

7. Use pacing and timing to your advantage.

8. Quality of cut is fair game.

9. Message of the piece - I don't think that there necessarily needs to be a super strong message to the piece itself. I'd be totally fine if the piece was literally 7 short stories that were interwoven together and each story had it's own little thing going on. I'm more concerned about the performance/technical blocking itself. That being said, if I literally do not understand what is going on in the piece, we have a big problem. Exception to this is OI.

10. THINK!!!!!!!! And do not let the energy wane!

11. Time Signals for DI, HI, DUO, OPP, POI/POE/PRO, OI - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have only judged Congress a handful of times, so please take what I write with a grain of salt.

In regards to speeches, I do not value speakers who speak at the beginning of a session more than those who speak towards the end, or vice versa. Opening speeches and the first couple speeches (around 1-2 on each side) afterwards should set up the main arguments as of why the chamber should be voting in favor or against the piece of legislation. After the 2nd speech on each side, you should really be clashing with arguments, impacting out both evidence and analysis, and weighing arguments against each other. Rehashing arguments made by other Congressional Debaters or "throwing more evidence" as a response to arguments is unimpressive.

During cross, if you just toss around random questions that do not actually pertain to the debate, your ranks will suffer. Remember to attack ideas and engage with the speaker who just spoke - save the argumentation for the speech. If you get the other speaker to concede something and you are able to use that in your speech, ranks will go up.

Respond to the actual links or the claims themselves and convince me why your claim is stronger. I welcome direct responses and refutations to another Congressperson's arguments, though please make it clear whom you are responding to and what the argument is. For example: "Next, I would like to refute Rep. Liu's argument that this bill would disadvantage states in the Midwest."

I'm a big stickler for Parliamentary Procedure, which means that if you are a PO, mistakes will be costly. Further, if you are acting like a biased PO, favoring certain speakers or debaters over other, you will be dropped.

Also, please note that "motion" is a noun. "Move" is a verb. So it's not: "I motion to adjourn." It would be: "I move to adjourn." PO's, remember that you cannot "assume unanimous consent" - a member of the chamber must ask for unanimous consent.

~~~

Feel free to ask me any questions about the paradigm, both speech and/or debate before the round begins. Or feel free to email me questions about my paradigm at xavier.liu17@gmail.com.

If you are confused about the RFD/comments I have written for either speech and/or debate, please also feel free to contact me whenever you'd like to at the above email.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!! GO. FIGHT. WIN.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

*wear a mask if you are any degree of ill*

neutral or they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

me: 4 yrs TOC circuit policy @ Blue Valley West ('19: surveillance, china, education, immigration) // BA Political Science @ UC Berkeley ('22) // [Current] PhD student, Political Science @ Johns Hopkins. did not debate in college.

conflicts: college prep (2019-present), georgetown day (2023-present), calvert hall (2023-present)

judging stats: 264 sum, aff: 126(46.8%) - neg: 143(53.2%) // panels: 63, sat: 6x, split: 19 // decisions regretted: like 2, maybe 3

non-policy: dabbled but will evaluate like a policy judge.

___

juj preferences

[me] my debate opinions are influenced primarily by KU-affiliated/Kansas debate diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, box, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. Great for policy/T, policy/policy & policy/K, OK for K/policy, mid for K/K & theory. I think i'm good for a fast/technical debate for someone having been out of debate for 5 years. LOL. have mercy on me.

[norms] CX is a speech except when using extra prep. I do not care about respectability/politeness/"professionalism", but ego posturing/nastiness is distinct from assertiveness/confidence/good faith. respect diverse skill levels and debating styles. non-debate (interpersonal) disputes go straight to tab, NOT me. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I will take the easiest way out. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them with as little intervention as possible - read: judge instructions necessary. I only read cards if they're extended into rebuttals w authors & warrants. Ev work, like Mac dre said, is not my job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful (if consistent). i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN, like slower than an in-person tournament, or else your cpu mic/my speaker will eat all your words; I will type "clear" in the round chat box once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech unless its prematurely concluded. i do not read "inserts", a recut card is still a card - read it. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow & I do not flow analytics off the doc. #lets #signpost. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

** TLDR: I like good debate; as in, the more rounds I judge, the less strong feelings I have about specific arguments. I can be persuaded by most arguments (if you are good at being persuasive). do the work and you will win me over. good luck and have fun! :)

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must call an ethics violation to stop the round. if verified, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] usually necessitates recording, contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible & not marking.**I am following at least the 1AC and 1NC - read every word. seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! if I notice clipping and no one else calls it out, I will not stop the round, but your speaks will reflect what I hear.

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] okay, but not my neck of the woods. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs must resolve something or have offense. don't miss the forest for the trees- ex: 2NR responds LBL to the 1AR but fails to contextualize to the rest of the debate. I find myself often w a lot of info but unclear reasons to vote. judge instruction prevents judge intervention (esp. re: kvk debate).

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm familiar with most neolib/security/ontology-relevant K's, but never never never assume I know your theory of power. idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, baudrillard, wtv). K tricks r dope, if you can explain them.

[disads] yes. impact turns/turns case are awesome. idk anything about finance, spare me the jargon or at least explain it in baby words.

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. "sufficiency framing" "perm do ____" are meaningless w/o explanation. abolish perm vomit! adv cp's r awesome!! risk of net ben before CP solvency (unless told otherwise... judge instruction is your friend). remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.

[T] good (but I'm waiting for it to be great...). default to competing interps/framing through models unless told otherwise. caselists are good. SIGNPOST. slow down, i need to hear every word. + speaks for T debate off the flow. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it! [re: T vs. K-aff]: I admittedly lean neg for limits being good & personal familiarity of args. i find K-aff v. fw rounds are increasingly uncreative/unadaptive... TVA's are persuasive (aff teams are not good at debating against them). judge instruction is your friend!

[theory] rule of thumb: equal input, equal-ish output. aka, blipped theory warrants blipped answers. do not expect a good rfd if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. I will not vote on theory if you are simply asserting a violation - it is procedural argument, treat it like one.

[speaker points] i am anti speaks inflation. everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for aforementioned reasons + disorganization + offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary speeches. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

Samuel Maurer
Part time coach @ Head-Royce

Yes I want to be on the speech doc. samuel.maurer@gmail.com

TOC 2024 update

I haven't judged a debate in a year so you're going to have to fill me in on topic nuance if you want me to vote on it. Since I also haven't been flowing for awhile, focusing on transmission of the important stuff is probably a very valuable use of your time.

ALSO...I clarify below that CXing and getting CXed are speeches to me. If you waive your CX to prep, the floor for speaker points falls well below a 27, just as if you had 'opted-out' of a rebuttal. Not being able to come-up with any useful attempts at CX questions screams "I don't understand strategy" to me so I don't have reservations about wrecking points. You've been warned.

old stuff

A note on speech docs: I read them during the debate to enhance my knowledge of your arguments. I do not read them to fill-in the blank for a speech that is incomprehensible. I judge the debate speeches, I don't referee emails. So assuming that the written existence of an argument in the document is a sufficient means of introducing it into the debate is dangerous in front of me. If that key comparison was buried in the middle of a wall of text you read like a bored robot, I'm not going to evaluate it. Conversely, if you are deliberately unpacking evidence that I can re-read to verify your interpretations and arguments, your doc can help add depth to your argument. I read the doc as a speech supplement, not a substitute.

I’ll talk about some more specific proclivities that may be useful for your strike-sheet since, if you are reading this, you’re probably filling it out.

Speaker points/CX: I believe that debaters give 4 “speeches” in a debate: C, R, CX, and Being CXed. My speaker points are based on all 4. If you don’t answer/ask a CX question, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. If you’re an jerk or don’t answer simple questions or are simply obstructionist, speaker points suffer. Don’t neglect CX. I will diligently flow cross-examination but if you take prep to ask questions, I consider it to not be part of the debate. Don't be offended if I leave while you go into overtime.

Know when its better to slow down

-- if I’ve never judged you before, give me time at the beginning of a constructive to get used to your voice.

-- complex/tricky CP texts – please slow down during these. I’m not going to look at the speech doc and CX won’t always clear it up. Clearly emphasize the differences (supreme court, different language pic, etc.)

-- Judge instruction helps me -- big picture moments in rebuttals -- "if we win this, we win the debate", etc. Crucial moments of impacts/evidence comparison.

Evidence: Quality over Quantity – I know this is almost a cliché in judging philosophies but I don’t just mean lots of bad cards are worse than 1 good card. That is obvious. I also mean that you should consider focusing on fewer cards in front of me than you might otherwise.

-- Indexing – judging debates where last rebuttals (more often 2NR’s) mention every name of every card and say how it interacts with an argument concept (“McCoy means we turn the link”, “Smith is the impact to that”) is very frustrating for me. I thrive on the big picture. I don’t view your evidence as that or even an argument unto itself – I view your evidence as a tool. You have to explain how it works and why.

-- highlighting – I find myself increasingly choosing to ignore or assign very little weight to evidence because scant highlighting leaves a lot to the imagination. In front of me, it might be wise to select a few important cards in the debate that you would read a longer version of (crucial internal link card for elections, link to the PIC’s net benefits, alt cards, etc.).

-- I read evidence after debates to confirm its function in your speeches, not so that it can “make an argument” to me in some disembodied fashion 15 minutes after the round ends.

