TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 1
2022 — NSDA Campus, US
Policy (MS-Nov) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Newbie Coach for ADL
I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.
Email Chain: Brandonchen.firstname.lastname@example.org
Ask in round if you want to know more about me
Nice to meet you! I'm Keira, call me Keira. I go by she/they.
Ask me anything before the round starts. I am reasonable!
- Jokes + analogies = I am entertained = more speaks for you
- Don't be rude asdlkf
- Time yourselves, run the round so that I don't need to call on the next speaker for you. No need to ask "is the judge ready?" before every speech; I am always ready unless I say otherwise!
Add me to the email chain if there is one: email@example.com
I'm still a student. I'm still figuring out what debates/styles I prefer over others. That means you can run whatever you want!! :D
That being said, I'm NOT a lay judge. I flow. If you have them, explain K/T/Theory thoroughly.
haha I do policy
If we're online, be aware of your background noise/not-so-great mic/spotty Wi-Fi/etc., and adjust your speed to accommodate for those things, because it's up to you to clearly get your messages across to your opponents and me.
You'll get high speaks (28-30) UNLESS you're egregiously bad or doing something stupid (being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, anything along those lines)
Might as well put this here too: ask questions, but don't argue with my decision at the end of the round. You can be salty, just don't be a [insert bad word here].
People like talking fast in this debate style but please be clear if you decide to do so. I'll try to clear twice before giving up on flowing. Giving the order before starting your speech helps a lot.
Explain your links and cards at least a little when you extend them. Just saying "extend Bob '22" doesn't cut it, I need to know why.
I don't flow cross, but being mean in cross probably costs speaker points.
Yes theory is the highest layer but if you do not explain standards/voters properly then it doesn't work. Also, if you're going for theory, you collapse on theory ONLY.
Rhetoric is great.
It greatly pains me to vote for extinction impacts just because "oh no everyone's going to die." Please explain it compellingly- respond to the probability argument.
Clarity > Tech > Truth. If it sounds like your case doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to me either. Explain all your stuff, explain why it matters and sound at least kind of dedicated to it. Don't be mean to people with less experience. Actually, just don't be mean, thanks
I don't flow cross-ex but I do listen. Bring those points up in the next speech.
Do weighing whenever you want, but make sure you have something you can actually weigh- I'm not going to vote for a half-developed argument.
Explain why I should prefer your evidence.
Prove that you're better, not that they're worse- have offense.
On dropped arguments- tell me that they dropped the argument and if that is true in my flow, I'll be less likely to consider it.
Thank your opponents at the end of the round :)
ferris 21 - (CM: arms sales, CJR.) -> west georgia 26 - (CF: antitrust. CL: legal personhood.)
conflicts: Chattahoochee, Ascent, Leon Goldstein BE, Kickapoo MM
+.1 speaks if you bring me coffee before the debate.
+.1 speaks if you open source - tell me after the 2ar.
I'm very content agnostic. Read whatever you believe is strategic. If you believe the "evil" position is strategic, I won't dismiss it out of hand as such, but am generally very sympathetic to arguments like "reading evil arguments is bad" contingent on the team winning that the argument is evil & wrong. I care a lot about organization because I flow on paper. Number your arguments for me, reference arguments by name and number. Do line by line. Do judge instruction. I care about evidence quality and highlighting. Claims without warrants are not arguments. Qualifications matter. Grammar matters. Bad highlighting and bad cards will lose you debates. I care about the people in debate, and if you treat people poorly then you should strike me. Many people have shaped how I think about this activity. Listing everyone would take far too long, but the most notable people are Adrienne Brovero, Joe Skoog, David Sposito, Campbell Nofsinger, and the current West Georgia Debate team. If you care about records, I cleared at the NDT in 2023 and qualified to the TOC in high school while consistently clearing at other major tournaments in both high school and college. If you care about argument history, I was a Baudrillard 2A in high school and am currently a 2N who goes for the Cap K or topicality in every debate. See team codes at the top for wikis.
tl:dr - do what you want and i will evaluate it fairly and technically.
