Tabroom.com

TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 2

2023 — NSDA Campus, US

Lincoln-Douglas (Varsity) Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sam Anderson Eagan High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 1:49 PM CDT

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Sections/State 2025 Updates

- I've updated my locals paradigm at the bottom, not with new rules or constraints but more detailed thoughts on how I tend to judge and how you should try to win my ballot.

- Topic note: obviously this topic cannot be debated as a "general principle", which is my preferred approach to traditional LD. I strongly prefer that the 1AC choose to unconditionally defend UNCLOS, ICC, or both (really, choosing just one is better, although that's just a personal preference), and think it is clearly the "framer's intent" to give the affirmative pre-round rather than in-round flexibility in choice of advocacy. As such, I think it's appropriate for me to vote on theory arguments introduced by the negative to enforce this norm and deter shenanigans.

- MSHSL rules state that LD and PF debaters "should" read oral full source citations, while all debaters "must" be able to provide written full source citations: https://www.mshsl.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-2025-debate-rules-and-policies.pdf. My understanding is that the word "should" typically denotes a recommendation, as opposed to shall/must which imply a mandate (see, e.g.: https://www.rpharmy.com/blog/should-shall-must-interpreted). Accordingly, I will not be voting on the MSHSL full source rule until this ambiguity has been resolved.

- That being said, author qualifications are an important aspect of evidence comparison, and I encourage you to raise this as a substantive, rather than procedural, issue.

General Info

I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.
I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).
I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.
As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.
I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.
As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.
Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.
I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.
Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.
Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".
For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.
I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.
I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.
Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).
K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.
Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.
Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.
I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.
Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.
Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).
Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.
I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.
Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.
There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.
I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.
Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.
Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.
Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.
RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)
I have at times had a pretty extreme neg bias this year (2024-25), and this mostly comes down to me likely being stricter when it comes to rebuttals than most judges, and in particular when it comes to impacts and weighing. The 1AR and 2AR need to extend everything necessary for your offense to function -- identify a harm in the status quo, tell me why it's bad, tell me why affirming solves (or go for deontological offense). On every component of this story, you should be comparative where necessary -- tell me why your offense outweighs your opponent's, why the reasons you do solve are stronger than the reasons you don't, etc. The negative needs to do this as well, but given the nature of LD speech times, it's much more likely that the neg ends up with some piece of uncontested offense.

Take a standard affirmative argument on the wealth tax topic, that it would raise substantial revenue that would be put towards social programs. Sometimes the affirmative blows past solvency, not explaining why the amount of revenue raised outweighs the negative fiscal impacts from administrative costs, capital flight, etc. Sometimes the affirmative blows past the impact, just saying "trillions will be spent on social programs" without explaining why that matters or why that's a more important internal link to poverty than a loss of wages and jobs. In these rounds, unless I think the affirmative is beating the neg on every one of these arguments, the threshold for "the aff wins X but the neg wins Y, there's no comparison between X and Y so it's at worst a wash, I vote neg on Z" is a lot lower.

For example, compare the following extensions:

"Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade."

"Extend Saez and Zucman, Warren's wealth tax raises $3 trillion over a decade, this comes from a model that assumes a 15% avoidance/evasion rate based on European studies which already accounts for their solvency takeouts."

The first gives me little to work with which spells trouble if you drop a solvency takeout, while the second drastically lowers the threshold for aff responses to solvency takeouts.

So to win my ballot, first, extend impacts. Don't just leave it at "affirming solves democracy / climate change / economic inequality / etc.", give explicit reasons why these things matter. I won't do that for you. Second, weigh. Weighing is not just extending your impact and saying it outweighs on magnitude/probability, it requires comparative analysis between your offense and your opponent's. These two are really important -- there have been several rounds where I voted neg but thought a 2AR that spent about 20 extra seconds extending their impact and doing explicit comparison would have cleanly won. Finally, you'll likely need to collapse more. It's rare that the 2AR goes for two pieces of contested AC offense and I think that was a good idea -- more often it means you're skimping on necessary extensions/weighing, dropping line-by-line responses, or undercovering the NC, unless the neg has made major errors or you are significantly more technical than they are.

Shamika Augustin Newark Science 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 2, 2023 at 9:32 AM EDT

UPDATES FOR THE NEWARK INVITATIONAL 2025:

Hi! I have been out of the loop from the debate world since 2022/2023. Any new developments in debate since that time are new to me. Please always explain acronyms as they are topic specific.

Elementary School Teacher, Former Policy Debater for Newark Science '19 and debated about 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

Yes, I would like to be apart of the email chain. Ask in round.

Yes, you can spread, but it needs to be clear. If I say clear more than THREE times I will start to deduct from your speaker points by 0.1 points. And whatever I can hear is what I will flow. If I don't flow it because I can't hear you please do not come to me after around and ask "Did you not flow this x argument?" I will ask you how many times did I say clear and the proceed to walk away.

Yes, it can be open cx.

I do not like SPIKES or TRICKS there is no benefit for it in debate in my opinions, so I will not vote on it.

DO NOT card clip if I find you clipping depending on the tournament or bracket you will lose speaker points AND/OR lose the round.

DO NOT say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/tbh any of the -isms. Even if the other team doesn't make it a voting issue in the round (which they should ... cough cough) I will deduct speaker points and maybe the round will be affected.

TL;DR- DO YOU. I do not need you to conform to my paradigm to win the round because most times I will be able to tell. I will vote for anything as long as you win. Please have a road map, I flow straight down by the way. OFFENSE wins rounds DEFENSE only tells me why I shouldn't vote for (AFF/NEG) not why I should vote for your side. Please explain all acronyms.

Note: 1) If you are doing a Performance AFF/NEG please do not get all up in my face, I value personal space and you may not like my reaction if you do so. 2) Ignore my facial expressions in the round if I have any because I have no way of controlling it and is not an accurate indication of who is winning losing the round.

AFFs- I am fine with both K and policy Affs and topical and untopical Affs. My only request is that you meet these tenants of an Aff. There needs to be an explicit problem, some sort of solvency ie plan, advocacy, outline to address the problem, and there needs to be advantages to doing the Aff. Also, include a framework/ROB/ROJ there needs to be one. You always need to go back to case outweighs.

CPs- are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). If a CP is being ran with a DA and the DA is a net benefit to the Aff please let me know and also say that the CP solves 100% of the Aff and doesn't link to the DA(s) A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff plan.

DAs- are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.- I am also not as persuaded by existential scenarios ie nuclear war impacts I get that people have them and love it but it doesn't make sense to me. You can try to win this, I need a very GOOD internal link story. Please also say that the DA turns case.

Ks-are my favorite! BUT this DOES NOT include white POMO, I am not a fan, those are my least favorite. You can read them if you like but I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook", so you will HAVE to explain this. Do not take this to mean that I will vote up a queer anarchy k, anti-blackness k etc. just because it's read it needs to be read good and still needs to interact with the AFF. Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions. A K without an alt will automatically be seen as a DA.

FW- shells are interesting and I kind of like them, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's FW. There NEEDS to be a TVA to the framework.

T/Theory- This will be an uphill battle for you. I have an extremely high threshold for winning T, but I can be persuaded to vote for it. Fairness is not an impact ESPECIALLY- Procedural fairness. To win a T-shell I need a case list of Affs that are topical under your interpretation. There NEEDS to be voters, debaters for some reason will have standards and voters as one but know there needs to be a specific voter. If there is no voter the other team (......needs to tell me there are no voters so this shouldn't be a voting issue.---HINT HINT) it will save both of us time.

I will vote on CONDO BAD. If the Neg runs more than 6 off case positions, condo bad is a thing and a voting issue.

Rebuttals- NEED to summarize why I should be voting for your side in the last 30 sec- 1 min, this should literally write my ballot. I also like overviews starting from the 2AC and on it can be long or short but please have one.

That's all! GOOD LUCK! DON'T SUCK! HAVE FUN!

Saied Beckford Hunter College 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 30, 2024 at 9:01 AM EDT

About Me

I identify as a lazy judge. If at the end of the debate I cannot resolve key questions on my flow, I am voting for the opposing team without hesitation. I don't like thinking too hard after debates. Write my ballots for me with your speeches.

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu; ridgenjdebate@gmail.com (add both)

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Matthew Bedeaux Hire 2 rounds

Trinity Bergen Hire 6 rounds

Isha Bhasin James Logan High School 6 rounds

Gene Bressler Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 19, 2024 at 5:45 PM EDT

Gene Bressler (they/them).

Debated 3 years at Calvert Hall, currently in my 4th year at Wake Forest. If you're considering college debate, feel free to ask about Wake's debate program/scholarship process.

add me to the chain: genebresslerdebate[AT]gmail.com

Novices: have fun, be yourself, ask questions after the round. Nothing below is that relevant.

Paradigms are overrated. Nobody judges the way they think they judge. Every round is different. I think this paradigm makes me sound like a robot. I'm really not. Persuasion matters to me in the same, often intangible way, it matters to everyone whose made a decision about anything. Bias will inevitably occur, but I've tried to outline when I believe it's most likely below.

I think and care about debate a lot. I will pay attention to whatever you're doing, and try to think the way debaters are thinking, rather than send you on an intellectual masterclass in the RFD. Put differently, I don't care if you do things the way I would've done them.

1) Cliff Notes

a) 2v2 debate, each person gives a constructive and a rebuttal. If you give a pre-scripted performance featuring both partners, that's fine. However, in the rebuttals, I am strictly flowing the words of the first person to speak.

b) Most things that bother old people don't bother me (feel free to go to the bathroom, fill up your water, and experience joy or frustration).

However, stealing prep is obvious and annoying. If I believe you're stealing prep, I will awkwardly ask if you're running a timer. Please spare us both that interaction.

c) Be clear. I am only looking at the document when you are reading cards. I will call clear if things are getting murky. After the second clear call, if I notice clipping, I will end the debate.

d) I flow straight down, usually on a laptop. If you are exceptionally clear, well structured, and/or number your arguments, I will try to line things up. However, my top priorities are getting as much down as possible and paying attention.

I evaluate debates technically, beginning exclusively from the flow. This means I will not read evidence if the implications of a card are not clearly laid out by either team. The more time debaters spend indicting ev on the flow, the more time I will spend reading card docs.

I am confident in my flowing abilities. If my understanding of an argument changes drastically from 1AR-2AR, I will strike new explanation. For all previous speeches, new arguments should be identified by the debaters.

e) Judge kick is the default, but if the AFF says no, I'll evaluate it technically. If 1NC CX suggests judge kick, objections must start in the 2AC.

f) Considering things that happened "out of round," is necessary to cohere competing interpretations, or disclosure theory. As a result, it's difficult for me to totally disregard the impact of all "out of round" issues.

While I am not qualified for or interested in litigating personal disputes, when both teams treat something as an argument rather than a "tournament issue," I am hard-pressed to not, also, treat it as an argument. Unless this becomes the fulcrum of the debate it is unlikely I will discuss it in my decision itself. But do know, I listen to and consider all the words both teams say during a debate.

g) Lastly, you are free to post round me if you wish. I don't mind being pressed, and understand frustration. I do ask that you allow me to explain myself, or pause to collect my thoughts.

Less likely to be relevant, but perhaps helpful.

2) It's very hard to dissuade me from using an offense/defense paradigm to think about debate. There are two main implications to this

a) If both teams advance an interpretation (framework on the K, topicality, theory) I will decide on one and only one of those interpretations. Debaters are free to advance a middle ground, but I won't come up with one for you.

As a result, not meeting either/any interpretation on T/Theory/Framework is almost always a round-ender.

b) Reasonability needs explicit framing. If it is the substance crowd out DA, treat it like offense. If it's a plea to abandon offense/defense, explain some other metric. If you want me to do the latter, you'll need substantial time investment starting in at least the 1AR.