I prefer narrower, deeper debates: Not going to lie, when debates get horizontally big and stay that way through rebuttals, I’m less comfortable making a decision. I think this has to do with how I read evidence (above) in that often times debates that stay horizontally big require the judge to do a lot of inference into conclusions made in cards they read as opposed to speeches they evaluate. I’m okay with debates on several sheets of paper but just make sure you are identifying what you think are the strategic bottlenecks of the debate and how you are winning them. “they can’t win X if we win Y because the following impact comparison wasn’t answered…”

Links/UQ: I think debaters too often think of link direction in purely binary terms. In addition to winning links, debaters need to explicitly create mechanisms for evaluating link direction. don’t just put “this thing key” cards in my hands and expect me to ref an ev fight. Tell me why this internal controls the other or vice versa.

Framework: I’ve voted for either side of this debate plenty of times. If it’s a choice between an engaging strategy against a critical aff and T, the former is a preferable strategy in front of me. I will vote on impact turns to topicality even if the negative doesn’t go for it (provided, of course, the affirmative makes a valid argument for why I should). I find myself often frustrated in debates that lack concrete nouns and instead choose arguments/strategies where abstractions are posited in relationship to one another, concretizing through examples helps a lot. I think 'fairness' is an internal link that, when well-developed with method for debate that is academically engaging and balanced, can have a large impact on my decision. By itself, a fair game is just stable, could be good or bad. I think negs running framework are best when talking about dynamics of the debate, not just complaining about how much/many affs there are. I'm not one who believes in the "procedural fairness or education" dilemma, good framework execution involves both I think. TVA's and SSD's are defense/counterplan type arguments that I think both sides are wise to not just address but frame in my decision.

Theory: Seems dead. Seemingly fewer and fewer affirmatives even make a meaningful press on theoretical objections to the CP. I still appreciate theory on the aff and not just as an “independent voter” but rather a good way to strategically dictate the landscape of the debate. This by no means implies that I’m a hack for any affirmative theory argument. But it does mean aff’s that hear a 3 cp’s in the 1NC and don’t make more than a 10 second conditionality block and don’t mention that there were 3 counterplans are giving up on some production. I think it goes without saying that very blippy theory debates are terrible. Slowing down and being more thematic and explanatory is almost always a better approach the theory execution in front of me. In the end, I'm pretty old school and think theory needs to make a comeback (mostly so aff's can not give their cases away to disposable 15-plank hydras every debate) but it seems perfunctory in execution anymore.
Finally, please make sure to mark evidence as you read it.

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021

I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take topic-specific terms and warrants in camp arguments for granted.

Be nice.

I prefer that you read a plan.

Infinite condo is better than no condo.

If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.

I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.

I'm not great for high theory.

Impact turn the K.

email: dylanmichalak2003@gmail.com

—College debater & policy debate captain @ Davis

—NDT Qualifier 2024

—Former Assistant Coach @ Sonoma Academy, graduated '22.

—Add me to the email chain: mateodebates@gmail.com

Background:

Did 4 years of debate at Sonoma, mostly went for Ks, qualled to TOC, coached for a year and coached mostly policy stuff, now lead UC Davis policy team.

General:

—Do whatever you're good at; I enjoy and am willing to judge nearly any type of round. I will likely vote for the team who is best able to isolate the central question of the round and explain why the arguments in the round mean they’ve won.

K + FW stuff:

—I have gone for the K in most of my debates. Specific Ks are always best, but read whatever you want.

—Link specificity is important, and will often win you the debate. My favorite K strategies are highly organized, structured, and specific.

—You can read K Affs in front of me. I ran K Affs throughout high school and now in college and wrote several dozen of them. Do whatever you want.

—I believe debate is a game with unique pedagogical values.

—Procedural fairness can be convincing to me if explained well with terminal impact calculus in the 2NR; however, I am more likely to vote on a model with limits and clash as the impacts

Student USC but not involved in their debate program. I graduated from Head Royce School in 2019 and debated all 4 years there.

I have no problem judging policy or k debates - run whatever you want to run. When I was a debater I leaned towards K debate, so do with that info what you will. But, I am also in the process of applying to law school and all that jazz, so I'm not totally ignorant to policy leaning things. Regardless, I'm not going to be up to date on your politics DA scenario.

I will be slightly sad if you read 8 off in the 1NC, because that's unnecessary and usually means the arguments lack depth, but I won't vote you down for it.

I think judge intervention is bad. All i ask is that your 2AR/2NR makes very clear why i should vote for you - basically write my ballot for me. This means I'm fine with any argument that's not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

please add me to the email chain: tynavarro3@gmail.com

tldr:

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

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

about me:

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

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

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

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

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

• coaching areas / experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • demonstrating strategic thinking in speeches and cx

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

  • detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

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

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

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

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

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

Other General Points Across Debate Formats:

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY DEBATE SPECIFICS

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

Fiscal Redistribution / 23-24 topic experience:

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

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

Number of off case / depth vs. breadth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

T / framework

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

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

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

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

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

• Framework specifically:

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

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

Case debate

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

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

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

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

Off case generally

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

Disads:

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

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

• strong uniqueness and link specificity explanation > giant uniqueness walls

Ks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

A few args i'll admit to not liking:

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

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

SPEAKER POINTS

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

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER DETAILS & DEBATE FORMATS:

Debating for Panels:

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

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

for LD Debate:

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

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

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

for PF Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for Parli Debate:

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

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

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

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

• generally no RVIs absent substantial work in justifying them

cmeowdebate@gmail.com

HARTS 22'

CSULB 26'

The more I judge and debate, the more I realize how useless these paradigms actually are. Debate is an educational activity. Have fun, flow, make smart arguments, be kind but petty. I eliminate my own biases to fairly adjudicate rounds. Will not check in for any isms or physical violence.

Best tip I can give you in order to get my ballot is to adopt clean and easy decision-making. I hate doing work for you so I would prefer you do the work for me, which means doing the line by line, answering their offense, and extending your own with well explained warrants through every speech.

Debate Shoutouts: Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego "Jay-Z" Flores, Erika Linares, Rickelle Basillo, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Gabriela Gonzalez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, J-Burke, Von, Cameron Ward, Toya, Jorge Aguilar, Ryan Upston, Y'Mahnie Harvey, Max Wiessner, Sofia Gurrola, Jean and Gavie, Clare Bradley, and all of #LAMDLGANG.

"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23.

Song Challenge: I usually start speaks at 28.5 and move up/down depending on performance. On a softer note, I usually will listen to music while I write my RFD. Most times, I already have decided a winner after the 2AR has ended, but I always go over my flow/notes one last time before I write or submit my ballot. I love listening to new music, and I listen to every genre imaginable. That being said, I love to hear the tunes y'all have been jamming to recently. To encourage such behavior, debaters have an opportunity to garner extra speaks based on their music suggestions. Each team is allowed to give me one song to listen to while I write my RFD. It cannot be a song I've heard before. If I like the song, you will receive a +.1 to your speaker points. If I don't like it, you won't receive any extra, but I also won't redact any from your original score.

Here are teams I love debating against:

Wake RL/RT

Kentucky DG

Wyoming LP

Wayne State RM

My list of favorite white people in debate is coming soon.

Updated for Economic Inequality Topic

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com) & my school mail (damiendebate47@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien (part-time), and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory (full-time). I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.

This Year's Topic: I believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating and are better equipped to win my ballot.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.

I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: As a matter of truth I am predisposed to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors until you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. Cards are meaningless without highlighted warrants; you are better off fewer painted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.

Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").

I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.

Framework / T-USFG

For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.

Procedurals/Theory

I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you absent actual line-by-line refutation that includes a coherent abuse story which would be solved by your interpretation.

Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.

- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) due to the lack of specificity.

- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).

- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.

- Condo is not the same thing as severance of the discourse/rhetoric. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo.

- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abuse. Potential ground loss is abuse.

Kritiks

TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.

A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.

Against K affs, you should leverage fairness and education offensive as a way to shape the process by which I should evaluate the kritik. I'm more likely to give you "No perms without a plan text" because cheating should be mutual than I am to give it to you because epistemology and pedagogy is important.

Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).

I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).

Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.

Misc.

Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.

darinparkdebate@gmail.com

please call me darin and not judge!

i really don't care what you do. mostly everything is grounds for debate barring blatantly problematic positions. the more your strategy rejoins the 1ac, the higher your speaks will be.

if the top of your final rebuttal does not tell me what i should repeat back to you in my rfd, do not pref me. offense-defense shapes how i render most decisions.

convincing me you should not have to read a plan will be an uphill battle and will require significant concessions from the negative team.

i vote on the k for the neg somewhat frequently. i prefer when things are said about the plan.

conditionality is nearly always good, but there is an alarming trend with how poorly 2n's handle aff extensions of theory.

limited functional intrinsicness is probably good. i can be persuaded otherwise.

if you say the phrase "fiat double bind" in your speech, your speaks are capped at 27.0.

you can't insert re-highlights.

do not talk about things that happened outside the round.

Updated 4/11/23* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

Experience

Current Affiliation = Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA)
Debates Judged on this topic: about 40 Rounds (UMich Debate Institute)
Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1992-1995); Debated NDT/CEDA in college at USC (1995-1999); Assistant debate coach at Cal State Northridge 2003-2005; Assistant debate coach at Glenbrook South HS Spring of 2005; Director of Debate at Glenbrook North HS 2005-2009; Director of Debate at Notre Dame HS Fall of 2009-Present.