If this is all you're here for, I'm okay for you. The thing which will sway me either way in these debates is specificity. Reading blocks through the 2AR/2NR without engaging the nuance of the other teams arguments is a recipe for low speaks and a loss. I don't think reading topicality is necessarily evil, but I do think it can be deployed in ways which are far less than ideal. Listening to your opponents and actually engaging their arguments is the most important thing in a "clash" debate. Don't really care either way on the internal arguments like fairness, education, etc. Everyone's here for different reasons. Just win that your model is good for the reasons the other team says as well as some external offense about why their model is bad.
critique vs critique
These debates are cool. Competition is usually weird and I err a little neg on "no perms", but the neg still needs to prove the aff is bad. What that means is up for debate though. There are so many minor disagreements in literature here that I think PIKS/Theory of Power throwdowns are probably the things that make the most sense. Debates about tactics are fun, but debate is literally incapable of accessing the nuance of actual operational planning that could ever be useful in the real world. Also - military terms 101 - Tactics are the things you do (IE - guerilla warfare), strategy is your plan to achieve a goal (IE - defeat military opposition), grand strategy is your goal (IE - revolution), an operation is the combination of tactics within a strategy. Please stop misusing these.
plan vs critique
Framework matters most. I'm generally unconvinced by "only links to the plan" and "they don't get to weigh the plan" but very convinced by the middle ground of "only links to things the aff defended". However, I won't vote on a framework interpretation which is not made in the debate. If "only links to the plan" vs "no plan" is the debate, then I won't artificially create a middle ground. I'm very interested in how competition functions in K debates. If a team says capitalism is good against the cap K, as far as I'm concerned the permutation is not an option. Affs should choose between link turning and impact turning, much like they'd have to do against a disadvantage, but the plan also probably matters and the perm double bind is probably true if the aff wins a convincing functional competition argument. Creative competition arguments on both sides will make me happy. Alternatives should solve things, ideally the links. I'm versed in most literature, with most of my knowledge in "high theory" and Marxism.
Cool. I like specificity and bravery. Generic process counterplans are boring, specific advantage counterplans with case defense and a smart disad or impact turns are extremely entertaining. I appreciate these straight up the middle debates very much though, and good form can make any argument entertaining. I am a theory nerd who will happily listen to weird inherency arguments, competition arguments, etc. Ambivalent on conditionality, there are both good and bad things about it. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments, just have a caselist please. Reasonability is silly. I am a bit of a presumption hack because affs are bad and, generally, 0 risk exists. Good defense is very underrated. The aff has the burden of proof and if the negative demonstrates the aff does not depart from the status quo either by not solving it's impacts or proving it's impact scenarios are incorrect I think that is a sufficient condition to vote negative and saying "1% risk / but MAYBE we do something good" is not a sufficient condition to vote affirmative.
In a world where effective altruism is gaining traction, I'm extremely sympathetic to low impact-high probability arguments when coupled with framing arguments like "extinction first logic is literally genocide because a 0.0000000000001% risk of losing 10^24 future generations justifies the holocaust" (I did this math recently! it is seriously horrifying what "extinction first" justifies as a "reasonable sacrifice" if impact calculus is just "magnitude times probability" and I hope this activity thinks more about ethics outside the Bostrom / utilitarianism death cult). If both teams agree to extinction first / magnitude times probability through, I suppose that is the debate we will have.
In all debates I hope people are having fun and learning; I will do my best to facilitate those things. Slack > Tech > Truth. If you have further questions just email me.
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated 4 years at Washburn Rural High School, currently debating at Emory University.
Preference towards policy arguments since I have a better understanding of them, but I can adjudicate other arguments as well. Read what you want, just be sure to explain it well, and be respectful to your opponents.
I'm not that knowledgeable of K's that are Baudrillard/Post-modernist critiques, and am generally biased against things that don't seem to be an opportunity cost to the aff - so be sure to take time and explain your argument.
Besides that, I have a pretty decent grasp of Kritiks, especially cap and set col. Be sure to explain your link argument, and how the alternative solves the links. I don't like disability K's, in particular, disability pessimism.