3) Disadvantages

a) Less "try or die," than some. If one team accesses unmitigated try or die, they're likely in a good spot because of structural uniqueness. But if there's mitigation, and/or some alternative framing argument, I am amenable to evaluating big offense somewhere else.

That's not to say I don't care, or that your should avoid this sort of impact calculus. But I think other people care more than me, and acknowledging that seems relevant.

b) I'm fine for agenda politics/elections/other "bad" DA's. Explicit judge instruction on how I should interpret/how much I should care about evidence goes a long way.

On that note, I haven't judged or been in many debates that pushed the limits of DA intrinsicness. You're free to explore this, but I will be entering with a slight bias towards the negative and very few critical thoughts.

5) Counterplans

a) Ones that result in the plan are questionably competitive. I am better for the AFF in a vacuum, but in practice 95% of these debates involve major technical concessions/framing disparities that render my proclivities irrelevant. In close debates, defense is underappreciated, and 1AR-2AR continuity is paramount. Reference previous speeches as much as possible.

b) I am not great for models of debate that rely on textual competition. I find it intuitive that the text is only relevant insofar as it informs the plans mandates, or the bindingness of those mandates. I am easily convinced text is not the only way to determine these questions, and am a tough sell for positions that compete off of text alone.

c) If "sufficiency framing," is "compare the deficit to the DA," it seems impossible to not do that. If it's something else, please explain.

d) Conditionality is debatable. If its the right 2AR, go for it. My biases (not rigid) are that in-round abuse is less relevant than theoretical justifications, and the logical justifications for either teams interpretation are more important than its effects on debate.

6) K's vs plans.

a) I start with framework, and decide an interpretation. While doing this, I will only evaluate "framing arguments," like ontology first if the 2NR is explicit about how they implicate framework.

Once I arrive at a framework, I evaluate the rest of the line by line according to the rubric provided. Both teams should do more explaining of what arguments from the other team are excluded by their interpretation, and/or how their strategy can survive in a world of the other teams interp.

7) Planless AFF vs framework

a) Pretty even voting record. Ballot solvency matters a lot more to me than groveling over what constitutes an impact. Equally fine for fairness and clash, but internal contradictions make for awkward cross-exes.

b) Better for counter-interps than impact turning everything. Best for counter-interps with definitions, but at the very least I expect to know what sorts of debates happen under the AFF's vision of the activity.

c) Internal links matter a lot. Most framework arguments don't make a lot of intuitive sense to me, I'd prefer to vote for a "small" and specific impact with a lot of comparisons than go down the rabbit hole of "policy deliberation solves climate change," vs. "voting negative turns you into Karl Rove."

8) K v K.

a) "No perms," arguments tend to be vapid, but if the AFF drops any they are in a tough spot.

b) More offense defense than most judges in these debates. The permutation has to have some offensive framing, or "any risk" of a link is hard to beat.

9) Topicality.

a) Above thoughts on offense/defense apply. Topicality does not give me the ick, and I evaluate it like every other argument.

b) I will spare you my treatise of limits vs precision thoughts. Everyone's impacts are bad, and usually couched in "literally breaking debate," for one side. Given that, the internal link is often where the money is. Describe what types of debates occur across a season of either interp.

Be specific. Your blocks are boring, your thoughts are not.

10) Lincoln Douglas

a) Everything above applies. "Speech times = AFF can do whatever" is unpersuasive. I can't change your side on the pairing.

b) I am flowing by ear. If your strategy is to blaze through an underview and hope your opponent drops a win condition, you should be crystal clear on important arguments.

c) I don't know anything about the philosophical theories that are popular in LD. I'm not expecting a college level seminar, but please explain important arguments. The side that I understand more will have an obvious advantage. I am a human, not a robot.

d) If you say "evaluate the debate after 'x' speech" I will give you the lowest speaks the tournament permits. I am serious.

Cristina Capriglione Southlake Carroll 3 rounds

Lee Carter Heights High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 12:50 PM CDT

Hi I'm Lee Carter. My email is bloopfourtyfour@gmail.com

I am 20 years old. My pronouns are he/him, I'm 4 years out of high school debate and I competed for Heights High School in Houston, Texas. I debated for 3 years starting out in Policy for about a year and a half and finishing with LD for the last year and a half. For reference, I was good enough to go to national tournaments and stuff but never good enough to clear. I got damn close though. When I debated I really liked theory and phil and when I couldn't run that I ran LARP. I was coached by Isaac Chao.

Pref Shortcuts:

Theory - 1

LARP - 1

T - 2

Phil - 2

K/Kaffs/Non-T stuff - 3

Tricks - 100% strike. Don't make me sit through a tricks round seriously.

I don't ever want to intervene

But I feel like so often debaters just let so much up to the judges interpretation you know? The point is to write your own ballot, so the less work I have to do the better. If you make it really obvious why you deserve the win by using substantive argument weighing, evidence comparison, etc. then me intervening should never become an issue. Just make sure you do your job 100%.

I default to comparative worlds

Of course, you can convince me otherwise. In fact, when I was a debater I was quite fond of truth testing since I ran a ton of Kant. But in general I think comparative worlds is better for debate and I will default to it if no one argues otherwise in the round.

Tech over truth 99.9% of the time

By that I mean, your argument has to contain a minimal amount of plausibility to me. For example, if you say "x is true because I say so", I'm not even going to entertain that argument nor hold your opponent to a burden of answering it. It's kind of hard to pin point exactly what I mean here, but essentially I will be receptive to anything you say unless it is totally dumb and unrealistic. No this doesn't mean I'll hack against your terminal impact, no this doesn't mean you can't run silly techy things in front of me, this just means that there's a certain brightline where I start losing receptiveness to arguments and the closest way I can identify / describe that brightline is when your argument has arbitrary / illegitimate / outlandish warrants.

Highlighting / reading / evidence rules

Always read what you highlight, never skip highlighted words without making it explicit to everyone in the room, never read anything in small print without making it explicit to everyone in the room, and lastly, do not refer to anything you didn't read as if you read it. I consider violating these rules cheating. I will usually never read the small print because the argument I'm presented as the judge is whatever words come out of the debater's mouth which is usually the highlighted words. I will typically only ever ask for evidence if I am suspicious of evidence fabrication. It makes me happy when I see good author qualifications and consistent and clean speech docs. I also fancy cyan highlighting.

Prep time

When using flash drives, prep time stops when the flash leaves your computer. When using email, prep time stops when the email is sent. Under no circumstances should you preview / look through your opponent's case or write anything down if your prep time is not being taken. I consider violating this rule cheating. I don't terribly care if your computer is messing up, it's your duty to make sure things are organized and orderly and sent where they need to be.

Signposting / roadmaps

Signpost well and effectively, tell me specifically where you are going on the flow, name arguments you're responding to, if there's a way your strategy unfolds then make it explicit rather than trying to keep it secret and holding me to the expectation of figuring it out. Roadmaps are a really good tool and you should always use them. If you can help it, try not to divert from your roadmap. If you must divert, make it explicit where you are going instead.

Speed

I'm fine with speed but keep in mind if I’m judging online, connection / quality might be scuffed. I'd say my threshold for speed is 6/10 where 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit. Slow down for important things like tags, author names, signposting, etc. If you spread through a condensed block without separating things properly by saying AND or NEXT or slowing down then I will likely miss things.

Weighing

Always weigh. Weigh preemptively if you want, certainly weigh when you have access to both impacts and always extend your weighing and impacts. Weight comparison goes a long way, and by this I mean "magnitude > timeframe" etc. I never really understood what an overview does. Your extension doesn't have to be individual cards, extending just the general thesis of your case in the overview is probably fine, but if you miss something crucial and don't explicitly extend it, I'm not gonna extend it for you.

Framework

My thoughts on framework are pretty much identical to Isaac Chao's, your impacts matter so long as they are implicated under a warranted framework. And so my decision calculus goes: I first determine which layer is the highest, then find the winning framework on that layer, and lastly adjudicate the offense to that framework.

Theory

I reeeeeeaaaaaaaalllllly love theory rounds. I default competing interpretations. Reasonability is fine but my expectations for your brightline are a bit higher than typical I think, it is not enough just to establish your brightline but you also have to tell me why your brightline is good / true. Whenever I hear "if it's link turnable, it's sufficiently reasonable", I immediately think: well, you have yet to tell me why that's true or a good brightline at all. I default no RVIs. An implication to your shell is imperative. If you don't tell me what to do about your opponent's abuse, I'm just not going to do anything. Additionally, I think weighing on the theory debate is more important that most other places, since theory usually comes first. If I have 2 instances of abuse from both debaters but no weighing between the two, I'm just going to label the flow irresolvable without intervening and move on to the next layer.

LARP

Since I was kind of a noob most of my debate career, I have the easiest time adjudicating LARP rounds because they make the most sense to me and I have the most familiarity with them. Specificity is good. Keep your cards updated, recent, and relevant. You have to tell me if you are kicking out of a conditional counterplan. I don't understand at all what judge kick is, but on a surface level to me it just sounds like asking the judge to intervene if doing so would be favorable for the debater. That being said, don't bring up judge kick.

T is good with me, only reason I put T at a 2 is because I'm not totally versed in the semantics vs pragmatics debate within Nebel type shells, so if your T strat involves that then either don't run it or do extra explaining to ensure that I understand.

Phil

I love a good phil debate, but at the same time about 75% of the phil debates I've experienced have been ones that have left me totally puzzled. I would love to judge your phil round, but know that the only phil I'm super knowledgeable about is util and kant. If the phil you read is not util or kant, assume that I don't know it, and let that inform your strategy.

If 1 off K is your strat of choice, you definitely don't want me. Here are Ks that might work out in front of me: cap, fem, security. Anything else usually requires some previous knowledge from the judge, which I just frankly don't have. Keep in mind that judges who are capable of adjudicating K heavy rounds containing stuff like Afropess, POMO, other really hard Ks probably studied them extensively within a camp or even university. I wouldn't suggest reading that kind of stuff in front of me because the likelihood that you can teach me the thesis of your K in 45 minutes (when people good enough to be considered versed and competent judges in it have probably studied it for years) is highly unlikely. Additionally, I don't understand most role of the ballot arguments, they all sound self-serving to me and are typically along the lines of "if it's not the K offense, then it doesn't matter" and it's usually warranted with "the impacts of the K are bad". Also I have yet to be convinced there's a substantive difference between role of the ballot and role of the judge. Essentially, if your strategy is "Muahahaha my opponent will surely not understand this, I'll sit back while he foolishly concedes the whole flow and ensure my win on the ballot with the judge like some kind of sick inside joke !!", you probably don't want me as your judge because I'm not going to understand your position either and I'm going to be very receptive to your opponent's (probably surface level) arguments against it. If it's not one of the 3 Ks I listed at the top, assume I don't know it.

Non-T

I think the Non-T debate can be really entertaining. When I competed I ran a case called Absurdism where I (and my partner when I had one) would essentially just try to establish change in the debate space by ignoring the rules and even sometimes settling rounds with coin flips, and spending time just educating our opponents and judges with our personal experiences with debate and creating a space where our opponents and judges could share their own. Realistically, this was an utterly awful competitive strategy. I ran it probably 25 times and won like twice. Additionally, I did not understand at all how I was supposed to defend Non T, so when people ran T on me I just kind of ignored it lmao. What I'm trying to say is, the Non T debate can make debate really fun and I like to experience it, but from a competitive standpoint I don't understand it a whole lot and if it's your strat I'm also probably not the judge for you. Like, you'll make me very happy by reading fun non T things in front of me, but I won't understand what the heck is going on, will likely not judge competently, and you’ll probably lose…

Speaks

I've never really had to give speaks in a space where it terribly mattered, what I will say is that you can generally expect over a 27. From my 3 years in debate I don't think I have once seen a round where a debater actually deserved a 30, so I will probably not give you one. Although, the easier you make my life as a judge the higher you can expect your speaks to be. I usually don't let ethos effect my speaks because I think that enables things like perceptual dominance, but at the same time make sure you are confident in what you say and make sure your voice is heard.