General Note

My defaults go into effect when left to my own devices. I will go against most of these defaults if a team technically persuades me to do so in any given debate.

Paperless Rules

If you start taking excessive time to flash your document, I will start instituting that "Prep time ends when the speaker's flash drive is removed from her/his computer."

Major Notes

Topic familiarity

I am familiar with the topic (4 weeks of teaching at Michigan at Classic and involved in argument coaching at Notre Dame).

Delivery

Delivery rate should be governed by your clarity; WARRANTS in the evidence should be clear, not just the tagline.
Clarity is significantly assisted by organization - I flow as technically as possible and try to follow the 1NC structure on-case and 2AC structure off-case through the 1AR. 2NR and the 2AR should have some leeway to restructure the debate in important places to highlight their offense. However, line-by-line should be followed where re-structuring is not necessary.

Ideal 2AR Structure

Offense placed at the top (tell me how I should be framing the debate in the context of what you are winning), then move through the debate in a logical order.

2NR's Make Choices

Good 2NR strategies may be one of the following: (1) Functionally and/or textually competitive counterplan with an internal or external net benefit, (2) K with a good turns case/root cause arguments that are specific to each advantage, (3) Disadvantage with turns case arguments and any necessary case defense, (4) Topicality (make sure to cover any theory arguments that are offense for aff). My least favorite debates to resolve are large impact turn debates, not because I hate impact turns, but because I think that students lose sight of how to resolve and weigh the multiple impact scenarios that get interjected into the debate. Resolving these debates starts with a big picture impact comparison.

Evidence Quality/References

Reference evidence by warrant first and then add "That's [Author]." Warrant and author references are especially important on cards that you want me to read at the end of the debate. Also, evidence should reflect the arguments that you are making in the debate. I understand that resolving a debate requires spin, but that spin should be based in the facts presented in your evidence.

I have been getting copies of speech documents for many debates lately so I can read cards during prep time, etc. However, note that I will pay attention to what is said in the debate as much as possible - I would much rather resolve the debate on what the debaters say, not based on my assessment of the evidence.

Offense-Defense

Safer to go for offense, and then make an "even if" statement explaining offense as a 100% defensive takeout. I will vote on well-resolved defense against CP, DA's and case. This is especially true against process CP's (e.g., going for a well-resolved permutation doesn't require you to prove a net benefit to the permutation since these CP's are very difficult to get a solvency deficit to) and DA's with contrived internal link scenarios. Winning 100% defense does require clear evidence comparison to resolve.

Topicality

I like a well-developed topicality debate. This should include cards to resolve important distinctions. Topical version of the aff and reasonable case lists are persuasive. Reasonability is persuasive when the affirmative has a TRUE "we meet" argument; it seems unnecessary to require the affirmative to have a counter-interpretation when they clearly meet the negative interpretation. Also, discussing standards with impacts as DA's to the counter-interpretation is very useful - definition is the uniqueness, violation is the link, standard is an internal link and education or fairness is the impact.

Counterplans

Word PIC's, process, consult, and condition CP's are all ok. I have voted on theory against these CP's in the past because the teams that argued they were illegit were more technically saavy and made good education arguments about the nature of these CP's. The argument that they destroy topic-specific education is persuasive if you can prove why that is true. Separately, the starting point for answers to the permutation are the distinction(s) between the CP and plan. The starting point for answers to a solvency deficit are the similarities between the warrants of the aff advantage internal links and the CP solvency cards. Counterplans do not have to be both functionally and textually competitive, but it is better if you can make an argument as to why it is both.

Disadvantages

All parts of the DA are important, meaning neither uniqueness nor links are more important than each other (unless otherwise effectively argued). I will vote on conceded or very well-resolved defense against a DA.

Kritiks

Good K debate should have applied links to the affirmative's or negative's language, assumptions, or methodology. This should include specific references to an opponent's cards. The 2NC/1NR should make sure to address all affirmative impacts through defense and/or turns. I think that making 1-2 carded externally impacted K's in the 2NC/1NR is the business of a good 2NC/1NR on the K. Make sure to capitalize on any of these external impacts in the 2NR if they are dropped in the 1AR. A team can go for the case turn arguments absent the alternative. Affirmative protection against a team going for case turns absent the alternative is to make inevitability (non-unique) claims.

Aff Framework

Framework is applied in many ways now and the aff should think through why they are reading parts of their framework before reading it in the 2AC, i.e., is it an independent theoretical voting issue to reject the Alternative or the team based on fairness or education? or is it a defensive indite of focusing on language, representations, methodology, etc.?. Framework impacts should be framed explicitly in the 1AR and 2AR. I am partial to believing that representations and language inform the outcome of policymaking unless given well-warranted cards to respond to those claims (this assumes that negative is reading good cards to say rep's or language inform policymaking).

Neg Framework

Neg framework is particularly persuasive against an affirmative that has an advocacy statement they don't stick to or an aff that doesn't follow the resolution at all. It is difficult for 2N's to have a coherent strategy against these affirmatives and so I am sympathetic to a framework argument that includes a topicality argument and warranted reasons to reject the team for fairness or education. If a K aff has a topical plan, then I think that framework only makes sense as a defensive indite their methodology; however, I think that putting these cards on-case is more effective than putting them on a framework page. Framework is a somewhat necessary tool given the proliferation of affirmatives that are tangentially related to the topic or not topical at all. I can be persuaded that non-topical affs should not get permutations - a couple primary reasons: (1) reciprocity - if aff doesn't have to be topical, then CP's/K's shouldn't need to be competitive and (2) Lack of predictability makes competition impossible and neg needs to be able to test the methodology of the aff.

Theory

I prefer substance, but I do understand the need for theory given I am open to voting on Word PIC's, consult, and condition CP's. If going for theory make sure to impact arguments in an organized manner. There are only two voting issues/impacts: fairness and education. All other arguments are merely internal links to these impacts - please explain how and why you control the best internal links to either of these impacts. If necessary, also explain why fairness outweighs education or vice-versa. If there are a host of defensive arguments that neutralize the fairness or education lost, please highlight these as side constraints on the the violation, then move to your offense.

Classic Battle Defaults

These are attempts to resolve places where I felt like I had to make random decisions in the past and had wished I put something in my judge philosophy to give debaters a fair warning. So here is my fair warning on my defaults and what it takes to overcome those defaults:
(1) Theory v. Topcality - Topcality comes before theory unless the 1AR makes arguments explaining why theory is first and the 2NR doesn't adequately respond and then the 2AR extends and elaborates on why theory is first sufficiently enough to win those arguments.
(2) Do I evaluate the aff v. the squo when the 2NR went for a CP? - No unless EXPLICITLY framed as a possibility in the 2NR. If the 2NR decides to extend the CP as an advocacy (in other words, they are not just extending some part of the CP as a case takeout, etc.), then I evaluate the aff versus the CP. What does this mean? If the aff wins a permutation, then the CP is rejected and the negative loses. I will not use the perm debate as a gateway argument to evaluating the aff vs. the DA. If the 2NR is going for two separate advocacies, then the two separate framings should be EXPLICIT, e.g., possible 2NR framing, "If we win the CP, then you weigh the risk of the net benefit versus the risk of the solvency deficit and, if they win the permutation, you should then just reject the CP and weigh the risk of the DA separately versus the affirmative" (this scenario assumes that the negative declared the CP conditional).
(3) Are Floating PIK's legitimate? No unless the 1AR drops it. If the 1AR drops it, then it is open season on the affirmative. The 2NC/1NR must make the floating PIC explicit with one of the following phrases to give the 1AR a fair chance: "Alternative does not reject the plan," "Plan action doesn't necessitate . Also, 2NC/1NR must distinguish their floating PIK from the permutation; otherwise, affirmatives you should use any floating PIK analysis as a outright concession that the "permutation do both" or "permutation plan plus non-mutually exclusive parts" is TRUE.
(4) Will I vote on theory cheap shots? Yes, but I feel guilty voting for them. HOWEVER, I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE EVEN IF IT WAS DROPPED.

Who is a Good Debater

Anna Dimitrijevic, Alex Pappas, Pablo Gannon, Stephanie Spies, Kathy Bowen, Edmund Zagorin, Matt Fisher, Dan Shalmon, Scott Phillips, Tristan Morales, Michael Klinger, Greta Stahl, George Kouros. There are many others - but this is a good list.

Respect

Your Opponents, Your Teammates, Your Coaches, Your Activity.

Extra Notes CP/Perm/Alt Texts

The texts of permutations, counterplans, and alternatives should be clear. I always go back and check the texts of these items if there is a question of a solvency deficit or competition. However, I do feel it is the burden of the opposing team to bring up such an argument for me to vote on it - i.e., unless it is a completely random round, the opposing team needs to make the argument that the text of the CP means there is a significant solvency deficit with the case, or the affirmative is overstating/misconstruing the solvency of a permutation because the text only dictates X, not Y, etc. I will decide that the aff does not get permutations in a debate where the affirmative is not topical.

Technical Focus

I try to follow the flow the best I can - I do double check if 2AR is making arguments that are tied to the 1AR arguments. I think that 2AR's get significant leeway to weigh and frame their impacts once the 2NR has chosen what to go for; however, this does not mean totally new arguments to case arguments, etc. that were presented before the 2NR.

Resolve Arguments

Frame claim in comparison to other team's response, extend important warrants, cite author for evidence, impact argument to ballot - all of these parts are necessary to resolve an argument fully. Since debate is a game of time management, this means going for fewer arguments with more thorough analysis is better than extending myriad of arguments with little analysis.