I'm neg-leaning, but that being said, I'll vote for whoever can prove that their model is net-best. Be sure to do impact calculus with your offense, explain how debates occur under your model, and why they should be preferred.
Explain how the aff SPECIFICALLY triggers the link, otherwise the impact is low-risk and I'll most likely defer aff
Point out they're dropped, and explain WHY it's important that I evaluate it/how I should evaluate it.
I will vote for condo. I will not vote for disclosure theory, unless there is a SERIOUS violation.
Online debate = it's harder to hear, so please try to be extra clear, and slow down
Please keep your camera on if possible
Make sure to check that I am ready before you start, or I'll probably miss something.
Most of all, have fun!
Coach @ Asian Debate League
Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017
Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021
Email chain: email@example.com
I treat judging debate with the same love and care that I treat my job. I love what we do.
I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.
I didn't go for K's much but I really like debating them vs my policy aff. More than policy v policy debates. Links are the most important thing for me. Impacts are a close second. I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.
I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.
I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.
I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.
Status quo is always an option=judge kick
How I judge:
I work hard to listen and read your evidence. I am honest about what I don't understand. I am patient with novices.
Be clear or go slower (7 or 8/10) for online debate otherwise I'll miss the nuance in your arguments. I clear twice before I stop flowing.
I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.
For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)
I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.
I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.
2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)
Congress TOC: I want to hear for a well-argued position, and rebutall to others, presentation matters less to me.
Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.
Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.
Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)
Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)
skills (less good)
Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.
Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.
I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.
Debater at George Mason (Class of 2024), debated in high school at Perry in Ohio
Email Chain: email@example.com
Read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for, none of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me. A caveat to this is I'm not very fond of the 'Death K', and don't really want to hear the 'Christianity Procedural'.
In close debates evidence quality and impact comparison tend to matter a lot. I think evidence comparison is often overlooked in many high school debates and teams doing it would make decisions much easier. If you rehighlight your opponents evidence you should read it, don’t just insert it for reference. I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says otherwise, and I think I lean neg on most theory arguments.
I usually judge framework or cap K 2NRs in clash debates and have voted slightly more often for the affirmative. I think it’s useful for the aff to have a well thought out and somewhat limited counterinterp, or impact turns/arguments that don’t necessarily rely on a counterinterp. I think I usually vote neg when aff teams don’t have a counterinterp that solves the negs offense or their impact turns, and the neg has a well articulated switch side or topical version argument However the way aff teams have won without defending a counterinterp in front of me has been when they win impact turns to the negs particular performance/rhetoric or defense of their model. If you’re going for the Cap K prioritize the link debate and answering the permutation, because that’s where I’m most often persuaded to vote affirmative
For Ks on the neg the more specific the links and alternative solvency explanations are tailored to the aff the better. Admittedly I'm really bad for Death Good, and not so great for Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche, etc…
If you have any specific questions feel free to email me. Good luck and have fun!
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a high school varsity debater. I will vote for arguments as long as they are well explained. Though I like K's and will vote for them, I will admit to having more knowledge with policy arguments and am probably alt least a. little policy biased.
Speak as fast as you'd like. If I can't understand, I'll warn you once or twice first.
I set average speaks at 28.5. If you get a 29 or higher, I think you should go to elims.
I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about
Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever the fuck you want as long as you know what youre doing. also make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand. so take the time to make sure i understand
Also as a neg if u go for t it better be the best t in the world and you better explain why it hurts you and you better have it be perfect bc otherwise who cares
do any k or cp or da u want just make sure you understand it and can explain it well- make sure you spend the time in round to explain it and its process
dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one
if u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it
more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW
For Email Chains: Valenabreu21@gmail.com
TLDR: UF senior: debated in both LD and Policy throughout high school. I don't really care what you read as long as you do it well. Speed is filtered through clarity, so be clear. Assume my topic knowledge is virtually nonexistent (it probably is) so make sure you clarify any ambiguities (ie: issues of topicality, etc).
Honestly just read something fun in front of me, it’s finals week and I’m so so bored. If you can make the round entertaining or memorable or teach us something along the way I’ll probably pick you up and love u forever or smth.