Amadea Datel Dublin High School Independent 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:50 AM EDT

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Michael Dittmer ModernBrain 6 rounds

Bennett Dombcik Isidore Newman School 3 rounds

Yeou Dong Plano Independent 6 rounds

Raunak Dua West Boca Raton Community High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 3:33 AM EDT

Wake Forest University 2025

Debated In College and HS

Yes Email Chain: lcandersoncx@gmail.com -- please format the subject As “Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code]. Example: “Berkeley -- Dubs -- AFF Archbishop Mitty DR vs NEG Interlake GQ”

Conflicts: Barstow, LC Anderson, Oakridge, Archbishop Mitty

* Updated for Shirley*

Although I largely debated more critically in college, I have coached and have a background across a swath of styles of debates.

At the end of the rebuttals -- I start by looking at what the teams have flagged as the most important pieces of offense. 2NRs and 2ARs rarely do enough judge instruction. The best type of RFD is where I don't have to do too much work and I can parrot back to you what the rebuttals said.

I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction.

Call Tab is a silly argument in framework blocks

Note: Please send out all interp texts and perm texts in the email chain

Insert or Read: All portions of evidence that has already been introduced into the debate get to be inserted. This is a way to provide an incentive for in depth evidence comparison while also creating a strategic incentive to read good quality cards. Any portions of evidence that hasn’t already been introduced into debate should be read.

K Affs:Pretty agnostic here. My one pet peeve are affirmatives that define solvency mechanisms solely around not doing something ie. vote affirmative because we have refused the rez. The easiest way to lose reading a K aff in front of me is just saying buzzwords in the overview without unpacking what the aff does -- I am not scared to say I vote neg on presumption because I don’t know what the aff does.

I think that in debates vs FW both the counterinterp or pure impact turn strategy are viable. I think counterinterp debating is vastly undervalued and if done right can severely mitigate their internal links while providing uniqueness for aff offense on framework. Usually ev defining what the core controversy ought to be provides these strategies with more traction. My hesitancy with impact turn strategies is that it gives the full weight to their limits + predictability horror story. In my mind these strategies make the most sense when you have a good ballot proximity argument and against heavy debate doesn't shape subjectivity + fairness is axiomatically good debates. In debates where I end up voting neg in impact turn debates is when the 2AR does not package how the ballot resolves the impact turn.

Love good K V K debates!

FW vs K affs:Despite my reputation, I have found myself increasingly voting for framework while judging. I think that teams that deploy framework the must successfully are ones that engage the most with the affirmative teams offense explicitly rather than filling in blanks from generic blocks. I think its less valuable now to say is fairness an impact yes or no than how fairness is packaged. It is an impact that requires impact comparison with the affirmatives impact that they have gone for. When teams win on fairness in front of me it is usually coupled with a big push about why its the only thing my ballot can resolve and mitigatory defense to the affirmative's solvency claim for the scope of its impact. For clash debates the question of ballot solvency matters significantly less to me than about questions of models of debate. In these debates, internal link debating matters more about the specifics of their counter interp why is it unlimiting and unpredictable and why does a preclusion of that clash turn the ability for their model to access the benefits. I think on a climate topic, there is additional room for clash to be externalized to an impact about climate ethics and how organizers should navigate the climate debates they inevitably get into.

Topicality: I think a lot of teams do not put enough practice into debating T, making it one of the most strategic arguments for neg teams. I probably lean towards competing interps -- reasonability is a defensive argument for filtering how I evaluate interps. 2NR’s and 2AR’s shouldn’t go for every argument on the T page but collapse to one impact and do thorough weighing. I am a huge sucker for a precision 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans: Love em -- go for em. Cheaty Counterplans are cheaty only if you lose the theory debate. Having a solvency advocate or core of topic cards will go a long way to helping you win that debate. No strong predispositions on counterplan theory -- its up to the debaters.

Disads: Yes -- Do them. Teams don’t do enough of link turns case analysis.

Kritiks: My decisions tend to start from the framework debate and this guides how I evaluate the other parts of the flow. This determines the threshold needed for link UQ, whether the aff gets to be weighed, etc.. Always extend an alt -- it doesn't need to be always like "movements solve" or "fiated" but needs to frame both my ballot and how I should frame the debate.K teams should do more link turns case analysis. If not make sure you make persuasive framing arguments about why the case doesn’t outweigh. Aff teams benefit from spending less time on framework (unless they are one-tricking the fiat k) and more time engaging with the links + thesis of the K.

Devansh Dubey Proof School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 26, 2023 at 4:23 AM IST

General

Because argumentation is a game, technology trumps facts.
Speed: Please keep your conversation contained and talk at a normal pace. You should know that the quicker you run, the more likely I am to miss anything.
Any surrendered defence must be made within the speech itself, just after it was read.
Instead than merely saying "we agree to the delinks," a concession should imply how the defence interacts with your argument.
Provide trigger warnings; if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, adjust it. I don't care whether you sit or stand, wear professional attire, or anything else. You are free to discuss the merits of trigger warnings for discourse and society, but you should not intentionally damage another person.
The defence isn't cohesive.
Tag-teaming speeches/CX and flex preparation are ok by me.
I'm going to assume a negative vote on policy items and a first place vote on "on balance" topics until shown otherwise in the round.

Case

Be merry. Just do what you want.
Authors that frame their arguments in terms of a case study (like those who write on extinction or systemic violence) have my undivided attention.

Rebuttal

As such, I shall have a lower bar for responding to the offensive overarching arguments included in the second reply.
I believe it's important to make a strong showing in the second rebuttal, but you may use whatever approach you choose there.
The odds of a conceded turn are always one hundred percent.

Summary

There's a catch with the twists and turns. If you extend a link turn on their case, as my buddy Caden Day and I both feel you should, you should also make the delineation of what the effect of that turn is, otherwise I don't understand what the goal of the turn is.
It would be much easier for me to follow the argument if you listed case offences and turns in order of author. Don't state "extend our link" if you want your argument to be upvotable: "Expand our jones evidence which suggests that extensions like this are beneficial since they are simpler to follow." I want amplification of originality/connection/impact.
Do not finish your summary with a barrage of shaky, unreasonable statements; this includes arguments that have already been acknowledged.
Initial Synopsis
The defence should be pushed back, but if you push it back in the last round, I'll be a little easier on your side. This is particularly true given that the non-native speakers have had two opportunities to address the issue. Nevertheless, it is not a fatal defence at this stage, and it will at least lessen their effect.
Second Synopsis
In the event that the weight is not present at this time, I shall not consider any further weighing from your side.
Defenses need to be made more expansive.

Final Focus

Simple repetition; emphasise originality; increase relevance and effect.
Don't imply meaning where none exists; It is not feasible to check to see if I misheard, and it wastes my time.

Cross

The cross is persuasive, but only if mentioned in public.

Evidence

Notwithstanding my awareness of the problematic nature of evidence ethics, I will only request evidence if the other side requests it of me.
If your opponents are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, you should address the issue head-on in your argument.
A excellent analytic with a decent warrant, in my opinion, is superior than a fantastic empiric with no warrant. Put it to good use
You have one minute to provide the proof your opponents have demanded before your speaking points begin to be deducted.
The only exception is if the wifi is terrible or if you need to bypass a paywall.

Oliver Feng Interlake HS 4 rounds

Patrick Dillon Fox Challenge Early College High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 9:45 AM CDT

Playlist Update: TFA '25 - i like music a lot, it was going to be my career before debate ruined my life. i listen to a confusingly wide range of it. debaters and coaches can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - good enough songs may merit a small (+0.1) speaks bump for everyone in the room. a friend told me since i ask debaters to recommend me music, i should put the music i'm listening to here for reference. currently listening to Texas Flood - Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble.

TFA Rant - a few big updates that i think matter for strategy and speaker points. nothing new per se, but this season has accelerated my final metamorphosis into a grumpy old person judge and made a few tendencies that generally ring true to me stick out more than usual:

1. neg teams need to read better cards and read cards better. i am not the card machine i used to be, and i will never knock the 2n hustle - sometimes the 2nr just has to be slop by necessity - but i am increasingly frustrated by the absence of quality, aff-specific evidence produced by 1ncs - cutting 2-4 cards about the 1ac's legal framework being nonsense is a much more winning addition to neg strat than the third process counterplan. most affs on this topic do not solve, are not key to the impact, read cards that say nothing, and are an ungodly amalgamation of legal standards that were never meant to intersect in the way 2as are forcing them to - the number of advantages that can be reduced to zero by a smart cx and recuttings or even just close readings of 1ac evidence is only matched by the number of 2ns that fail to do it. i get this topic is rough for the neg, but it's not that rough - we can cut a real disad, a case turn, or a deficit every once in a while (or even, god forbid, go for the K). IP bad is not astounding by any means, but with smart debating and good cards it beats 80% of what qualifies as a neg generic on this topic (*cough*sui generis*cough*).

2. i am increasingly astounded by how good i am for the "soft left" aff. this may be related to the above, but most disads and net benefits have laughable internal links and in no coherent world are a higher risk than the aff. this is not carte blanche to say "menand 5" at the impact and move on, but it is to say that if you are reading a 1ac that is built to capitalize on defending an impact that is "smaller", but starts at 100% risk, you should take me extremely high and expect speaker points bordering on irresponsible if you can execute. i am in no way bad for extinction in these debates, but "util=trutil" is increasingly less an argument and more a dogma judges and debaters cling to, and quality evidence and smart cx beats nonsense 2nr ramblings about 1% risk + 10 cards citing Bostrom/MacAskill and the CSER that border on sociopathic. this could also be me just getting bored of abstractions like "try or die" vs "timeframe controls the direction of turns case" as a substitute for real impact calculus, though, so reading an aff with a real advantage and making smart answers to the disad likely helps you here as well.

3. clash debates suck and framework teams are getting worse. this is not to say i am worse for framework - i am as good, if not better for it, than ever - but it is to say that the 2ns who seem most committed to the idea framework is an engaging and responsive negative strategy are making the best possible case for why it isn't one. most 2ncs and 2nrs are scripted essays with zero allusion to the aff or it's evolution through the debate, and your blocks are brain-meltingly boring. if you gave the same 2nr impact overview on a disad regardless of what aff scenarios you were weighing it against it would be lazy and unstrategic debating (maybe a bad example, since 2ns do this one a lot now too), yet i have heard the same "clash turns the case" speech a billion times without explanation of the contours of said "clash" or what parts of "the case" it turns, which has led to an increasing aff win-rate. look, i'm maybe in the minority of "k people" at this point who actually agrees fairness is an impact and framework substantively answers these affs - but you gotta, you know, answer the aff with it. come on, gamers.

4. k teams are getting annoying again and 2as need to stand on business more. the first time i saw antonio 95 in a neg doc this year i almost had a stroke. 90% of 2ns who go for "microaggressions" as a framework angle couldn't define the term if pushed. i can't really blame neg teams though - the reason these strategies win is because 2as are failing to call stupid stupid and instead pretending calling tabroom over the imaginary microaggression that is "reading a plan" is a substitute for answering the K and forcing the neg to win a real link argument. if the 2nr is 5 minutes of ontology and fiat bad, the 2ar can and should punish them by straight turning this for 5 minutes straight. framework alone is not a neg win condition, it just sets one - 2as need to have the guts to win under it anyways or double down on setting their own so we can get out of this mess (because that's how the meta finally shifted away from this last time we were here). in general, 2ar brute-force against the K needs to make a comeback.