Disrespect Bad

Complete disrespect toward anyone who is nice; no one ever has enough “credibility” in this community to justify such actions. If there is a disrespectful dynamic in a debate, I ALWAYS applaud (give higher speaker points to) the first person to step down and realize they are being a jerk. Such growth and self-awareness should rewarded.

Fear to Engage Bad

Win or lose, you are ultimately competing to have the best debate possible. Act like it and do not be afraid to engage in the tough debates. You obviously should make strategic choices, but do not runaway from in-depth arguments because you think another team will be better than you on that argument. Work harder and beat them on the argument on which she/he is supposedly an expert. Taking chances to win debates good.

Fun Stuff

And, as Lord Dark Helmet says, “evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.”

Banecat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ywjpbThDpE

Experience: I debated for 4 years at Notre Dame in CA (2011-2015); University of San Francisco (BA in Psychology); JD from UC Davis School of Law (2022). Previously taught 4 classic week labs at University of Michigan Debate Camp.

Update for 2024 TOC: Currently am an attorney and I judge here and there. I judged a few rounds at Long Beach this year, but have not judged rounds since then.

tldr: I'll judge anything but I like policy debates more. Just make warranted arguments and tell me how I should vote and why.

Newest thoughts:

- steal prep and I'm docking points

- don't make your opponent send you a marked doc for just 1-2 marked cards - that is something you should be tracking - I notice this is something teams do and then they just use the time to keep prepping their next speeches

General Notes:

1. I am definitely very, very flow oriented. I flow on paper and care a lot about structure. That being said, to have a full argument you need to make a claim, warrant, and impact. If those things aren't there, I'd rather not do the work for you and reward the team that did.

2. Other than that, you do you. I'm down to listen to anything you want to talk about if you can defend it well.

3. I'm super easy to read. If I'm making faces, it's probably because I am confused or can't understand what you're saying. If I'm nodding, that is generally a good thing.

4. Be good people. There's nothing I hate more than people being unnecessarily rude.

5. There is always a risk of something, but a low risk is almost no risk in my mind when compared to something with a high risk.

6. I'll always prioritize good explanation of things over bad cards. If you don't explain things well and I have to read your evidence and your evidence sucks, you're in a tough spot. That being said, I would rather not call for cards, but if you think that there is a card that I simply need to read, then say so in your speech.

7. Tasteful jokes/puns are always accepted. They can be about anything/anyone (ie Jacob Goldschlag) as long as its funny :)

Topicality: I love topicality debates because they're techy and force debaters to really explain what they are talking about in terms of impacts. That being said, 2nr's/2ar's really need to focus on the impact debate and explain to me why education is an impact or why I should prefer a limited topic over an unlimited one. Reasonability is debatable. I was a 2n in high school and I lean towards a more limited topic, but I'm very easily persuaded otherwise.

K Aff's: I am very convinced by most framework arguments on the negative side. I think that K aff's need to be closer to the resolution than not and I do not think that many of them are. However, this does not mean that I will not vote for a K aff; I just have had trouble understanding the proliferation of Baudrillard and Bataille affs, so if you are aff, you will definitely need to be doing a higher level of experience. I think Cap K's versus these aff's can be very persuasive, but I also think Framework makes a lot of sense if the aff isn't topical. That being said, do you and make smart args. I'm not the most literate in a lot of high-theory literature, so if you want to play that game in front of me, do it BUT explain your theories and I'll catch on quick.Framework: I think that "traditional" framework debates fall prey to a big exclusion DA from the aff. I think we should be able to talk about K affs and that they should be included in the topic - HOWEVER I believe that K aff's do need to prove that they are topical in some way. I lean more towards the neg in framework debates because I do think that many K aff's have little to do with the topic, but there have been so many times when K aff's actually engage the topic in a great way. That being said, on the aff be closer to the resolution and on the neg, explain how your interpretation and model of debate interacts with the aff. Most teams forget that the aff will always try to weigh their impacts against framework, which sucks because it is hard to resolve real world impacts versus theoretical arguments about fairness and education.

Theory: I will most likely lean neg on most theory questions unless a CP is simply very, very abusive, but even those can be defended sometimes :)

Disads: I love disads, specifically the politics DA. Prioritize impact work! Despite my love for DA's, most of them are dumb and you can easily convince me that they are dumb even using analytics and indicting the neg's evidence. However, I still love DA's and wish I got to go for them more in high school. Good politics debates make me happy.

Counterplans: Everything is debatable in terms of theory, so do you. If a CP is very abusive, hopefully the aff says so. If the aff concedes planks of your CP, you should make sure you say that. I think all CP's need a solvency advocate, otherwise it will be hard for the neg to win solvency and potentially theory.

Kritiks: I really like the K when the link debate is specific and I can articulate a SPECIFIC link and reasons why the aff is bad. Fair warning - I am not the most literate in high-theory arguments. This doesn't mean I won't listen to your Baudrillard K's, but it means that I have a very high threshold for SPECIFIC links and also simple explaination of the argument since I will most likely be confused until you explain yourself. The neolib k was my baby in high school and I think it answers everything. Security was Notre Dame's main thing when I was there so go for that too. Teams need to explain what I need to prioritize first, whether that is epistemology, reps, framework, or whatever, just make sure you say so! I don't like overviews and I am a big believe in putting your link and impact work where it makes sense on the line by line because it will always make sense somewhere.

Email chain: rrn.debate [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: Mamaroneck High School, University of Southern California – Policy Debate

Tech over truth.

Be clear, don’t be surprised when an argument I can’t flow doesn’t make it into my decision. I am slow at typing and on average get down 60% of your speech down on my flow.

Don't clip, be rude, or lie.

I agree with Ken Karas on most everything.

Coach for Head-Royce HS, undergrad at UChicago

Did flex stuff in HS, tend to get preffed into clash or KvK debates but have voted pretty close to even in FW debates, good for T vs policy affs, fine for sketch impact turns, not great for CP competition debates

Peninsula 22, UCLA 26 (not debating)

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

No rounds on topic, don't immediately jump into 3rd and 4th levels in cross-ex because I will need complete context to follow.

Tech>truth for arguments (claim, warrant, impact) that I flow. I won't look at the documents during your speech. I will only vote on arguments I've flowed in the final speeches that were extended in each previous speech since their introduction.

You can insert rehighlights for the portions that they read, but must read everything else. I won't vote on things that happened outside the round. If neither side says anything, I'll judgekick.

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

Lowell '20 l UCLA '24

Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I judge somewhat frequently on the west coast so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.

GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit debate. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.

--

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.

I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!

Call me by my name, not "judge".

Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.

Longer Stuff

What arguments does she prefer? I went for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.

Online Debate Adaptions

Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.

1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.

2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.

3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.

4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao

K Stuff:

K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.

Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."

Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.

Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.

email: alisafieddine.22@gmail.com (please make sure to email your speech out by the time you end your prep)

debate history: dartmouth college 2018-21, green valley high school 2015-18

big picture

Don't sacrifice clarity for speed because I can't vote for an argument if I can't hear it.

I care more about the quality of your evidence and debating than I do about the type of arguments you read.

I try to adjudicate the debate in whatever ways the final rebuttals tell me to.

Judge instruction and persuasive story-telling matter just as much to me, if not more, than the evidence you introduce into the debate.

Compare evidence without relying on value judgements ("their evidence is bad").

Please send me a document of the cards you extend into the 2NR/2AR after the debate is over.

My flow dictates my ballot, but these are my opinions about debate:

theory

• Conditionality is good.
• If no one says anything about it, I shouldn't judge kick.

topicality

• Topicality should be evaluated based on competing interpretations and models of debate, not "reasonability".
• Framing your impacts against affs that have a non-traditional interpretation of the topic usually makes most sense in terms of limits, not ground...there's probably something to say against the aff they read, it's just probably not fair to expect you to prepare for it if it's not under the scope of the resolution.
• Fairness is an impact.

impacts

• Frankly, I don't think any of these affs cause or prevent extinction, not because all impact defense is true, but because the internal links for these arguments are shady.

kritiks

• Ks on the NEG only make sense if the link is to the plan or its advantages, not the resolution.
• The best answer to the permutation is the link to the affirmative.
• Alternatives should do something. It helps a lot when you explain how the world would be different if I endorsed the alt instead of the aff. Otherwise, it makes sense for me to default to evaluating the plan vs. the status quo. "Reject the aff because we have a link" is rarely persuasive because in most of these debates the link is non-unique.

cx

• In cross-ex, it makes more sense to ask questions that sets you up to use your opponents' answers in your future speeches than it does to ask questions like "You said this argument, but we have this argument, what's your answer?".
• Dodgy cross-ex answers are frustrating. Your opponent might not know what to answer, but your judge also won't know what your argument is...?

USC '25 - Notre Dame '21 - add me to the email chain - [briansnitman at gmail.com]

TLDR: I view debate as a competitive activity which means that my argumentative preferences go out the window once I enter the room or the zoom call. For me, this has meant I have cut arguments ranging from SPARK to Set Col to H-Triv. For me it doesn't really matter, I don't think that any discussion can be objectively pedagogically harmful no matter the content. This means that to me Tech>Truth, and I can be convinced of anything if the other team does not contest it adequately. The only other important thing to know is that for me, the most effective ballot framing occurs when each team can paint a clear picture of what the world looks like after I submit an aff or neg ballot. This means going beyond just extending your impacts, and actually humanizing the whole aff, and almost explaining it in very simple terms. I am also not very card focused meaning: Smart Analytics > Bad cards or even good cards that aren't explained well.