T/Theory- Not my fave but I'll evaluate it nonetheless. That being said, frivolous theory annoys me and will guarantee low speaks. Make sure you slow down for analytics and impact out your arguments as opposed to having a rapid succession of time-sucking blips with no actual basis or voters behind them.
CP/DA- These are fine, just make sure you're specific on how you frame certain arguments like uniqueness and how that interacts with the link debate. I'm all for impact turns, just make sure you do proper impact calc and framing here.
Ks- I'm most comfortable with critical arguments and they're generally my favorite approach in debate. I'll likely be at least reasonably familiar with your literature base; having said this, it's important for you to articulate your argument well and be intimate with the scholarship you present. Specific links to the aff are important as links of omission are rarely persuasive. Impact calc here also makes or breaks it for me.
K AFF's- As a 2A in high school, I rarely strayed from reading K Affs willingly. I love the contribution these argument make as they can be both creative and educational. Make sure you leverage your 1AC against every negative strat to garner offense as well as the permutation.
FW- Despite my critical background I tend to enjoy these debates when the position is run correctly, simultaneously with nuanced case engagement. Don't hesitate to run this, especially against aff's with weak topic links. While I prefer args like truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground, I'll evaluate both sets of impacts. Affs answering FW should either go for impact turns or present a model of debate with clear aff and neg ground.
Junior @ The Barstow School
owen [dot] snyder [dot] debate [at] gmail [dot] com
I want to judge the arguments that you want to run. I believe that asserting my argumentative preferences is a fundamental hindrance to the aspirations and unique preferences of each debater in the activity.
That being said, i'm not super knowledgable on kritik literature outside of the basics (i.e. cap, security, fem ir, setcol, etc.), so if you are reading something which isn't as 'mainstream', please add some additional explanation of the thesis of the kritik for the sake of my understanding.
Clipping will result in an automatic L, though I will allow the round to finish. I define clipping as missing 5 or more words in a single card, though I reserve the right to vote you down for less. I don't distinguish between accidental and malicious intentions here.
PLEASE only read cards that are highlighted.If you read unhighlighted cards, your speaker points will go down.
If you have questions about specific arguments or desire clarification, you can feel free to ask me questions before the round or via email.
For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.
For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.
I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.
2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).
It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.
I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.
After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.
I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.
When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.
Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).
I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.
I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).
- Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.
I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.
You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.
By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.
I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).
Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.
For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.
The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).
If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.
“We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.
For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.
Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.
Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.
I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.
Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.
From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.
A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.
I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.
Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.
Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).
Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.
I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.
Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.
Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.
I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.
For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.
Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.
Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.
Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.
Performance (the other critique):
Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.
However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.
If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.
update for Notre Dame: Second tournament, judged 8 rounds so far this year, I volunteer coach for one team in a limited capacity on the high school topic, I have some familiarity with common topic acronyms and arguments.
Put me on the email chain email@example.com
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. That being said I've found myself more and more agnostic on the question of framework. I will absolutely vote on framework against a k aff, and my experience in very 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 I believe that framework teams should be able to provide for the education of the aff under their interp.
And a bit about me, plus general thoughts on debate
I'm Jack, I was a 1A/2N. I debated for three years for Davis Senior High School in CX, I attended the TOC my senior year. I did NPDA for two years for UCSD with no major accomplishments, now I'm at UCLA and I'm getting back into judging and coaching in high school CX. 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 .
Tech>truth, but it's close. I can definitely be persuaded the other way. Additionally, I think that truth can be a substitute for tech, but that tech probably cannot be a substitute for truth. True arguments require a higher amount of contextualization to your opponents arguments, and I have a higher threshold to buy these kinds of arguments because you only need to win a few to win the round. 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.
After I reach and type out my decision, I will take the losing teams final rebuttal and resolve every argument on the flow based off my decision. Until I have done that I am not positive who I am voting for, but by the time the debate ends I am probably 60-70% sure who won the round.
I'll probably inflate your speaker points, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
Micah (mai · kuh) Wang.