5. debaters should try to be jerks less. i'm not a decorum fiend by any means, and this isn't to say you can't have swagger or enjoy throwing down, but the level of outright posturing has far outpaced any justification for it from debaters. i was *also* annoyingly self-righteous earlier in my coaching and debating career and probably felt every debate was a chance to prove something or settle some imagined beef, so i really get it, but we all grow up eventually, and i cannot help but cringe at this sort of thing in retrospect. i promise you being level-headed and direct while simply debating better is far bigger aura than whatever is happening in most CXes these days. debate is a community of profound differences, but everyone i've ever met in debate tends to agree on a few things: none of us had to show up or do this on a random weekend, this whole thing kinda sucks when you take it too seriously, but we ultimately do it anyways for a shared love of the game. there are far too few rounds in a debater's (or even judge's) career to waste it on being annoying about nothing.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - i am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

overall, flexibility is king. on average, i'm happiest in debates where the aff says "plan, it's good", the negative says "disad" or "kritik", and lots of cards are read, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates (by the end of the 24-25 season, i will have judged 900 rounds since graduating in 2019), but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

quoth Bankey: "Please don’t be boring. Your pre-written blocks are boring." increasingly annoyed at the amount of rebuttal speeches that are entirely read off a doc. a speech off your flow that is obviously based on the round that just happened with breaks in fluency/efficiency will get higher speaks than a speech that is technically perfect but barely contextual to the debate i'm judging.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). sub-pointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned, and most aff's don't solve. solvency can be zero with smart CX, close reading of 1ac ev, and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given debate. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") both seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i coach this frequently with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem (most teams are terrible at recognizing/answering arguments within performances). good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1ac more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (including states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably never drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. i don't think new affs justify neg terrorism - seems silly, 2ns should pre-emptively case neg things - but i do think being neg justifies it. i consider conditionality a divine right and will defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. these are the strongest opinions in this paradigm. i am an unapologetic hack on these matters.LD theory shenanigans: non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud). my ordinal 1 for most of college was DML.

procedural notes

- flowing: i do it on my laptop. i have pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus), and i don’t flow off the doc. i will occasionally open docs during CX or prep time if a particular card becomes important, but this is not something you should bank on to save you being incomprehensible. i consider myself really good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing, put my hands up, and stare at you uncomfortably until you catch on. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow after the debate.

- terrible poker face. treat facial and bodily expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - good cards get good speaks, but only when i'm told to read them and how.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing prep time penalties for excessive dead time/typing while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the marked cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself.flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speeches, no notes. no low-point wins, generally - every bad move by a winning team correlates to a missed opportunity by the loser.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice/lay debater is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice without hidden aspec, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person. i am very lucky it found me, and i hope it can be the same for you.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Laura Garza Clear Springs High School 3 rounds

Sanjay Gautam Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Divya Govindaraju Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

Nate Graziano Kent Denver School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:47 PM UTC

Affiliations - Current coach at Kent Denver School, Newark Science, and Rutgers University-Newark. Current Director of Programs at the Denver Urban Debate League. Previous coach at University of Kentucky. Previous competitor in NSDA CX/Policy, NDT/CEDA, and NPTE/NPDA. Some experience judging British Parliamentary and Worlds Schools/Asian Parliamentary.

>>> Please include me on email chains - nategraziano@gmail.com <<<

TL;DR - I really like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine.Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

Note about RFDS - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in chronological order of how I resolved them. Because of this I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.

NEW: Note about flowing - Prompted by recent conversations about docs/flowing. I will have both my flow and your document open on my computer during your speech. During a speech, I will only be looking at the speech document when I think you're reading internals on a piece of evidence to follow along and make my own marks on what portions/cards you've read. I also will have the speech document open during CX when debaters are referencing specific cards and I usually will reread evidence for understanding when debaters are taking prep time. All other times will be just the flow open. I will not use the document to 'correct' my flow and an argument's existence in the document is not proof it happened in the debate - if I didn't hear it, it didn't happen. If I heard something that sounded like an argument but it was otherwise incoherent, your opponent is only burdened with answering the incoherent version of the argument. I am reasonably compelled to believe that a 'thumbs down' motion and/or 'booing' may be sufficient to answer some of those incoherent arguments.

>>> Other Paradigm Thoughts <<<

1. Tech > Truth

The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.

I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.

More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.

I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.

2. Theory/Topicality/Framework

Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.

For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.

In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)

Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.

Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.

3. Debate is Story Telling

I'm fond of good overviews. Round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end of the debate, is something I reward both on the flow and in your speaker points. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.

I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.

4. Critical Arguments

I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.

As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent and their argument, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.

I've voted for, against, and judged many debates that include narration, personal experience, and autobiographical accounts.

If you have specific questions or concerns don't hesitate to email me or ask questions prior to the beginning of the round - that includes judges, coaches, and competitors.

5. Speaker Points

I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will always receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:

- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.

- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.

- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."

I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.8-28.9 and will typically start at this range when assigning points for the debate.

Anita Gutta Newman Smith 3 rounds

Christian Han The Woodlands High School 6 rounds

wyatt hatfield Aragon High School 3 rounds

Eric He Lexington HS 4 rounds

Colter Heirigs Edgemont Junior-Senior High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:07 AM CDT

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

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

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

Lei Huang Carnegie Vanguard High School 3 rounds

Cyrus Jackson Hire 6 rounds

Neel Kanamangala Lynbrook HS 5 rounds

Haritha Kumar Lynbrook HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 15, 2023 at 6:31 AM PDT

Georgetown ’24

Cupertino High School ’20

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: kumarharitha.s@gmail.com

TLDR; run whatever you want––as long as you explain it well, compare your arguments effectively, and give clear judge instruction, I will vote on anything. If you're skimming through my paradigm and don't have time to read it in full, I would also recommend taking a look at the bolded phrases/sentence fragments throughout this page.

I did LD on the national circuit in high school, and I now do college policy debate at Georgetown. As such, it’s been a while since I’ve done LD, and though I’m still familiar with all the conventions, I probably lean a bit more “truth over tech” than I used to be since the threshold for going for theory or silly arguments in college policy debate is a lot higher than in high school LD. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t read what you’re good at; you should definitely go for whatever strategy you feel most comfortable going for, even if it’s something like condo or “plans bad” theory that isn’t quite as common in college debate.

However, my threshold for voting on arguments such as these will likely be higher, and you’ll need to explain them really well and implicate them clearly in terms of how it affects the debate round/debate norms more broadly for me to vote on such arguments.

In this same vein (this is paraphrased and stolen from Kumail Zaidi’s paradigm), I don’t appreciate blippy arguments or spikes that are clearly designed for the sole purpose of hoping your opponent misses them so that they lose the round because they dropped an argument. This is NOT the same thing as a one-liner about floating PIKs bad, topical version of the aff, CP results in the aff, etc., but something more like deliberately hiding a NIB (are those still a thing in LD?) to try to get your opponent to drop it. If I do end up voting on something like this, you probably won’t be happy with your speaks.

In terms of argumentative preferences, I’m fine with literally anything; please just debate what you’re comfortable debating and have fun with it! I’ve gone for all kinds of arguments in the past and still run a lot of diverse arguments, so I can definitely evaluate a lot of different kinds of debates, be it K v policy, K v K, policy v policy, T/theory, etc.

I will say, however, for me to vote on something a bit more complicated, I need to be able to understand your argument––so I would recommend that with a more complicated theory (ex. obscure PoMo stuff), you might want to err on the side of over-explanation, both so that I can understand how your argument operates in the context of the round, and also so that I can clearly articulate the reasons for my decision in my RFD and the feedback I give you––I will not be able to give you adequate feedback if I didn't understand what you said.

Ways to get high speaks in front of me include:

1. Having the email chain sent out and you're ready to go as soon as the clock hits the start time

2. Speaking clearly (I should be able to follow along with what you're saying without referencing your speech doc

3. Having a clear strategy in CX

4. Beginning your final rebuttal by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the aff/neg should be, identifying key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them (Stolen from Brandon Kelley's paradigm. That is to say, clear judge instruction will go a long way in getting me to evaluate the debate the way you want me to resolve the round, will considerably boost your speaker points, and will likely get you a faster decision.

5. Collapsing effectively in the 2NR/2AR

6. Doing good evidence comparison (if it's a policy debate, or if applicable, in a T debate)

7. Contextualizing your links to the specifics of the aff and not just the resolution as a whole (if you're reading a K). On this note, clearly explaining what your alt does, what it looks like (in-round or out-of-round, and whether that distinction matters), and whether or not it solves the aff and why that does/does not matter will also go a long way in persuading me to vote for the K.

8. Being funny (but not mean)

9. Being nice in CX––you can obviously be snarky/sassy/assertive/take on whatever persona you want, but if you're clearly debating someone less experienced than you, don't be a dick in CX just because you can.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions!

Eva Lamberson Providence Senior 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 8:27 AM EDT

30 SPEAKS IS DEAD AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT - search "30 speaks" in the rant doc for specifics

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

I’m Eva (they/them) - i prefer to be called Eva over judge but say whatever you're used to/makes you comfortable. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating - I currently coach at Hawken. I primarily coach traditional debate, but have qualed kids to the TOC and my kids are very all over the place with what they read, so I've coached basically every style

Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style - hacking is one of the worst things a judge can do, other than just not paying attention. i enjoy clash debates where each debater is going for their favorite or most comfortable strategy. i try to make the decision that operates the most logically under the paradigm/framing that has been most robustly defended throughout the round - if a round feels difficult to resolve I will lean towards arguments that I feel make the most sense, are the easiest to vote on, have the most instruction on them, etc. my strongest preference is against doing work for you - non-applied implications, explanations, etc. are things i will not do for you

IF YOUR ROUND HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR VBI AT ANY TOURNAMENT you can contact me with questions or concerns regardless of who recorded it - i can not upload it, change the visibility, etc.

accessibility:

round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND, i'm a germaphobe.if there are covid/illness precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.) i'll always have masks on me if you want

Jonas Le Barillec Annabel Lake Independent 3 rounds

Briajia Levi Harrison 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 1:55 PM CDT

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

Background- Debated policy for 6 years. LD/Policy judge over 6 years.

*update- I was a policy debater for years so traditional policy affs/rounds have always been my first love but over the years I’ve come to love K affs/performance/ social advocacy just as much as traditional Policy. So please run either as I don’t really prefer one over the other.

Speed

Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommend that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommend fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds. At the end of the day, just try to be as clear as you are able to.

Adjudicating rounds

I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.

Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a dis ad needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.

Kritik Rounds

I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way. Please run what you like, it just needs to be clear. I have heard K affs for the first time that have completely changed my perspective on judging/debate. If you feel confident in your K aff then please run it. I always keep an open mind.

Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make sense. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.

Assigning Speaks

I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.

I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.

Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy, Disability K, Black Fem

FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round/tournament.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.

Lotem Levy Pine View School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 13, 2023 at 5:48 AM EDT

I come from a Policy Debate background. You can spread...or not, but if I can't flow it, I can't know it.

I probably won't be impressed with arguments that attempt to circumvent discussion on the actual resolution, so you may be better served scrapping your K affs (or negs) or topicality negs (unless, of course, you are responding to a K aff with a topicality neg). If you choose to run one or more highly philosophical and/or theoretical argument(s) and proceed to read cards that say things like: "Having one’s experiences obscured and rendered unintelligible due to herme-neutical injustice is an infringement upon the epistemic agency...," or "Particularly the Cartesian dualism between the extended physical world and the nonphysical world of thought was seen as the definitive completion of the pre-Socratic turn from mythos to logos, when myth finally became synonymous with the subjective and the irrational. From this point onward, myths could neither serve as cosmological narratives of the universe, nor as valid allegories of nature, for they were now fully associated with the inner realm of subjective experience and not with the outer realm of the objective physical world," you should know that I will NOT understand them. I am a highly educated former debater, but I cannot possibly digest any of this in the few minutes of time I get to do so. I, unlike you, do not have the benefit of being able to think through these types of arguments in advance of the round. Frankly, even if I did, I am quite certain I still would not understand them standing alone let alone in the context of the debate. In fairness to you, you should know that.