K's - I'll be honest as a 2A my partner and I ran a one-off K strat every round, but I still don't understand all the buzzwords that people like to throw out. For the neg, I am more likely to just vote on just framework than other judges because the aff teams usually don't do any line-by-line. If the alt is just a framework argument then just say it, otherwise, I get confused. Links are usually mishandled and don't require a lot of evidence. K-tricks are cool and I think they should be employed, who cares if it's an easy way out. For the aff, perms make a lot of sense for soft-left aff's - you do need a net-benefit, but it seems pretty easy to win that the alt doesn't solve the aff so long as you answer the outlandish alt solves case arguments. Other than material net-benefits - I think that epistemological net-benefit also makes sense (ie practicality or particularity in policy analysis). The neg usually makes the mistake of not contextualizing the link to the perm - and DA's to perms usually don't have impacts that the alt can't resolve. For me, the perm doesn't need to avoid the links if it solves the impacts to said links. For extinction affs it makes a lot of sense to just go for util and impact turns, but you have to use util as a justification on the framework, otherwise it will be difficult to win.

PTX DA's - Let's be honest the politics card you are probably reading aren't about the aff, meaning that a blanket extension is not sufficient. I don't want to hear "X author says this"; instead take the opportunity to impress me with your civics knowledge and make logical arguments as to why the aff would derail the agenda. The one caveat to the you don't need cards rule is that if the aff has very specific link turn evidence you will be in a bad spot. I think that it is important for the negative to contextualize the link as much as possible. Too often the generic 1NC taglines make it seem like there are a million thumpers and anything can trigger it. What this means is, if your card says that water policy is controversial and thus derails the agenda, you should explain why every other contentious policy issue does not derail the agenda in similar ways. For the aff, you should obviously try to do the reverse and explain why, despite what their evidence says, other issues do have the potential to derail policy items. While the link debate is a little bit more about spin, I think that cards are very important on the internal link and uniqueness debate.

TOPIC DA's - These typically cause a lot of clash which makes them more fun to judge. Hats off to you if you go for a generic disad and just get really good at it. That being said, these disads usually require a little bit more evidence. For me, I think it is more important to contextualize all the warrants in the existing evidence, IE explains what the statistics and studies mean before you read another card that says basically the same thing as the one you already read.

CP's - I was a 2N my junior year and I almost exclusively went for the most abusive counterplan on the topic - thus have fun and feel free to terrorize the aff so long as you can defend it. Theory is great against these counterplans but affs get scared to go for it when the block read their 18 sub-point response. Condo - literally have no preference.

T - This is the one place where it is all about evidence. Intent to exclude is very important to me, otherwise IDK why the aff can't be topical.

Speaks - Technical debating is what gets you the ballot - ethos and pathos get you speaker points - To be honest I probably give higher speaks than other judges

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.

he/him/his

Pronounced phonetically as DEB-nil. Not pronounced "judge", "Mister Sur", or "deb-NEIL".

Policy Coach at Lowell High School, San Francisco

Email: lowelldebatedocs [at] gmail.com for email chains. If you have my personal email, don't put it on the email chain. Sensible subject please.

Lay Debate: I care deeply about adaptation and accessibility. I find "medium" debates (splits of lay and circuit judges) incredibly valuable for students' skills. I don't think I'd ever be in a setting where I'm the sole lay judge. In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation. I won't penalize you for making debate accessible. Some degree of technical evaluation is inevitable, but please don't spread.

Resolving Debates: Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor.

I believe debate is a strategy game, in which debaters must communicate research to persuade judges. I'll almost certainly endorse better judge instruction over higher quality yet under-explained evidence. I flow on my laptop, but I only look at the speech doc when online. I will only read a card in deciding if that card was contested by both teams or I was told explicitly to and the evidence was actually explained in debate.

I take an above-average time to decide debates. My decision time has little relationship with the debate's closeness, and more with the time of day and my sleep deprivation. I usually start 5-10 minutes after the 2AR, so I can stretch my legs and let the debate marinate in my head. Debaters work hard, and I reciprocate that effort in making decisions. My decisions themselves are quite short. Most debates come down to 2-4 arguments, and I will identify those and explain my resolution. You're welcome to post-round. It can't change my decision, but I want to learn and improve as a judge and thinker too.

General Background: I work full-time in tech as a software engineer. In my spare time, I have coached policy debate at Lowell in San Francisco since 2018. I am involved in strategy and research and have coached both policy and K debaters to the TOC. I am, quite literally, a "framer", as a member of the national topic wording committee. Before that, I read policy arguments as a 2N at Bellarmine and did youth debate outreach (e.g., SVUDL) as a student at Stanford.

I've judged many excellent debates. Ideologically, I would say I'm 60/40 policy-leaning. I think my voting records don't reflect this, because K debaters tend to see the bigger picture in clash rounds.

Topic Background: I judge and coach regularly and am fully aware of national circuit trends. I'm less in the weeds as many other coaches. I don't cut as many cards as I did in the pandemic years, and I don't work at debate camp.

If you're reading the web3 UBI affirmative, I implemented one of the first CBDC pilots back in 2018/19. If you know what you're talking about, I'm the best possible judge. But if you don't, I'll be much more easily persuaded by the negative, especially on the case debate.

Voting Splits: As of the end of the water topic, I have judged 304 rounds of VCX at invitationals over 9 years. 75 of these were during college; 74 during immigration and arms sales at West Coast invitationals; and 155 on CJR and water, predominantly at octafinals bid tournaments.

Below are my voting splits across the (synthetic) policy-K divide, where the left team represents the affirmative, as best as I could classify debates. Paradigm text can be inaccurate self-psychoanalysis, so I hope the data helps.

I became an aff hack on water. Far too often, the 2AR was the first speech doing comparative analysis instead of reading blocks. I hope this changes as we return to in-person debate.

Water

Policy v. Policy - 18-13: 58% aff over 31 rounds

Policy v. K - 20-18: 56% aff over 38 rounds

K v. Policy - 13-8: 62% aff over 21 rounds

K v. K - 1-1, 50% aff over 2 rounds

Lifetime

Policy v. Policy - 67-56: 55% for the aff over 123 rounds

Policy v. K - 47-52: 47% for the aff over 99 rounds

K v. Policy - 36-34: 51% for the aff over 70 rounds

K v. K - 4-4: 50% for the aff over 8 rounds

Online Debate:

1. I'd prefer your camera on, but won't make a fuss.

2. Please check verbally and/or visually with all judges and debaters before starting your speech.

3. If my camera's off, I'm away, unless I told you otherwise.

Speaker Points: I flow on my computer, but I do not use the speech doc. I want every word said, even in card text and especially in your 2NC topicality blocks, to be clear. I will shout clear twice in a speech. After that, it's your problem.

Note that this assessment is done per-tournament: for calibration, I think a 29.3-29.4 at a finals bid is roughly equivalent to a 28.8-28.9 at an octos bid.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

K Affs and Framework:

1. I have coached all sides of this debate.

2. I will vote for the team whose impact comparison most clearly answers the debate's central question. This typically comes down to the affirmative making negative engagement more difficult versus the neg forcing problematic affirmative positions. You are best served developing 1-2 pieces of offense well, playing defense to the other team's, and telling a condensed story in the final rebuttals.

3. Anything can be an impact---do what you do best. My teams typically read a limits/fairness impact and a procedural clash impact. From Dhruv Sudesh: "I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments."

4. Each team should discuss what a year of debate looks like under their models in concrete terms. Arguments like "TVA", "switch-side debate", and "some neg ground exists" are just subsets of this discussion. It is easy to be hyperbolic and discuss the plethora of random affirmatives, but realistic examples are especially persuasive and important. What would your favorite policy demon (MBA, GBN, etc.) do without an agential constraint? How does critiquing specific policy reforms in a debate improve critical education? Why does negative policy ground not center the affirmative's substantive conversation?

5. As the negative, recognize if this is an impact turn debate or one of competing models early on (as in, during the 2AC). When the negative sees where the 2AR will go and adjusts accordingly, I have found that I am very good for the negative. But when they fail to understand the debate's strategic direction, I almost always vote affirmative. This especially happens when impact turning topicality---negatives do not seem to catch on yet.

6. I quite enjoy leveraging normative positions from 1AC cards for substantive disadvantages or impact turns. This requires careful link explanation by the negative but can be incredibly strategic. Critical affirmatives claim to access broad impacts based on shaky normative claims and the broad endorsement of a worldview, rather than a causal method; they should incur the strategic cost.

7. I am a better judge for presumption and case defense than most. It is often unclear to me how affirmatives solve their impacts or access their impact turns on topicality. The negative should leverage this more.

8. I occasionally judge K v K debates. I do not have especially developed opinions on these debates. Debate math often relies on causality, opportunity cost, and similar concepts rooted in policymaking analysis. These do not translate well to K v K debates, and the team that does the clearest link explanation and impact calculus typically wins. While the notion of "opportunity cost" to a method is still mostly nonsensical to me, I can be convinced either way on permutations' legitimacy.

Kritiks:

1. I do not often coach K teams but have familiarity with basically all critical arguments.

2. Framework almost always decides this debate. While I have voted for many middle-ground frameworks, they make very little strategic sense to me. The affirmative saying that I should "weigh the links against the plan" provides no instruction regarding the central question: how does the judge actually compare the educational implications of the 1AC's representations to the consequences of plan implementation? As a result, I am much better for "hard-line" frameworks that exclude the case or the kritik.