Taipei American '23, Emory '27.
Went for all sorts of policy argument, have also read a K AFF and have gone for a K (REAL) (EMOTIONAL) (GONE REASONABLY WELL).
Go as slow as you're willing to. I suck at flowing and am trying my best to get better.
I'll clear you twice before it becomes a you problem.
No inserting rehighlightings. Lines must be read in your speech or in CX.
"How much time do I have left" = ☹. Time yourself.
If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument.
Always adapt to the layest judge on a panel. I won't punish you for making the debate accessible.
Set up the chain before the round starts.
Include the Tournament Name, Round, and Teams in the subject.
You should send the doc you're reading from.
Send speeches in word docs and please try and name it something relevant to the round. "Tournament R#---1NC.docx" > "1nc (37).docx"
Any more than three cards go in its own doc.
If you don't want your docs circulating, I'll honor your request to the greatest extent I can.
My Junior and Senior wikis are pretty descriptive of what arguments I'm familiar with and went for.
Stuff in each section should help. Email me before round with questions.
I'm fine with ins/outs. If you don't know what that means, it probably doesn't apply.
Disclosure is good. If your strategy relies on not disclosing previously broken arguments, strike me.
K AFFs are in the K Things section.
— Big Stick AFFs.
Good for most things but dislike process-based advantages. Will listen to your Federalism ADV or Chevron ADV or whatever but I will complain.
The Heg Good AFF gets perms against the K. If the NEG can't answer it, they should probably lose.
— Soft Left AFFs.
Read soft left Saudi on the Arms Sales topic, where I learned that winning the framing page means doing line by line and not just reading an overview.
Very unlikely to vote on only a framing push in the 2AR, but who knows.
Will vote on anything if debated well enough by the AFF. But most things are probably reasons to reject the argument.
I think 3 condo is where I start seeing red flags. Subject to change based on what was read and the community consensus on the topic.
2NC CPs are probably bad. 1NR CPs are worse. 2NR CPs are not going to be flowed.
Quality over quantity, but my threshold for NEG flex changes heavily based on the topic.
K v. Policy AFF are in the K Things section.
Not very confident in judging these debates, so giving explicit judge instruction in these debates is important.
I think plan text in a vacuum is silly.
I have yet to hear a persuasive reason why Condo > T.
Go for it. Would prefer not to have a counterplan competition debate.
The AFF gets limited intrinsicness to test the germaneness of a Process CP, but I can be persuaded otherwise.
Strongly believe that the NEG should have a solvency advocate for every counterplan.
I love a good Topic DA. The Politics DA is fine, and the less said about the Rider DA the better (it loses to theory).
Link specificity is always good. It's been too long since a Topic had DAs specific to the AFFs process. If you're still going for Politics on the Economic Inequality topic, shame on you.
— Impact Turns.
Go for it. My favorite argument of all time is Ice Age.
Only caveats are that suffering probably sucks, and discrimination is bad.
Evidence comparison in these rounds is very important to me.
Relatively familiar with most literature bases. Won't be useless in an Identity-related debate but I would still err on the side of overexplaining.
Less familiar with Pomo/High Theory Ks, but I'll vote for it if I understand by the end of the round.
I have zero interest in evaluating a Death Good K.
— K AFFs.
Didn't read one until senior year, where I read an AFF about Techno-Orientalism and then an AFF about Virilio.
Please defend something, and defend the same thing throughout the round.
The debate almost always boils down to "what's the largest impact that I can solve with the ballot?", so winning that debate puts you in a very favorable position.
Either slow down or send analytics. It's very likely that I won't catch something important.
I think debate is a game, but that doesn't necessary preclude subject formation.
I primarily went for Fairness, but I also went for clash-oriented impacts.
— K v. Policy AFFs.
I prefer Ks that read specific links to the AFF. Those are fun.
I dislike Ks that are basically links of omission or heavily focused on theories of power. Those aren't fun.
— K v. K.
Not the best in these rounds. Explaining judge instruction and the root cause debate is important.
I'm 50-50 on whether the AFF gets a perm.