I think that debate on matters unrelated to the resolution fundamentally stifle fairness for several reasons. In the first instance, they impede a competitor's ability to adequately prepare by creating a universe where one side dictates the narrative of the debate, or, alternatively, the debate consists of two people talking past each other. This strategy creates a world where there is absolutely no point in even having a resolution. The rules tell me that the competitors are to debate a particular resolution, and the debater tells me I can't until we first talk about ageism or ableism or the relative value of dogs over cats or whether french fries are proof of a higher being (they are). Secondly, they heavily favor schools and students with copious economic resources who have the privilege and luxury of being able to expand their preparation into this infinite universe of argument. Let's level the playing field a bit better (maybe we should debate that instead?).

On that note, I value responsiveness to your opponent's arguments, and I love a good common-sense position. However, if you are going to rely on factual/empirical arguments, please make sure they are supported by evidence. Most importantly, I do not tolerate unsportsmanlike conduct. I was a litigator for many years and stared down many an adversary, but I was always respectful, polite, and kind. Since I am judge and jury in this debate, I will not be impressed by the debater that yells louder or whose tone is more indignant. Rather, the debater that makes the more compelling arguments will win the round.

Other things: I don't love pics or piks. If you run one anyway (which is completely fine) do not extend disads that your pic/k would equally trigger AND the pic/k into your rebuttal. If you give me contradictory arguments, I won't know which to vote on, and they will likely cancel each other out in my decision calculus.

If I cannot hear or understand what you are reading during the allotted time you are given, I will not consider it in my analysis of the round. Sharing your constructive should not be an end-run around time limits by emboldening you to speak so incoherently that the content is indiscernible based on your belief that I can simply read the case on my own.

Also, a note about tech troubles. I think the best debater should win and not the one who had a better WiFi connection (unless, of course, they are one and the same). I understand that technology is not infallible, and I will NOT punish you if your connection is lost or you cut out. I believe that an important tenet of fairness and sportsmanship is the right to be heard. That means that I will show you grace and patience if you have tech troubles. I will ask you to repeat things and add time as necessary.

Good luck everyone!

Eric Li Hire 2 rounds

Ying Li Sehome High School 6 rounds

Laura Livingston Bellingham High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 1:17 PM EDT

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Rui Ma Concord Carlisle High School 6 rounds

Molly Martin Kent Denver School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 12:21 PM EDT

Molly Martin - they/them - mollyam22@gmail.com

Email chain: Always in policy, I know norms are different in LD so you do you. (Subject Line: Tournament - Round - Aff vs Neg)

Graduate student coach with the University of Pittsburgh. I competed in policy debate for C.K. McClatchy (14-18) and Gonzaga University (18-22). Mostly read and went for policy affs in college but my research is more aligned towards critical literature. Regardless of the style of argument you want to make, I care more about an interesting strategy and well-executed decision-making in rebuttals than what type of strategy you choose.

TLDR, 3-11-25:

I am looking forward to judging your debate, and to hear the arguments that you are interested in making. My argumentative preferences are left at the door; just make complete arguments (claim-data-warrant-impact) and we'll be good!

Large portions of this paradigm were written for policy, so if there are things you would like me to clarify, let me know. Regardless of type of debate, I find that my decisions in close debates come down to:

(1) who is best articulating the warrants in their evidence and going beyond the tags of their evidence,

(2) who is articulating judge instruction on how I should vote and how I should address major arguments from the other side, and

(3) how debaters describe argument interactions (turns case debates as an example of this).

I really benefit from direct communication. I look for judge instruction, direct clash, evidence comparison throughout a debate, extension of and reference to warrants (beyond the tag), and clear impact analysis/calculus/comparison to help me decide a debate.

Prioritize clarity over speed. Please avoid starting your speech at max speed - work up to that speed. Slow down more for me on analytics, topicality, theory, and case overviews; enunciation is important.

Tech over truth, for the most part - you, as the debater, need to implicate arguments and establish the stakes for your judges. For example, you need to tell me why dropped arguments matter in my decision-making process.

While defense is important (and wins championships), I find that rebuttals that sound or are too defensive miss the boat for me in controlling the debate.

Pet peeves: top-heavy overviews, not timing yourselves, stealing prep, excessive CX interruptions, rudeness to your opponents, teammates, or me.

Content:

Case debate -- do it. The best 1NCs on case have analytics that indict affirmative evidence/solvency claims AND evidence. Follow a consistent format/formula to extend your evidence.

Off-case arguments: Links should directly implicate the affirmative or be contextual to the aff, whether it's on a DA or a kritik. I like diversified links to the aff, use of CX moments, and rebuttals that make choices that best tell the full story of the plan and why it is a bad idea.

Affirmative teams should actively use the aff in responding to off-case positions. I find that high-school debates I judge that go for the kritik often do not talk about the aff nearly as much as you should. Links should be predicated on some consequence to the plan, whether it be epistemic or direct.

Turns case arguments are especially important. I want to know how impacts in debate interact.

The best extension of kritiks use examples. What can your theory or thesis be applied to?

Explain, in detail, your permutations. The 2AR is too late to start that. I find it helpful when include info about net benefits to the permutation.

K Affs: I like debates with at least a tangential tie to the resolution, but I will still evaluate affs that don't. I do think not being in the direction of the topic makes negative arguments about limits more compelling. Have reasons why your project is key to resolving specific impacts. What does solvency mean to your project and what role does debate have in it?

Framework: In terms of impacts, internal links, I prefer debates over clash and predictable limits or skills and deliberation over debates about fairness. This just means explain to me why fairness is an impact if that's your preferred strategy.
Use framework as a mechanism to engage with the aff - how can your interpretation speak to and enable debates about what the affirmative is discussing? Have examples of what debate looks like under your topic.

Theory:

I hated judge kick as a debater - I encourage all aff teams to make no judge kick arguments. My preference is that the negative mentions if I can judge kick or not in the block and in the 2NR - I feel it is judge intervention otherwise.

If you are winning theory and you are winning substance, go for substance. If you go for theory do not make me evaluate anything on/about the case.
I will evaluate theory as is debated in the round, and will put aside any preferences I have. Conditionality is not my favorite argument, but will vote on it if debated well/if it is dropped.
Slow down on your theory blocks. A good final rebuttal will break away from pre-written blocks to explain how their interpretation resolves their opponent's offense.

Please feel free to reach out with questions before the round if there is something I didn't include. Happy to talk about debating in college for any high school teams I judge.

Isaac Martinez Silver Creek High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 12:44 PM CDT

¡Bienvenido!

Please add me to the email chain.

isaackudebate@gmail.com

I DO NOT USE FILE SHARE

General Info:

Assistant Coach at Blue Valley West (KS)

I view my role as an educator rather than a policymaker, and that will not change. Debate is an educative activity where we all agree to come together on a weekend to apply different solutions to solve a problem. At the end of the day, we are still learning about new subjects, or new portions of certain subject that we had not learned before.

Spearman High School TX 2022 - (Congress)

University of Kansas 2026 - (Policy) Currently Debating

I may look mad, but trust me I'm not!

Judge > Isaac

Do not use any discriminatory language or actions (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, etc.)

If you have committed to the University of Kansas, please conflict me.

Online Debate:

General Rule of thumb. If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please be patient with me, and I'll be patient with you. :)

Please speak slower than usual. It's better for me to hear your args than lose them from the audio cutting out. It doesn't have to be super slow, just enough to where your audio doesn't cut out.

I don't really care if your camera is on. I'd like to see your face rather than stare at a blank screen for a debate, but you do you!

**UPDATED 9/29/2024**

Novice Debaters, the following does not apply to you. No need to stress over this event. All I ask is simply to speak as clearly, don't say anything problematic, and as fast as you can and flow the opposing arguments. Ultimately, just have fun!! :)

LD & PF:

I am not really familiar with the topic or the jargon, but if your are args are clear, are easy to flow, and are reasonable, I am all for it! Ultimately, just do what you've been doing and have fun!!

Some parts of my policy paradigm would be useful to fill in regards to speed, speaks, and the K. Do not be afraid to check it out :)

POLICY:

Speed:

I don't really care how fast you go. I would recommend that you speak as fast and as clearly as you can. No need to push yourself to hit a new speed time.

Evidence:

I'm cool cards and I also like blocks. I like it when teams offer evidence that changes my perspective on how the debate should be looked at. You will not have my vote if you drop key evidence from the opposing side.

Assume that I know nothing about your literature base. Even though I read K's in college, it's good practice to win why your theory of power matters more than the plan. This should be how your ideal 2NR is structured to get my ballot on a K:

Re-Establish your theory of power

Extend the link with the most amount of offense than defense

answer any alt defense

and then sit on why the alt solves.

K Affs:

I honestly like to listen to planless affs that claim their Kritique matters in the Debate. I do not want to listen to 8 mins from the 1AC and 2AC that has no impact to the debate. Basically, advocate your aff in front of me and have a good framework on how the end goal will look like.

K aff v Framework:

Will vote either way. TVAs are ok. SSD is ok. Refer to my T notes

Clash :

Love it

Fairness:

Not opposed to it

Theory:

Kinda tricky for me. I think I ultimately view this as a tie-breaker if the debate is close, but I auto-default to Condo bad if dropped in the 2NR.

DA:

I think a DA is crucial for a policy debate. It sounds cliche but I really mean it. I think a DA should be answered because it gives me a reason why your plan, counterplan, alt, etc. is bad. If not answered/dropped, please give a good reason why it does not matter for me.

I think T debate is ok, but sometimes it can get silly. I think if the aff wins that they meet the T threshold for topic, then the negative should go for their other off case and case positions.

Counter-Plans:

I like them. I think if they solve the aff's inherency better, then I'm all for it. I think multiple plank CPs can be excessive sometimes, so lets be reasonable on how many planks you want run in front of me. I won't Judge Kick, so don't ask me to.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on how clearly you speak in your speeches, if you can maintain your argument in the cross-ex, and if your args are well debated. My speaks stay around the 28 range. You will have to really aggravate me to get lower. e.g. discriminating against the opponents, me, etc. I DO NOT tolerate that behavior and will lower your speaks/nuke them as a result.

Other/misc:

I default to judge instruction

Be nice to each other.

Here are some people I somewhat align with Dr. Brett Bricker, Dr. Scott Harris, Luna Schultz, and Will Soper.

Music is an argument. which means you should flow it.

Performance is good.

+0.3 speaks for all if you shake hands, fist bump, etc. with each others after the debate

Final Notes:

I look forward to listening to you all and to listening for what you stand for. I wish you the best of luck!

ian matuszeski Millard North High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 10:38 PM UTC

NEBRASKANS: if you show me reasonable proof before round that you've read indexicals in two rounds THIS TOPIC at local tournaments, I'll give you+0.5 speaks than I otherwise would have. (One of the rounds cannot have been in front of me).

Dear Novices: I very much appreciate you but, will a little more if you 1. have some framework interaction (tell me why I should use your framework and why I shouldn't use your opponent's) and 2. do some impact weighing (explain why your impact(s) is the most important compared to the others in the round). Keep up the good work!! you can ignore the rest of my paradigm.

Online: I'm not very good at flowing online debate, so please speak clearly and use inflection in your voice to emphasize key things you want me to get down.

For the email chain or whatever feel free to shoot me an email: iansdebatemail@gmail.com

My Debate background:

I debated at Millard North for four years. I (unfortunately)did two years of policy and (fortunately) two years of LD. I was a flex debater running a variety of Kritiks, theory, phil, and tricks.

Currently coaching LD at Millard North, it is my fourth year of coaching.