3. I will decide the framework debate in favor of one side's interpretation. I will not resolve some arbitrary middle road that neither side presented.

4. If the kritik is causal to the plan, a well-executing affirmative should almost always win my ballot. The permutation double-bind, uniqueness presses on the link and impact, and a solvency deficit to the alternative will be more than sufficient for the affirmative. The neg will have to win significant turns case arguments, an external impact, and amazing case debating if framework is lost. At this point, you are better served going for a proper counterplan and disadvantage.

5. I will not evaluate non-falsifiable statements about events outside the current debate. Such an evaluation of minors grossly misuses the ballot. Strike me if this is a core part of your strategy.

Topicality:

1. This is about the plan text, not other parts of the 1AC. If you think the plan text is contrived to be topical, beat them on the PIC out of the topic and your topic DA of choice.

2. This is a question of which team's vision of the topic maximizes its benefits for debaters. I compare each team's interpretation of the topic through an offense/defense lens.

3. Reasonability is about the affirmative interpretation, not the affirmative case itself. In its most persuasive form, this means that the substance crowdout caused by topicality debates plus the affirmative's offense on topicality outweighs the offense claimed by the negative. This is an especially useful frame in debates that discuss topic education, precision, and similar arguments.

4. Any standards are fine. I used to be a precision stickler. This changed after attending topic meetings and realizing how arbitrarily wording is chosen.

5. From Anirudh Prabhu: "T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet." Topicality 101---the violation is a negative burden. If there's some uncertainty, I almost certainly vote aff with a decent "we meet" explanation.

Theory:

1. As with other arguments, I will resolve this fully technically. Unlike many judges, my argumentative preferences will not implicate how I vote. I will gladly vote on a dropped theory argument---if it was clearly extended as a reason to reject the team---with no regrets.

2. I'm generally in favor of limitless conditionality. But because I adjudicate these debates fully technically, I think I vote affirmative on "conditionality bad" more than most.

3. From Rafael Pierry: "most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. ... Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome." For me, this is especially true with counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy. While I do not love the delay counterplan, I think it is much more easily beaten through competition arguments than theoretical ones.

4. If a counterplan has specific literature to the affirmative plan, I will be extremely receptive to its theoretical legitimacy and want to grant competition. But of course, the counterplan text must be written strategically, and the negative must still win competition.

Counterplans:

1. I'm better for strategies that depend on process and competition than most. These represent one of my favorite aspects of debate---they combine theory and substance in fun and creative ways---and I've found that researching and strategizing against them generates huge educational benefits for debaters, certainly on par with more conventionally popular political process arguments like politics and case.

2. I have no disposition between "textual and functional competition" and "only functional competition". Textual alone is pretty bad. Positional competition is similarly tough, unless the affirmative grants it. Think about how a model of competition justifies certain permutations---drawing these connections intelligently helps resolve the theoretical portion of permutations.

3. Similarly, I am agnostic regarding limited intrinsicness, either functional or textual. While it helps check against the truly artificial CPs, it justifies bad practices that hurt the negative. It's certainly a debate that you should take on. That said, if everyone is just spreading blocks, I usually end up negative on the ink. Block to 2NR is easier to trace than 1AR to 2AR.

4. People need to think about deficits to counterplans. If you can't impact deficits to said counterplans, write better advantages. The negative almost definitely does not have evidence contextualizing their solvency mechanism to your internal links---explain why that matters!

5. Presumption goes to less change---debate what this means in round. Absent this instruction, if there is an advocacy in the 2NR and I do not judge kick it when deciding, I'm probably not voting on presumption.

6. Decide in-round if I should kick the CP. I'll likely kick it if left to my own devices. The affirmative should be better than the status quo. (To be honest, this has never mattered in a debate I've judged, and it amuses me that judge kick is such a common paradigm section.)

Disadvantages:

1. There is not always a risk. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, and we cannot determine its sign or magnitude.

2. I do not think you need evidence to make an argument. Many bad advantages can be reduced to noise through smart analytics. Doing so will improve your speaker points. Better evidence will require your own.

3. Shorten overviews, and make sure turns case arguments actually implicate the aff's internal links.

4. Will vote on any and all theoretical arguments---intrinsicness, politics theory, etc. Again, arguments are arguments, debate them out.

Ethics:

1. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points.

2. You need a recording to prove the other team is clipping. If I am judging and think you are clipping, I will record it and check the recording before I stop the debate. Any other method deprives you of proof.

3. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX in constructives or the other's team prep time in a rebuttal. You do not need to remove cards you did not read in the marked copy, unless you skipped a truly ridiculous amount. This practice is inane and justifies debaters doc-flowing.

4. Emailing isn’t prep. If you take too long, I'll tell you I'm starting your prep again.

5. If there is a different alleged ethics violation, I will ask the team alleging the violation if they want to stop the debate. If so, I will ask the accused team to provide written defense; check the tournament's citation rules; and decide. I will then decide the debate based on that violation and the tournament policy---I will not restart the debate---this makes cite-checking a no-risk option as a negative strategy, which seems really bad.

IMPORTANT: I will only vote on an ethics violation about previously-read evidence (missing an author, missing a year, paragraph missing but no distortion, etc) if the team alleging the violation has evidence that they contacted the other team and told them about the issue. Clearly, you had the time to look up the article. As a community, we should assume good faith in citation, and let the other team know. And people should not be punished for cards they did not cut. But if they still are reading faulty evidence, even after being told, that's certainly academic malpractice.

Note that if the ethics violation is made as an argument during the debate and advanced in multiple speeches as a theoretical argument, you cannot just decide it is a separate ethics violation later in the debate. I will NOT vote on it, I will be very annoyed with you, and you will probably lose and get 27s if you are resorting to these tactics.

6. The closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument, the more likely you should be reading it instead of inserting. If you are point out blatant mis-highlighting in a card, typically in a defensive fashion on case, then insertion is fine. I will readily scratch excessive insertion with clear instruction.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'll only evaluate highlighted warrants in evidence.

2. Dropped arguments should be flagged clearly. If you say that clearly answered arguments were dropped, you're hurting your own persuasion.

3. Please send cards in a Word doc. Body is fine if it's just 1-3 cards. I don't care if you send analytics, though it can help online.

4. Unless the final rebuttals are strictly theoretical, the negative should compile a card doc post 2NR and have it sent soon after the 2AR. The affirmative should start compiling their document promptly after the 2AR. Card docs should only include evidence referenced in the final rebuttals (and the 1NC shell, for the negative)---certainly NOT the entire 1AC.

5. As a judge, I can stop the debate at any point. The above should make it clear that I am very much an argumentative nihilist---in hundreds of debates, I have not come close to stopping one. So if I do, you really messed up, and you probably know it.

6. I am open to a Technical Knockout. This means that the debate is unwinnable for one team. If you think this is the case, say "TKO" (probably after your opponents' speech, not yours) and explain why it is unwinnable. If I agree, I will give you 30s and a W. If I disagree and think they can still win the debate, you'll get 25s and an L. Examples include: dropped T argument, dropped conditionality, double turn on the only relevant pieces of offense, dropped CP + DA without any theoretical out.

Be mindful of context: calling this against sophomores in presets looks worse than against an older team in a later prelim. But sometimes, debates are just slaughters, nobody is learning anything, and there will be nothing to judge. I am open to giving you some time back, and to adding a carrot to spice up debate.

7. Not about deciding debates, but a general offer to debate folk reading this. As someone who works in tech, I think it is a really enjoyable career path and quite similar to policy debate in many ways. If you would like to learn more about tech careers, please feel free to email me. As a high school student, it was very hard to learn about careers not done by my parents or their friends (part of why I'm in tech now!). I am happy to pass on what knowledge I have.

Above all, be kind to each other, and have fun!

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

he/him

add me to the chain: brt.damiendebate@gmail.com

tech > truth

i don't know anything about this topic

will vote for any aff that justifies the ballot

fairness can be an impact

the more your cp sounds like the aff the less im gonna like it

i don't like one line "gotchas" (hidden ASPEC, etc)

evidence comparison is effective

feel free to ask anything before/after the round

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

Micro: The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Macro: Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I added this section below because as much as I think saying, 'if you think you can win on it go for it' is sufficient. I am sympathetic to the idea that it maybe unclear what that means and does nothing to explain why I see things the way I do. So here are some thoughts and examples of what informs me in the present, what has gotten me here, and my position on what makes things convincing.

Extended thoughts:

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So,I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Wilderson and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are non negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Instead of a folder on my computer theres a crate in my closet of every round I've been in and judged. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything. Inverse relationship between how much eye contact I make with the person giving the speech and how good my flow is. Directly correlated is eye contact to my chances of resonating with the argument and voting for it.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round.

/end

this was my extended section pre TOC:

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x'

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !

Personal notes if you want to understand my world view better:

I went to school for aesthetics and semiotics. I love the assurance disad. I wrote my college thesis on hyperstition and death. Outside of debate I work writing for gallery openings and literary critiques in LA. I love animals. Reading I enjoy that has informed my academic thoughts: CCRU 1997-2003, Glas (Clang) by Derrida, dead french guys, auto/spec fiction anon bloggers, and everyone I have ever debated, coached, coached against, been coached by, and talked to in the hallway of a tournament.