No spreading unless both teams agree to and successfully set up an email chain.
I do not care about anything except substance. Paraphrasing is okay if you provide the full text of the evidence. Ks that link to the resolution are fine, but I don't think pre-fiat Ks belong in PF.
T is not an RVI. Disclosure is not surveillance. Don't know what "Kant" means.
I won't vote on something I don't understand at the end of the round, so read trix/phil/etc at your own risk. The closer to policy debate, the better.
I don't want teammates that aren't actively in the debate round to make noise or be distracting.
I'll listen to anything, and you can spread if you want. Just remember that there is a style section of the rubric.
Lawrence Free State '21
University of Kansas '25
Assistant coach at the Pembroke Hill School (MO) and Asian Debate League (TW). Previously coached at Lawrence Free State (KS) and the Barstow School (MO).
Co-author of the 2023-24 Economic Inequality topic with Brett Bricker, Will Katz, and John Marshall.
Yes, email firstname.lastname@example.org. Please set it up ASAP after the pairing.
Debate is unlike any other activity I have participated in. Therefore, I care a lot about it and love to coach and judge. I also understand the immense amount of hard work that goes into being successful in this activity, so I strive to work as hard, if not harder, than the debaters I am judging to render an accurate decision.
Please send a document of relevant cards after your last speech---I will use them to help render my decision. I will read through every card, carefully, but will cross-check them with my flows.
I think Dr. Harris sums up the approach I take to judging perfectly: “I am a critic of arguments and an educator not a policy maker. I view my role as deciding who did the better job of debating and won the arguments based on what was said in the debate.”
Do what got you here. I care far less about content of arguments than I do about both the quality of them and the clarity in which you present them. Quality is obviously subjective, but arguments that are universally considered low quality (think ASPEC, Wipeout, Generic Process CPs, etc.) are things I will vote on if won on a technical level but will do so begrudgingly. I think the burden of disproof for many of those arguments is far lower than those of a higher quality.
The only exception to this is arguments that are actively discriminatory or violent (racism good, death good, etc.), as I will not vote on them. If you have to ask if an argument falls under this, default to not reading it.
I don’t have many specific thoughts about certain arguments (see argument quality above), but I think the following are still helpful to get insight on myself as a judge. All of these are not predispositions, but rather my opinions that I will use in the absence of judge instruction.
Policy v. Policy Debates.
---Go for it. I spend most of my time here as a competitor, so I feel comfortable adjudicating a general DA vs. Case debate as well as hyper technical counterplan competition debates.
---I would rather judge an impact turn debate than another process CP.
---Negative teams that aren't thoroughly debating the case are setting themselves up for failure. Most affirmatives are usually held together by metaphorical duct tape and zip ties, and collapse at any semblance of a case hit.
---I don't default to any side on theory arguments---whether it's a reason to reject the argument or team is regardless in comparison to the argumentation you do. That being said, the argument quality statement above still applies.
---Reasonability is ultimately meaningless to me, and I find it easier to vote affirmative when they are doing more typical impact calculus instead.
Policy Aff v. K Debates.
---I judge a lot of these. I tend to find myself voting for the critical team a lot more solely because the policy team lets them get away with murder. I find policy teams that fail to break away from the incessant need to line-by-line everything out of existence, while not extending core offense, rarely get my ballot.
---I find the affirmative usually undervalues framework in these debates---don't. When I write my decision, I start there, and many times I find myself excluding large swathes of one team's offense because of it.
---If your DAs to the permutation is just your links with slightly different wording, you are wasting your time. I find the argument "links are DAs to the permutation---winning any risk of the links are reasons why the AFF and the alternative are not compatible" to be a far superior way to answer it than reading three cards that just say your link arguments over again.
---Fairness and clash are both impacts. Whichever one is better is irrelevant because, at the end of the day, it comes down to the impact calculus you do and nothing else.
---I find topical versions of the affirmative or switch side debate arguments to be far more helpful when tied into your specific impact debating---rather than just having a TVA in a vacuum, explain it in terms of iterative testing, or fairness, or something else.