Pref Cheat sheet:

K- 1 or 2

Theory-1 or 2

Phil-1 or 2

Tricks- 2 or 3

Policy- 3 or 4

General things to know/things I default to, unless told otherwise (It's unlikely that I'll intervene and use one of these default beliefs I hold, unless I absolutely have to in order to resolve the round):

tech>truth

truth testing>comparative worlds

Epistemic Confidence>Epistemic Modesty

Permissibility and Presumption negate (this one may be more round contextual).

perm = test of competition>advocacy

Norm setting > In Round Abuse

No RVIs(I think it requires proactively justifying.)

Drop the Debater>Drop the Argument.

Competing interps>reasonability

I tend to give pretty high speaks. I base speaks on the efficiency and quality of your arguments, I don't care about eloquence so long as I can understand you.

Be nice & don't say anything blatantly offensive.

Event Specific:

LD & Policy- I'll evaluate these two the same way.

LARP: I didn't do much of this in either event, just make sure you give me a justified framing mechanism so I can evaluate and weigh impacts, instead of just assuming I care, I.E. if you make Cap good impact turns on a cap k, even if you end up winning them, if your opponents ROB is the only framing mechanism your impact turns mean nothing (unless you articulated a way in which they weigh under the ROB).

Phil: I read a good amount of phil and I'm a big fan. I'm fine with Normative or Descriptive frameworks. I've read Kant, Hobbes, Functionalism(or constituivism), Realism(IR), International Law, Contractarianism, and maybe some others that I can't remember.

T/Theory: You can see some of the general things I default to above in my paradigm. The voters are the lens I use to evaluate the theory debate (entailing they are also why I care about theory, and presumably will play a role in weighing why I should evaluate procedural offense before other things, i.e. offense under a role of the ballot) and the standards are your impacts. Make sure that you weigh between your arguments and that you don't just repeat them verbatim in the rebuttals, and then expect me to somehow resolve the debate for y'all. (Yes policy kids, I am okay with you debating over paradigmatic issues like yes or no RVI, etc.)

Kritiks: I like Kritiks. One general note is that their ROBs are typically impact justified(which makes it harder to win the framing debate), either don't have a impact justified framing mechanism or explain why being impact justified is good or doesn't matter (if this is an issue brought up). I'm most familiar with Modernist Cap ks. I'm familiar with D(& G), Puar, Buadrillard, Foucault, Agamben, Afropessimism, Queer pessimism, maybe some others you can always ask. Please still warrant and implicate out your arguments, I will try my best not to commit the sin of judge intervention by doing work for anyone.

Tricks: I ran tricks a little bit, they're fun please just make sure they're clearly delineated and are actually warranted and implicated in the first speech that they're made in. Also try to read them slower.

PF- I never did PF, just give me a clear framing mechanism that I can use to weigh between impacts. I'm open to arguments being made that aren't typically in PF, just make sure you're running stuff you understand so that you can sufficiently warrant and implicate it out.

Congress- I did congress once, if I end up judging, you should probably try to appeal to the other judges more. I don't care how you speak, I like clash and I like the content your speech.

Jayanto Minocha Saratoga HS 3 rounds

parth misra Monta Vista High School 5 rounds

william morgan Edina High School 6 rounds

Jacob Nails Apple Valley High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 2:14 PM CDT

My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com

Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

LD Paradigm

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Amy Nyberg Solebury School 3 rounds

Kwudjwa Osei Athenian School 3 rounds

Byoung Chul PARK The Golden State Academy 6 rounds

Cheryl Qi Interlake HS 2 rounds

Anand Rao Colonial Forge High School 3 rounds

Elle Reed Bellingham High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 6:38 AM PDT

If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

ellelaurenreed@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)

* are new/significant

*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.

*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.

Overview-
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.

I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.

specifics-

I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.

*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.

I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).

I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****

I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)

*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*

I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad

Amelia Ritenour Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 3:05 PM EDT

They/Them/Theirs

Add me to the email chain: queeratlibertyuniversity@gmail.com

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

Nick Ryan Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

Philosophy Updated 9-5-25

Nick Ryan – Former Assistant Director at Liberty
Stopped actively judging in the fall of 2023, I mostly tab tournaments know. Assume I don't know a ton of about your acronyms.

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Davíd Anthony Salazar Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 23, 2023 at 1:52 PM CDT

TLDR: Flow over your args. LBL is good. Apply cards to the round instead of just reading them. I know Ks, but not all of them, act like I'm dumb when giving your exposition.

Howdy Friends!

:) Just some stuff to show I'm not completely lay:

I debated CX and PF for 4 years in HS and am currently an applied mathematics major at TAMU. I've been to 2 nats for PF and to state twice for cx. I quarter-finaled for UIL 5a CX state. I also qualified for nationals Extemporaneous twice.

Moral stuff:

Have fun, unless your fun is morally wacky. Fun is considered "morally wacky" when it is one or multiple of the following; racist, sexist, homophobic, promotes self-harm, attacks people within the round, is directed at a specific religion, or ya know invokes things that make you seem not so vibey in the public eye. If you run any of the prior it's an L0. Also, don't misgender your opponent, that'll also be an L0 (if on purpose obviously).

Pre-round questions?:

I am open to any questions prior to the round, so just shoot me an email at a.david.salazar.ii@gmail.com and I'll answer asap . If you have any questions at all, no matter how small or significant they may be, please ask them! I remember reading some judging paradigms that actively dissuaded questions and it made the atmosphere of the round cold and tense. I promise you I won't get mad at any question posed or if anything out of your control occurs.

Oh yeah, please add me to an email chain with the above email, thank ya!

Important Note: I do have impaired hearing. I can hear sounds but intermittently fail to make out words. When debaters spread, whether LD or CX, I ask that they share a copy of their speech with me if at all possible. If Debaters are not comfortable sharing their speech, I completely understand and will judge to the best of my abilities.

CX:

My views on specific types of arguments are as follows:

Framework: When arguing against an opposing framework, I ask that you explain to me why your framework is inherently better than that of your opponent. Make sure to relate all of your impacts towards your framework.....please.

Case: Case is what CX revolves around. Failing to answer or weigh the case in round is something that will drastically affect the way I view the round. As aff, if you win all of the off-case but fail to flow over your on-case then you will be at a significant disadvantage.

Da: Links should adhere specifically to the mechanisms of the opposing case. Vague links are a plague in today's format (at least from what I experienced). I will value a DA based on the argumentation you put behind it.

CP: Tell me why the CP shows a better world than the case. The net benefit is the sole reason for voting.

K: If you run a Kritik you need to bluntly state how the alternative works within the world and how it is better than that of the affirmative. When running Kritiks regarding the opposing team's propagation of harmful pedagogy out of round, I ask that you clearly link the argument to a blatant example of this through the opposing team's speeches rather than a one-off comment (unless egregious). I am familiar with a lot of kritik lit's, but to make the round accessible you should still be able to contextualize and blatantly explain the k throughout the round in case your opponent has never come across the k you are using. Not only does it provide a more fair round, but also demonstrates that you actually understand what you're talking about. If you don't know the full extent of your K, don't run it. Also, if you're running a kritk that relies on the experience and pain of a certain group of people that neither individuals in your team represent, that's kinda messed up. Agency does matter. Don't profit off the pain of others for a win in a high school competition.

T: If ground is lost, tell me why that matters and how that affects the round. If a team does not tell me why the proposed ground loss is a voting issue, then I will not vote on it.

Theory: I mean it's a thing...if left uncontested it's obviously going to be a voting issue, but please apply it throughout the round and show how the given violation actually affects your standards rather than just stating "They dropped, we win"...please. Oh and RVI :).

Speed: Regarding the note at the top, I can still flow spreading as long as it is clear. I will miss some bits and pieces, but I have and most of the time will be able to flow general args if they are analytically given. Note: if the opposing team is not comfortable with spreading, or if they are hearing impaired, please make the speech accessible to them. Accessibility & education within debate is a voting issue.

LD:

I am mostly a policy/Flow judge, so please treat me as such if possible.

Pref Cheat Sheet;

1-Policy

2-K

3-Theory

4/strike-Phil

5/strike-Trix

RVI- I believe that winning a theory shell is a voting issue. I loathe theory for time sucks, it ruins the purpose of running a theory. If you introduce theory, be prepared to carry it all the way through.

Competing interps- I believe that clash on theory is important. Even if the theory is a wash, you should still have a counter. Answering and winning washed theories would help you will the round since I value each theory won as a voter.

Drop the arg- If a theory stands by the end of the round and the violation is relegated to one specific argument, then that arg will be dropped on my flow.

Disclosure- I like disclosure. If the opponent doesn't disclose pre-round, that doesn't instantly make it a voting issue for me. Run a full theory arg so that the violation is on the flow.

kicking args in last speech: If you feel like you have one topic won, and its impact calc, when compared to the standing framework, is the largest on the flow, and you want to run the entirety of your last speech flowing it over and solidifying it, go for it. Condensing is good, desperately holding onto arguments that are lost is not good. Of course, if you kick out of the thing you're winning then it could also hurt you, but y'all have a good idea of what y'all are doing so it should be fine. I'm not doing judge kicks, so explicitly state what you're kicking

PF:

PF is chaotic. That being said, I vibe with all types of arguments within PF (unless you advocate for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, self-harm advocacy, or moral arguments that would land you a special spot in Dante's Inferno, which is something I apparently need to add to a paradigm because people don't know how to act :\). While I understand paraphrasing is accepted, I feel that reading a carded case appears more professional and provides informational validity better. That doesn't mean it affects your speaks or anything, just a little aside.

OVERALL:

Please be nice to one another. Respect your opponents for the competitors they are. Rounds can get heated, and when they do sometimes tempers rise and people become more aggressive than needed. While this is a competition, please remember that it is an educational competition. Have fun, make friends, learn new arguments, and overcome your mistakes. At the end of the day, your rounds are simply pedagogical interactions, but when competitors' egos come before their logic in rounds, debate loses all meaning.

Eric Schwerdtfeger Dulles High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 3:21 AM CDT

ASK ME ABOUT THE TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE AND/OR THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP

EMAILS - yes, “at the google messaging service” means @gmail.com

All rounds - esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy - dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD - dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TOC PF Update: Congratulations on qualifying. This is a huge accomplishment, of which you should be proud. Since my paradigm is mostly in the context of Policy and LD, I want to lay out some Topic/PF specific thoughts. First, sending evidence that will be read in a speech via email before the speech is best practice for high quality debates and avoids the awfulness of deadtime while you read over each other's shoulders. Second, this is a policy style topic, which has two major implications for how you should approach debating in front of me 1.) Neg gets presumption because the resolutional statement is a departure from the status quo, 2.) I will be much happier if you treat this like a traditional style policy debate over central topic controversies rather than running to the margins, as you and your opponents have not had a full year to think and prepare materials over all aspects of the topic like you would in policy debate. This is not a prohibition on content. Feel free to read your kritik, just know I am generally skeptical of their strategic viability in PF given the lack of time you have to develop, explain, and contextualize the argument. Finally, defense is not sticky. You must extend an argument in summary if you plan to extend it in final focus.

QUICK GUIDE- My preferences/self-assessment. You are free to decide that I am great/terrible for any given form of argument.

Policy - 1

Kritiks - 1

Topicality/Framework - 1

Philosophy - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks - Strike

ABOUT ME

I am currently the program director at Dulles High School, where I also teach AP Psychology and AP Research. I primarily judge Policy and LD. I've been in debate since 2007 and have judged at every level from TOC finals to the novice divisions at locals; you are not likely to surprise me. I have no significant preferences about the content of your arguments, except that they are not exclusionary in nature. I like research dense, content heavy strategies. As such, I am best for Policy v Policy, KvK, substantive phil debates, and Clash Debates. Quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence for me. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo (this can be the state of the world, the state of thought, the state of debate, or something else) and propose some method of solving that problem. I believe that Neg teams, regardless of style choice, must disagree with the viability, desirability, and/or topicality of that method. If you are a graduating senior and do not wish to sit through the RFD/comments after your last round, let me know.