Put me on the email chain jackwalsh01@g.ucla.edu

THE IMPORTANT PART: I try to be totally agnostic when reaching decisions, but in terms of my experience I will probably be the most effective judge for clash of civs and kritik debates. I mostly answered framework and kritiks as a 1A and my neg debates were almost exclusively 1-off settler colonialism. Still, I will absolutely vote on framework against a k aff, and my experience in technical framework debates can probably help you because I can understand how your arguments interact. Trying to win framework versus a k aff in front of me means that a switch side claim or a TVA (the TVA probably being more persuasive) is very important, as aff teams tend to win some amount of "our critique/scholarship is valuable" in front of me, and I need a response to that.

And a bit about me, and how I judge:

I'm Jack, I was a 1A/2N. I judged all last year, planning on judging quite a bit this year too. I debated for three years for Davis Senior High in CX, I attended the TOC my senior year. Did NPDA for two years for UCSD with no major accomplishments, I graduated UCLA this year. I currently coach for the Sac Urban Debate League doing policy coaching and some non-policy stuff as well. If you have questions about debating and growing at a team without debate infrastructure I have a LOT of experience with that, having had to do that in both high school and college. I read queerness arguments on the aff and settler colonialism on the neg.

I'll be able to understand pretty much any rate of speed but I can only write so fast, so slow down a little bit on your very technical and in-depth analytic shells. The average number of times I call clear per tournament is zero, it really probably won't come up. I just don't want you to go top speed through your analytical framework shell so I can get everything down.

I have not yet voted for a kritik that did not win either the efficacy of their alt or their framework interpretation, I could see voting for such a kritik only if your link card is particular spicy and turns case-y (and even then it's still helpful to have framework).

I don't like having to reread speech docs. I will default to the contextualization that I hear in the round of cards, interpretations, linear disadvantages, and advocacies. This means that you have substantial latitude to spin your arguments, but also that I will hold you to a high standard for explanation and cross-application. The way that different arguments implicitly interact will very rarely come into my decision.

When I reach a decision, the first place I look is the 2NR and 2AR. The role of these last two speeches is to explain how I write my ballot for each side. The 2NR should tell me where to look on my flow when crafting a negative decision, and the inverse for the affirmative. I will probably first try to evaluate the relative impacts of the affirmative and negative, based off of the framework/impact debate. Additionally, when reaching my decision I will try to look at the round through both the viewpoint of the affirmative and negative as they portray it in their final rebuttal.

In the last year or so, I have given speaks in the range of 28.4-29.4 about 80% of the time. Above that ~10% of the time, below that ~10% of the time.

I'll probably inflate your speaker points, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I used to be a policy debater and preferred lay debates. I care about evidence quality and argument comparison. Resolve clash for me and do impact calculus.

Peninsula '21, Cal '25

Email chain: nathan2web@gmail.com

For online debate: if I'm not in frame of the camera, don't start your speech.

Top level, debate is a competitive research activity where two teams compete to win. So, I will strive to be agnostic as to what strategy you choose to read, whether that's 10 off, 1 off, or hiding ASPEC (though your speaks will probably suffer for the last one). Tech > truth, although you'll have a hard time convincing me that our oceans are yellow.

Even so, these preferences are a set of ideologies that I've loosely maintained as I've judged--

T: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I will lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus.

DA: Actually debate the DA if you read a soft left aff. Riders are probably not legitimate.

CP: Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if equally debated.

K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative. I tend to dislike Ks that have a focus on 20 subpoints of framework (but if you win you win).

Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.

Theory: Condo is generally good. Most CP theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Other things--

My ideologies have been influenced significantly by these people: Dhruv Sudesh, Kevin Sun, and Scott Wheeler. If any part of this philosophy is confusing, you should look at theirs.

Card quality matters, I will always value smart analytics over terrible evidence—although a claim has much more significance/credibility when tied to an academic work.

If I can't understand you, I won't flow.

Don't egregiously re-highlight then "re-insert" an entire card, read it.

I don't about things that happened outside the round.

Be nice.

From Kevin Sun's Evidence Ethics:

"I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge."

2 quick caveats about how I time debates before I get to my paradigm.

1. I try to keep a running clock. The moment your speech ends cross ex begins. The moment cross ex ends, either your prep begins or the roadmap for the following speech begins.

2. If you are paperless, your prep times ends as soon as you send or share your speech doc.

With that said...

I believe that debate is an activity where the boundaries are defined its participants. This means that I am open to hear whatever kind of debate you want. If you wish to innovate new radical approaches to debate, I am open to hear them. If you wish to have a more traditional debate I am open to hear that as well. It is important for me that you situate my space in the debate. This means that if you want me to decide the debate by comparing the size of your impacts you should say it, and if you wish for me to take a different approach you should make that explicit. Despite my attempt to allow the debaters to control the direction of the debate no one is a truly blank slate, I do have some debate dogmas. I will try hard to make them obvious here, and if there is any confusion feel free to ask me.

You only get credit for arguments that I have on my flow. If you are difficult to understand because you are too fast or unclear, and as a result I miss something, that is YOUR fault. I will try to let you know (with both verbal and non-verbal cues) if I'm missing what you're saying, but its on you to adapt. 

I prefer debates where there are a smaller number of well developed arguments as opposed to debates with 10 off. This does not mean that you have to read slowly, it just means develop your arguments, and in general the team with the better explained, better developed arguments will win the debate.

While I encourage debaters to find new, innovative ways to affirm the topic, this is not carte blanche to say anything you want. The topic is important, and as intellectuals, competitors, and activists we have an obligation to find something related to it to affirm. This does not mean that I am excited about hearing T debates. In general I lean aff on T and will let the Aff do their thing as long as it is germane to the topic, and debatable. In sum, feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to explain why it is relevant to the topic, and why it is a debatable issue.

Also related to this discussion- I believe that voting Aff is an affirmation of the resolution. You can affirm the resolution in any way that you choose (as long as you can defend it, and it is debateable), but in the end of the day, voting Aff means that I am saying yes to some version/interpretation of the resolution. While I am open to all sorts of Affs, the one kind of Aff that will make me lean Neg on Framework/T questions is an Aff that says that the resolution is bad, or totally eschews any semblance of a connection to the resolution. This doesn’t mean that you have to fiat anything, or pretend to be the federal government, but if you don’t want to defend those things you should explain what you think the resolution means, and defend it. Be prepared to debate the framework. I generally don’t like debates that are entirely about this, but in debates with countervailing approaches to form and content, framework is an unquestionably important element of a debate. It’s alright to kritik someone’s approach to the debate, but be prepared to describe what your alternative approach is and why it is better.

Slow down on theory. If I miss something because you are blazing through a block with reckless abandon, you won't get credit for it. I tend to lean negative on CP theory, and if a theory issue can be resolved by rejecting the argument instead of deciding the entire debate on it, I will generally try to do so. 

Don’t just assume that I have read the critical theory that you are debating. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS! This applies to kritiks as well as other policy based arguments. I won’t vote on an argument that you win but I don’t understand, and I won't be embarrassed or feel any regret about telling you that I don't understand your argument, as this is evidence of your failure to clearly explain your argument, and not evidence of my inability to comprehend sensible arguments.

I love a healthy dose of competition as much as the next person, but don’t be a jerk. Humor is good and will be rewarded, emotion and power are great as well, just don’t let the debate turn into a pissing contest over something not at all important to the debate.

With that said, Have fun, respect each other, and good luck!

top level predispositions (Update 2024 Emory):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round. If you feel so compelled my team's gmail is hrsdebatedocs.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about jobs they provide, how the plan is funded, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debated 4 years of HS (Winfield, Kansas), 2 years in College (Los Angeles City College, CSUFullerton)

Coach for SUDL

General Thoughts (whatever "thinking" is)

I am open to anything. I am also incredibly judgmental. I would rather hear a unique, new argument with perhaps less precise execution than the tightest strategy executed in the most boring way possible. That being said, what I would rather hear and what will win a substantive debate may not be the same. Use your own discretion; you are the debater, right? Don’t be mean and overbearing. Don’t be too timid.

Policy arguments (whatever "policy" is)

Implementation and the allowed viability of current affairs are important if you're going this route. The more precise the better. I'd like to feel how far the effects of my ballot travel, gloriously stamping the world with my verdict; as a god would upon mortal puppets.

Critical Arguments (whatever "ontology" is)

These are the arguments with which I have the most familiarity. Please don't buzzword me to death here.

I am inclined to believe that permutations to “critical arguments” make little to no sense unless the aff is already winning substantive arguments on the link and impact level. Impact comparison and/or link turns will be necessary if you want me to vote for these so-called "permutations".

Topicality/Theory (whatever “is” is)

If you know what you’re talking about or have a crafty violation, I’m certainly willing to vote on topicality. That being said, I have a higher threshold on topicality than most. However, your "fairness" "education" "ground" abuses aren't worth my time. Tell me the direct violation and I'll decide how you were afflicted in the round (by watching the round). If you prove no affiliation with the resolution, or a direct connection through the resolution, I will vote on topicality first and then weigh the impacts. If the abuse warrants my ballot, then you will win my ballot.
Aff should at least discuss its pertinence to the resolution and/or debate or have a cogent defense of the presentation of your argument or a criticism of the necessity of such discussions. If someone tells me that these affs don't matter, I will listen to their arguments and remain open to persuasion on the issue. Not unexpectedly, I find that the smart cheaters are often very far ahead on these debates. Take that for what it is.