---Negative teams contextualizing offense is critical to me---far too many times they debate it out like the affirmative is defending a world of every critical aff, and not the counter-interpretation. If the affirmative is arbitrarily carving out a counter-interpretation that is “limited” but unpredictable, go for a predictability internal link.
---I find it easier to vote affirmative when teams go for impact turns and not a counter-interpretation but have voted for both strategies and think that the latter is often mishandled by the negative.
K v. K Debates.
---I do not judge these very often, and shy away from them as a competitor. I still judge them though. When I do, I almost always vote affirmative on the permutation or negative on presumption. “No perms in a method debate” is unpersuasive, but not unwinnable.
---I am not deep in the literature for most of these debates, so err on the side of over-explanation, especially for links.
Lots of people have shaped my thoughts on debate, and many people inspire me. My biggest source of inspiration for debate is the KU Debate team, both my coaches and teammates. If you want a good idea about where my thoughts and opinions on debate arose, getting an idea of the opinions of the debate folk I talk to a lot is a great place to start.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round or shoot me an email.
Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (debate/IEs 4 years)
Mo State '23 (3rd year NDT/CEDA and NFA LD)
yes email chain: email@example.com
Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Truman, Pembroke Hill
You can call me Lauren or judge.
Policy first, LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for LD assume its the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)
yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep
tech > truth (will not vote on death good.)
please do not assume I am familiar with the topic you're debating (goes for both policy and LD.) I only prep the college topic for NDT and NFA LD. This means 1) use less topic jargon or at least explain it (or add what the acronyms mean in the cite) and 2) I might not be able to answer all rfd questions relating to specific topic knowledge.
I am more familiar with identity based Ks and Cap. Anything that is high theory I am unfamiliar with.
yes it is your Baudrillard
I begin rounds with the assumption whatever aff is being read (planless or policy) should be weighed. FW can change this assumption. I don't believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is an impact. I think it is an internal link.
I love a good TVA - but it needs to have a card. I think it is important that you not just assert their literature can be accessed under the TVA, but that you actually demonstrate it.
I believe perf con is bad and can be a voting issue. I think some perf con violations are worse than others. Reading spark and set col is probably worse than cap and case defense.
I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.
consult CPs are cheating and I am 100% more than willing to die on that hill
Net benefits should be identified in the block. If you don't tell me what the NB is when it's not extremely obvious (obvious would be Turkey DA and Turkey PIC. Not obvious would be advantage CP and Turkey DA) I won't connect the dots for you.
I used to believe infinite condo was good, now I do not. I think condo is good to an extent. I think I would heavily consider voting on condo if it exceeds 6. I can be swayed to vote against 4-5 condo if abuse is present in round.
I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.
T debates can be fun if it is flushed out -- I need a clearly articulated violation and impact. A lot of T debates talk a lot about how the aff is untopical - but they don’t get into why topicality matters. If I determine a team to be untopical, but there's no impacts, there's no reason for me to vote them down.
In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.
I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.
i stop flowing after time elapses and you finish your sentence. anything else after will not be on my flow. time constraints are for a reason. I will finish writing what I am writing, and hold up my hands. If you're still talking, I will interrupt.
I will vote on arguments about violence in rounds i.e. racism, misgendering, etc. I think debate should be a safe space for folks. If I find a debater engages in violent behaviors in round, I will give you the lowest speaks Tab will let me assign.
otherwise, i am extremely generous with speaker points.
my newest pet peeve is reading the first sentence of a card and then marking it and acting like gets you anything. it doesn't.
i prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.
I find myself voting for the K more often in LD than I do in policy. I am not super familiar with all the lit, so I might not be the best for KvK. If you're about to have a KvK round in front of me, make sure to explain the interactions between both theories. I very much enjoy Policy v K rounds. I think FW is very important and so is alt solvency. I think kicking the alt is ok, but make sure it doesn't lose you framework -- if your role of the ballot is who solves cap the best but then you kick the alt you don't meet your framework.
RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and i mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, i will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.
1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)
Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Probably also utopian fiat, vague alts bad, floating piks, piks/pics bad --- if you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.