DECISION MAKING

I am deciding between competing ballot stories in the 2NR and 2AR, evaluating their veracity and quality using my flow. Tech > Truth, but blatantly untrue things are harder to win. Spin control > me reading a card doc, but I will read evidence if the spin is roughly equal in quality. Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate. Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. 30s should be rare, it is unlikely you earned it. Don't ask for one.

THINGS I CARE ABOUT

Respect for Others - Don't be a jerk. Use people’s preferred pronouns, provide accommodations when they are requested, be prompt and ready to go at start time, and be mindful of the power dynamics in the room. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation should an issue arise. If I’m not picking up on something, let me know.
Investment - Apathy sucks. Caring about stuff is cool. Whether you’re more invested in saying stuff that matters or chasing competitive success, I just want to see that you care about some aspect of the thing you are giving up a significant amount of time to do. Take notes during feedback and ask questions.
Transparency - I believe that disclosure is generally good, as it enables people to read, think and prepare better (obvious exception for when it raises safety issues). Don't be a jerk about it with people who don't know better. Shiftiness and lying are bad. If you are reading arguments that implicate the desirability of transparency, that is perfectly fine. This is just a starting point.
Flowing - Do it. Preferably on paper. Definitely not in your opponent's speech document. If you answer a position that was in the doc but was not read, your speaks will be capped at 26.5. There is no flow clarification period. If you're asking questions, it's CX or prep time.
Clash - Compare warrants and weigh. Rehighlights are fine, but your speech should explain why it matters. I am not sympathetic to strategies that attempt to dodge clash, like tricks. Specific links, counterplans, topicality interps, etc. are way better than generics. K links should quote the aff.
Line by Line Organization - The negative team sets the order for arguments on the case page. The affirmative team sets the order on off case positions. Number or label your arguments as you go down the flow. Overviews are fine, but your whole speech should not be a blocked out overview with no attempt at line by line argument/evidence comparison. Jumping around between pages is extremely annoying and will impact speaker points.
Debating the Case - Both the affirmative and negative teams should center the case. If you’re aff, the case should go first. If you’re neg, don’t treat the case page like an afterthought, and certainly don’t focus solely on the impact level. Contest uniqueness, link, internal link, and solvency claims. Making the case page K 2.0 with nothing but cross-applications is both boring and unstrategic.
Judge Instruction - The top of the 2NR/2AR should be what you want my ballot to say. Tell me how I should be thinking about arguments and their interactions. Tell me what matters most. When Neg, anticipate 2AR arguments, prime me for skepticism, and tell me which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I'm voting Neg, figure out why I would vote Neg, and beat that ballot.
Complete Arguments - Arguments have a claim, warrant, and implication. I will evaluate arguments, not isolated claims. If you make a warranted claim without explaining the implication for the debate, you invite intervention.
Projection and Enunciation - I like fast debates, but if you are unclear I am not going to pretend like I understood you and flow it.

Other than these 10 things, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well. Feel free to ask any questions you have before we start, and I'll do my best to answer.

Sandeep Seri Interlake HS 6 rounds

Daniel Shi King High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 4:04 AM CDT

danielaudreycole@gmail.com

daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir

So who is this random guy?

Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)

UPDATE:
Hi, I'm back. I have not looked at or touched debate for 11 months. I'm back mostly as a favor for my younger sister who is now in high school debate at my former alma mater. I'm sure it'll all come rushing back to me as soon as I start, but I know nothing. I write articles on sports, not follow debate nowadays...

Speaker Points: 30s for all, call me lazy but I've got enough crap to do as a judge, I'm not sorting through the minutia of what the difference is between a 30 and 29,6...

There are two major exceptions to this rule:

Unnecessary showmanship and/or general rudeness... Don't spread if you don't have to... Don't run 7 off if you don't have to... Don't cut your opponent off in cross every question... you know the usual stuff...
Evidence ethics... This is DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER JUDGES... You should not highlight one sentence from the card and then make the rest of the text incredibly small to make the context of the card impossible to read. The general rule of thumb, is if the author of the article came in and listened to you read the card, would they feel comfortable with the way you have represented the card? If not, please recut..., I will drop your speaks to 27.5 without saying a word, your opponent does not even have to say anything (although if you stake the round on it, I am certainly willing to sign and deliver my ballot if you are correct). It won't change the rest of the debate, I won't even mention it in my RFD. Trust me, as someone who writes content that gets published online for a job, we do NOT write articles with debate in mind... cut them as such, do not cut a sentence out of an article, just because it is a fire link to your DA. (See longer rant above)

Pref Shortcuts(LD)-

LARP-1

(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2

Phil-3

K-4

Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)

This used to be a heck of a lot longer, I’m convinced that most of y’all didn’t read that disorganized mess. This is how you should think of me as a judge. A former policy debater that went strictly topic related T and Policy stuff and a few basic Ks. Slightly out of practice but judged 50+ circuit LD rounds last year.

James Shi Vestavia Hills High School 3 rounds

Matthew St-Germain Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 11:25 AM CDT

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).
Policy debate judge (1995-present) with ample LD and PF judging experience.

(most of this is tailored to policy, there are specific PF/LD comments below)

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it while simultaneously hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to bank for subsequent paraphrasing. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable & competent adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

Lincoln Douglas:

Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Praphulla Suryawanshi Unionville 3 rounds

Parker Traxler Sammamish 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:19 AM CDT

The Kinkaid School, Vanguard Debate

'24 NDT Doubles

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

HSLD: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Basics

1. I will flow on paper and then decide the debate based on the arguments on said flow, conditioned by the caveats and biases delineated further below. If I do not have paper, I will flow on Excel.

2. My hearing is bad. Clarity is extremely important. If you're unclear, I'll yell "clear" twice, and then play games on my phone.

3. I prefer clash. I detest tricks, RVIs, and most non-resolutional theory. If you're wondering whether your argument constitutes a "trick", you probably shouldn't read it.

My desire to vote for you goes down the more I believe you are just trolling. If you don't care, I won't either.

4. If you ask for a 30, I will give you the lowest speaker points permitted by the tournament.

5. Introducing a callout, character assassination, or otherwise unverifiable beef will result in an auto-loss, the execution of rule 4, and the contacting of Tab and/or coaches.

6. There is no flow clarification period. Asking for a marked doc or "what was X argument" is CX or flex prep.

7. Inserting is fine until someone makes an argument about it.

Plans

Your advantage(s) are probably bad. However, the neg rarely takes time to explain why, and frequently opts to only meekly extend impact defense. A neg that can exceed this practice will be rewarded.

Counterplans

Judge kick unless argued otherwise or the CP is unconditional. "Conditionality bad" is a non-starter and will be met with a verbal interruption.

Fine for both "must compete functionally" and "must compete functionally and textually". Textual competition seems difficult, but I am not diametrically opposed to it.

I dislike recycling. Most process CPs probably fail to resolve their net benefit, solve case, and are structurally incoherent.

Theory is best when couched as a competition argument and is never a reason to reject the team. I am frequently persuaded by neg appeals to arbitrariness - "process CPs bad" is untenable. "Must only fiat the resolutional actor", however, is fine.

Intuitive analytic advantage CPs are under-utilized. The glaring lack of "plan key" is astonishing and should be punished more frequently.

Disadvantages

Your politics DA is likely an incomplete 1NC argument and can be quickly vaporized with well-informed analytics.

Impact calculus is, by definition, comparative. Explaining your impact and sprinkling in terms like "magnitude" without referencing the advantage probably does not constitute comparison.

Topicality

I don't have a strong opinion on reasonability vs. competing interpretations. Reasonability should have offense that can outweigh the neg's gut check/arbitrariness standards.

Kritiks

I am very bad for "middle ground", but good for either "no K" or "no plan".

The neg should explain how they generate uniqueness for their offense, whether that is via an alternative or framework argument. However, I can be persuaded by "reject things that are bad".

The aff frequently forgets that they read an advantage, which causes the 2AC to debate on the neg's playground. Less generic card reading and more leveraging the aff vs. their theory of power, links, alternative, and framework arguments.

Planless Affs

Framework is an argument that demonstrates the utility of debate, i.e., why debate is good (and ideally, why it is good for the aff).

Fairness is good, but there is no reason it should be the entire 2NR. The substantive justifications for fairness are compelling, but are too simple to require 6 minutes.

I think about framework very similarly to a disadvantage - the opportunity cost to voting aff is topical debates. The neg should utilize turns case language, which is best accomplished via skills, not fairness.

Very rarely is "subject formation" explained. I am bad for "debate can change your opinion/turn you into an activist", and very bad for "debate can't change subjectivity at all". There is a middle ground that naturally favors the neg.

The TVA/SSD are overestimated in their ability to mitigate impact turns, but excellent at demonstrating turns case/offense (when explained meaningfully). The TVA is also not a CP.

I am not very good for kritik vs. kritik debates (yet).

Zaid Umar Heritage High Speech and Debate Club 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 1:31 PM PDT

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 6th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast-paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could upload all speech documents on Speechdrop. If you can't use speechdrop, you can set up an email chain with write2zaid@gmail.com , but I would really prefer Speechdrop

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

Quick reference guide

Theory (non-friv please, only if there's actual abuse)
Topicality
K (please connect it well with the topic, explain the literature, articulate the role of the ballot clearly, and have a fleshed-out alt. please also see disc. on K AFFs below)
LARP
phil/FW (idk much about this so you'll really have to sell me on it)

If you want to easily win my ballot, WEIGH (x5), do comparative analysis, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE, ON WHAT, AND WHY! DO NOT trust me to understand things between the lines.

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at least a somewhat conversational speed. NOTE: I am fine with spreading if you share your speech docs with me before every speech where you plan to spread.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college-educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

P.S. If you are someone who is thinking about going to law school after college, don't hesitate to ask for advice! Always willing to chat about that, it really helped me when folks did that for me when I was in your shoes and I'd love to pay it forward.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Eduardo Velazquez ModernBrain 6 rounds

Vishnu Vennelakanti Oak Ridge INDEPENDENT 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 2:28 AM PDT

I debated PF for 2 years and 1 year on the LD natcir. i build in ai & web3.

email: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com

I'd like to think of myself as tab ras but as time has gone on and the number of rounds I've judged passes the 1k mark, I've realized that some rounds and arguments are just impossible for me to enjoy and I'm not trying to judge six double-flighted rounds where i just hate every single round. plus with debaters participating in an increasingly ridiculous arms race to game rounds, i have developed a real distaste for the current landscape of debate. i think debate has real importance and educational value and this arms race makes it harder for outsiders to participate in the activity.

I subscribe to the philosophy that the debater that makes it easiest for me to do my job will win the round 8/10 times. This means clear signposting, effective & frequent weighing, and excellent warranting.