Additional Note On Topicality/Theory: I have seen T violations that had real world impacts (as opposed to in-round impacts) that link the definition of the word to impacts for a disad. This is genius, and if you can do it you should try. My favorite 2AC analysis happened when a debater showed the performative contradictions of conditional neg arguments as framing for impact calc beyond the life-or-death story run by the neg. I think there is an interconnected approach to the debate that involves holistic unity (literally, not like "you should try some lavender that burn" holistic).

“My” background (whoever “I” am)

Raised in KS, living in CA. I used to be a Nietzsche debater, then transferred to UCD and read everything he wrote, and Plato/Aristotle, most of the Modern types, did graduate work on Plato and Weber, suffered a short obsession with DuBois and Hegel, then panicked when none of it helped me study int'l econ. I am confident that most people don't debate Nietzsche right, and it doesn't matters that they can't. Something happens in there. I am a hard nerd for bureaucratic politics and regime cooption. I'm the type to get really excited about information systems or comparing organization structures. While debating I took most organization cooption examples from the fall of the USSR. I have a life outside of that stuff though, as I hope you do as well. If you can make me laugh during a debate, that will bode well for you. But don't try too hard. Trying too hard is like caring too much about not being a fascist: it only makes you a fascist.

Lastly, I plagiarized a lot of this from an old friend who's now an IP lawyer, and I think that's so funny. FYI all

Email: djzhaistore@gmail.com

Was an average pf/policy k debater, non policy scroll to bottom

2023-24 season note: assume little to no topic knowledge especially regarding the meta/common args. Might change as season goes on. Have mercy… I spend very little time thinking about debate now…

Update: I think this topic is making me into a policy hack… I think k on this topic is not very strategic unless you cook up something insane… sry

You can probably ignore the stuff below, just keeping it for potential reference. I shouldn’t need to do mental gymnastics to judge rounds well. Good luck have fun ride the wave!

TLDR: do what you do, make my life judging easy and I will boost speaks/affect the ballot. I like to see good preround strategy and understanding of what arguments will win you the round. Flexibility is a double-edged sword, and I like to see debaters who fully commit to their strongest arguments. Open to some level of postrounding, but is intended to be productive for growth. I won't pretend to be a blank slate, but I doubt any reservations I strongly hold will affect my ballot. I am not good at sugarcoating rfds and I’m not a fan of inflation, sorry…

Everything below is how I perceive policy debate, take the implications for your round in particular with a grain of salt, I have a bad habit of being very fluid in my judging and it's hard to extrapolate judging intuition I’ve developed to concrete overarching views. I tend to shy away from debate jargon as much as possible, I think policy has evolved lots of metas that I hold my nose voting on. I think there's more interesting ways to debate beyond prewritten "fairness, clash, education" blocks. I think about interesting arguments beyond a single round etc. I dislike the trend of judges going out of their way to be neutral/the perfect judge, a lot of what I find annoying in debate now seems to have evolved from this trend.

Obligatory evidence ethics blip here. I may judgekick args dependent on egregiously read cards. It shouldn't be a burden of the other team to call out bad ev, but I will reward teams that do so. It really shouldn't be my responsibility either, if you haven't read your own cards beyond highlights, it's on you.

CPs:

I tend to think condo good. the winning aff on condo sufficiently points out to how neg limits the ability of aff to have any offense anywhere. This is a pretty high threshold to meet and usually aff teams seem to put out a 2ac that just responds anyways? Perms test competition, group redundant ones, it makes my life easier. I think the role of aff teams is distinct from neg teams, probably lean towards judge kicking 90% of the time. 1NC cardless cps annoy me.

K/fw:

I find the idea of judging k rounds less and less appealing now… I think aff and neg should actually be differentiable in some way and not just speech orders…

Link debate goes on top of K and if I don't see links in the 2ar/2nr something has probably gone quite wrong. Framework tends to be more boring to judge than link debate. “Make the K do the work, not fw.” The K should directly indict and answer questions typically debated on fw. Role of judge and role of ballot mostly go over my head tbh… I think I rarely hear one that does not come off as redundant/self serving because debate is inherently competitive…

I get irritated by affs that are wishy washy with the ballot. "Debate space" "model" args have gotten quite meta but I constantly get the feeling that debaters would rather debate about that than debate in said debate space. Ok! you want me to vote for you so you can debate this way? debate it then…

I don't judge performance affs that much, that said, I have no implicit reasons against voting for one. I don’t know if I would say the ones I’ve judged were particularly good, so impress me!

Don't give me a subpar 1000wpm philosophy lecture posing to be relevant to the ballot please. Keep it classy

T/theory:

My views towards T and theory are probably idealistic but bite me ig.

Run T like a DA, I like good T debate as much as the next guy. TVAs are fun, call out lazy K affs. That said when it comes to definition/contextual comparison please put in legwork to contextualize why I should take a certain card at face value. I personally spend too much time thinking about Wittgenstein/philosophy of language so I have strong notions on T. If you plan on reading theory ideally I should be able to just write my rfd then and there; I like efficient responses to trivial theory (E.g. running disclosure against a generic aff). I haven't yet dropped anyone on condo or disclosure absent it being completely dropped so if that's your "strats" maybe strike me. Sorry if I miss blippy theory args in later speeches…

Misc:

Jargon is the bane of persuasive debate. I’m not caught up on a lot of jargon and it is my belief that it shouldn’t matter. make the purpose of your argument clear, and anything else should be irrelevant. More and more I get the feeling that policy debaters are some of the least persuasive people…

I think spreading to some extent has become a necessary evil to lots of debaters. prewritten blocks/theory/T etc a lot of the time will feel like it misses the spirit of whatever type of argument. it seems to me a crutch to avoid adaptation to any round, although the better teams I’ve judged seem to have a good grasp on both. TLDR technical debate should not be treated as a crutch for understanding how to be persuasive. It is substantially easier to debate something that is true/you feel is true. I will usually not intervene on the ballot for truth level claims, but I will think about them.

Go fast if you must, but I may lose things time to time especially if things get tacked on during speeches out of order. Emphasize card transitions and which off well and I will be happy. Quality>Quantity of args. I like to feel like my flowing is productive, I love seeing debaters make strategic decisions early and decisively.

Not timing anything unless it’s an issue and any other questions you can just ask me. CX is very flexible, partners feel free to chime in. do whatever during your prep time and if everyone is ok with it, I have no issues.

I’m not a super finicky person about particulars like sending docs on time, missing x seconds of prep, etc. I find it hard to believe that teams doing this gain real advantages, and I’ve yet to judge a round where stealing time or trying to penny pinch small advantages really changes the debate in a substantial way. that said call out ridiculous violations and I’ll be all ears.

3 cards or less sent in body are fine unless super long, probably don't need a marked copy for <2 cards. I take evidence ethics seriously, arguments that depend on questionably cut cards will probably end up dropped unless you can justify it post round. I will rely on my potential circumstantial knowledge of current events if I hear something that sounds blatantly outdated and intervene if it is critical enough. Regarding kritikal args/theory/philosophy based arguments I am leaning more and more towards just evaluating arguments/logical flow. I see too many miscut cards and misunderstood theory so just putting it out there that my threshold for what counts as an adequate response has been getting lower and lower.

I'm not a speaks goblin, but I think they are arbitrary. >29 and I probably really liked how you debated in round. Anything less is probably just a placeholder/vaguely relevant to presentation/execution outside of the ballot. Differences of 0.1 are arbitrary and mostly bc I can’t input ties. 0.5 probably matters more. Usually winning team will also have higher speaks unless there was a tragic mistake somewhere.

Remember to have fun and be nice

OTHER EVENTS:

Assume no topic knowledge, well informed overall so probably will have some biases, very few relevant hard stances so persuade me otherwise. If something sounds contradictory to what I know about current affairs, I will probably go snoop in the cards or discard relevant analysis unless I am shown otherwise.

Will probably disclose out of habit unless tab tells me not to.

Make it clear what you think wins you the round and it’s probably an easy ballot, tech is for ceremony but understand that winning an argument technically may have 0 relevance to my ballot if there isn't legwork to explode it./missed point. some stuff in Misc: may apply.

LD:

I have no idea what order and times LD speeches go, feel free to remind me where you're at, especially if there's a timeskew/related voter floating around. Simplify jargon for me, if it doesn't make sense to me I won't vote on it. LD now gives me the impression of partnerless policy with weird speech times, theory isn't run as much in policy so make it simpler for me to understand. I also don’t judge theory much in Policy and also usually never vote on it so for your sake please make my life easy and convince me to vote on it…

PF:

I used to be a pf debater. Treat it half as a speech focused event. Presentation should matter, convince me of something. In the spirit of the event, I value technical aspects of debate much less than being consistent, credible, and reasonable. Be a little creative with world-building and rhetoric and keep it traditional. Make my ballot easy and I will be happy. If you run disclosure I will probably drop you and your speaks. I know prog when I see prog. Condense for me, FF is 2 minutes, wrap everything up. Easiest way to condense is to not bring along baggage.

I probably cannot judge PF the same way a parent/layperson would, but I think that is the core of what judging in PF should look like, do not take me as some “technical judge” that you can progwalk on or have a “tech round.” I'm personally calloused to presentation/rhetoric, but I will try my best.

Card/evidence sharing in PF is a nightmare, I don't care to look at cards unless someone points it out in specific. If a card is written in bad faith enough I may just kick it straight up or drop the violating team. I think you can get by a lot with general topic knowledge/analytics>delusions about current events or outdated cards.

Skip the "order is our case their case weighing" (and variations) roadmaps.