So, to be fair to debaters, here's what I think:

plan/cp debate: ideal and easiest for me to evaluate. condo probably bad but if theres a compelling argument for condo good in round ill vote for it. these args are honestly why i keep coming back to judge debate, a good plan/cp debate is incredibly hype.
value/vc debate: i find most of them to be pretty cringe. i don't really find a compelling reason to vote for either frameworks so its super arbitrary at the end and i default to weighing/ink on the flow anyway.
i really expect aff to defend full rez
spread: don't do it unless youre actually clear - i can count on two hands the # of LDers I've judged with good spread.
ks: most ks are underdeveloped and i'm not going to understand some advanced obscure european concept in seven minutes. if you're running your own specialized k, you need to explain it.
aff ks: really cringe and i don’t like judging these. i signed up to judge events about the topic, not to evaluate your performance or whatever
rob/roj arguments: you need to give me a deeply compelling reason to completely change my phil from "vote for best debater" to whatever you think rob is. and no, i don’t believe this uplayers procedural arguments.
theory: most theory is super random and frivolous - nebel is just like some random guy who works for vbi. i think theory should be justified and the round should pivot to theory immediately only. in this sense, losing theory should mean dtd not dta.
T: i think topicality is an exemption of the above, aff doesn't win anything for being topical.
rvis: lowkey should be automatic as a norm, it checks against egregious strategies; like going for 6 blippy shells and kicking all of them for timesuck. but whatever, i wont judge on rvis unless a debater explicitly advocates for them and wins on that arg.
trix: just debate the resolution man
disclosure theory: absolutely nonsense. i debated at a small school and i don’t really see how teams are getting "better" with disclosure unless you go to some elite private school and can afford hundreds of thousands in total spend for coaches, briefs and camps. a lot of you guys are deluding yourself that smaller schools are gaining more access to debate with prog argumentation - absolutely not true, in fact i would argue it's making it harder because you have to know all these random norms (that you won't know unless you attend camp!!!)
pf: spreading and running theory in pf is bad for the activity and i'll drop you and give you 0 speaks.
i'll never vote on an argument because of your identity and yea if ur racist/sexist/*ist automatic drop. just debate the resolution man.

so, you should think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge.

if you're a coach and you postround me, i'll report you to tab if it's especially egregious. i don't care about whatever crazy argument your debater made, if your kid can't read my paradigm it's on them as i'll pretty much stick to what i'm saying here.

Carolyn Vicari Ridge High School 6 rounds

Zi Wang Eastern 3 rounds

Darlene Wisniewski North Allegheny 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 5:57 PM EDT

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a sixth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater.

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed.

For LD circuit debate - We don’t see progressive LD debate in Pittsburgh, so it’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. ABOVE ALL BE NICE! Good luck and have fun!

Samuel Xiong Canyon Crest Academy 3 rounds

Bob Yang Monta Vista High School 2 rounds

Alexander Yoakum The Woodlands High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 2:22 PM CDT

Email: xanderyoaks@gmail.com

Experience: I have taught at NSD, VBI, TDC. I've been coaching since I graduated in 2015 and I am the former director of debate at the Woodlands High School. My main experience is in LD, but I competed in/coached in NSDA nationals WSD (lonestar district), judge policy and PF somewhat irregularly at locals and TFA State. Across events, the way I understand how things work in LD applies. (WSD Paradigm at end)

Update for series online:

1. I have not judged any circuit-y debate since Grapevine, go slightly slower especially since it is over zoom. I do not like relying on speech docs to catch your arguments, but this is somewhat inevitable in zoom land. If you do go off doc or skip around you need to tell me.

2. Do whatever your heart desires. The paradigm below is merely an explanation of how I resolve debates, not a judgment on what kind of debate you like/have fun with. You can read pretty much whatever you want in front of me (with caveats mentioned below).

LD Paradigm (sorry this is long)

TL;DR: Use TWs, do not be rude, I am truly agnostic about what kind of debate happens in front of me. If you do not want to read through my whole paradigm check pref shortcuts and "things that will get your speaks tanked/I won't vote on."

Pref Shortcuts:

Phil: 1

K: 1-2 (more comfortable with identity Ks like queer theory, critical race theory, etc. I know some post-structuralist like Derrida, some Deleuze, Butler, Foucault, Anthro). Give me a 3 if you read Baudrillard unless you're good at explaining it

A bunch of theory: 2. I have been judging a lot of this lately, so do what you will. More specific theory stuff below.

Tricks: 2-3 I like good tricks but please have the spikes clearly delineated. There have been a couple rounds recently where I started to believe negating was in fact harder due to the affs that were being read. This kind of debate makes my head explode sometimes so collapsing in this form of debate is essential to me.

Policy/LARP: 3 (I guess?) I understand all of the technical stuff when it comes to this style, but I am not the judge for you if you're hoping that I would give you the leg up against things like phil or Ks. I vote on extinction outweighs a lot though (just bc I think LD has made a larger ideological shift towards policy args)

The trick to win my ballot regardless of the style/content: Crystallize!!!! Weigh!!!! Your 2nr/2ar should practically write my ballot.

I know that all of these have me in the 1-3 range, just consider me 'debate style agnostic'

Kritiks:
I am familiar with most kinds of K lit, but do not use that as a crutch in close rounds. Underdeveloped K extensions suck equally as much as blippy theory extensions. Here are some other things I care about:
1. Make sure the K links back to some framing mechanism, whether it is a normative framework or a role of the ballot. You can't win me over on the K debate if you don't clearly impact it back to a framing mechanism. The text of the role of the ballot/role of the judge must be clearly delineated.
2. Point out specific areas on the flow where your opponent links. I'm not going to do the work for you. Contextualize those links!
3. If the round devolves into a huge K debate, you must weigh. Sifting through confusing K debates where there isn't any weighing is almost as bad as a terrible theory debate.

Overview extensions are fine, people forget to interact them with the line by line which makes me sad. If there are unclear implications to specific line by line arguments I tend to err against you

Non-black people should not read afro pess in front of me. You will not get higher than a 27.5 from me if you read it, I am very convinced by arguments saying that you should lose the round for it.

"Non-T" Affs

I vote on these relatively consistently, the only issue that I have seen is an explanation of why the aff needs the ballot -- I rarely vote on presumption arguments (e.g. "the aff does nothing so negate!") but that is usually because the negative makes the worst possible version of these arguments

I am just as likely to vote on Framework as I am a K aff -- to win this debate, I need a decent counter-interp, some weighing, and/or impact turns. Recently, I have seen K Affs forget to defend a robust counter-interp and weigh it which ends up losing them the round. Maybe I have just become too "tech-y" on T/Theory debates

Also, generally, a lot of ppl against Ks have just straight up not responded to their thesis claims -- that is a very quick way to lose in front of me -- I sort of evaluate these thesis claims similar to normative frameworks (e.g. if they win them, it tends to exclude a lot of your offense)

Phil
This is the type of debate I did way back when, so I am probably most comfortable evaluating these kinds of debates (but I only get to rarely). I studied philosophy so I probably know whats happening

Make all FW arguments comparative

Unless otherwise articulated, I probs default truth testing over comparative worlds when it comes to substantive debates

Phil debaters: stop conceding extinction outweighs. It is my least favorite framework argument and it makes me sad every time I vote on it

Theory

If you are reading theory against a K aff/K's then you need to weigh why procedurals come first and vice versa. If the K does not indict models of debate/form then I presume that procedurals come first (e.g. if the neg just reads a cap k about how the plan perpetuates capitalism, then I presume that theory arguments come first if there is no weighing at all)

You should justify paradigm issues, but I default competing interps and no RVIs. Reasonability arguments need a specific/justified brightline or at least a good enough reason to 'gut check' the shell. I think people go for reasonability too little against shells with marginal abuse

I tend not to vote on silly semantic I meets unless you impact them well (e.g. text>spirit) my implicit assumption is that an I meet needs to at least resolve some of the offense of the shell. So, if the I meet does not seem to resolve the abuse, then I likely will not vote on it absent weighing

aff/neg flex standards: need to be specific e.g. you cant just say "negating is harder for xyz therefore let me do this thing" rather, you should explain how aff/neg is harder and then granting you access to that practice helps check back against a structural disadvantage in some specific way

If there are multiple shells, I NEED weighing when you collapse in the 2nr/2ar otherwise the round will be irresolvable and I will be sad

Really, just weighing generally.

Shells I consider frivolous and won't vote on: meme shells, shoe theory, etc

Shells I consider frivolous and will vote on: spec status (and various other spec shells beyond specifying a plan text/implementation), counter solvency advocate, role of the ballot spec (please do not call it 'colt peacemaker')

Combo shells are good but please be sure that your standards support all planks of the interp

Tricky Hobbits
Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests:
1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths).
2. Slow down a little for theory spikes. I was and continue to be terrible at flowing, so help me out a little by starting out slower in the underview section.

Sometimes these debates make my brain explode a little bit, so crystallization is key -- obvi it is hard to be super pathosy on 'evaluate the debate after the 1ac' but overviews and ballot instruction is key here

Also, I likely will never vote on evaluate the debate after "x" speech that is not the 2ar. So if that is a core part of your strategy I suggest trying to win a different spike. I probably voted on this once at the NSD camp tournament, which was funny, but not an argument I like voting on. Similarly, I will evaluate the theory debate after the 2ar; you can argue for no 1ar theory or no 2nr paradigm issues however.

Against Ks, I will likely not vote on tricks that justify something abhorrent. I think 'induction fails takes out the K' is also a silly argument (again, I voted on it like once but I just think its a terrible argument)

Policy style

Unsure why I have to say this but DAs are not an advocacy and if I hear the phrase "perm the disad" you immediately drop down to a 28. If you extend "perm the disad" then you will drop to a 27. I'm not kidding.

Perms need a text, explanation of how the advocacies are combined, and how it is net beneficial (or just not mutually exclusive)

I do not really have any theoretical assumptions for policy style arguments, I can be convinced either way re:condo and specific CP theory (PICs, consult, etc)

Extinction outweighs: least favorite argument, usually the most strategic argument to collapse to against phil and K debaters

Unsure what else to say here, do what you want

Speaks
Speaker points are relatively arbitrary anyways, but I tend to give higher speaks to people who make good strategic decisions, who I think should make it to out rounds, who keep me engaged (good humor is a plus) and who aren't mean to other debaters (esp novices/less experienced debaters). Nowadays, I tend to start you off at a 28 and move you up or down based on your performance. The thing I value most highly when giving speaks is overall strategy and arg gen. If I think you win in a clever way or you debate in a way that makes it seem that you read my paradigm before round, then the higher speaks you will get. I think I have only given out perfect 30s a handful of times. At local tournaments, my standards for speaks are a lot lower given that the technical skill involved is usually lower.

Things I like (generally) that ensure better speaks: overviews that clear up messy debates and/or outline the strat in the 1ar/2nr/2ar, effective collapsing, making the debate easy to evaluate (about 7 times out of 10, if I take a long time to make a decision it is due to a really messy round which means you should fear for your speaks; the other 3/10 times it is because it is a close round).

If you are hitting a novice, please don't read like 5 off and make the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just is not necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).

Things that will get your speaks tanked and that I will not vote on:

1. Shoe theory, or anything of the like. I won't vote on it, instant 25.

2. Being rude to novices, trying to outspread them and making it a public beatdown. Probs a 27 or under depending on the strength of the violation. What this means is that you should make the round accessible to novices; do not read some really really dense K (unless you are good at explaining it to a novice so that they can at least make some responses), nor should you read several theory shells and sketchy/abusive arguments to win the ballot. Not making the round accessible is a rip, and I think it is important for tournaments to be used as a learning experience, especially if it is one of their first tournaments in VLD.

3. If you are making people physically uncomfortable in the space, and depending on the strength of the violation, you can expect your speaks to be 26 or lower. If you are saying explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc things then probs an auto-loss 25.

4. Consistently misgendering people. L 25

5. I will not vote on the generic Nietzsche "suffering good" K anymore, I just think that it is a terrible argument and people need to stop going to bad policy back files, listen to some Kelly Clarkson if you want that type of education. L 25

WSD Paradigm

Style: To score high in this category, I not only consider how one speaks but the way arguments are presented and characterized. To some extent, I do think WS is a bit more 'performative' than other debate events and is much more conversational. As such, I think being a bit creative in the way you present arguments wins you some extra points here. This is not to say that your speech should be all flowery and substanceless; style is a supplement to content and not a replacement. Good organization of speeches also helps you score higher (e.g clash points, the speech has a certain flow to it, etc).

Content: The way I evaluate other forms of debate sort of applies here. The main thing I care about is 1. Have you provided an adequate explanation of causes/incentives/links etc? 2. Have you clearly linked this analysis to some kind of impact and explained why I care comparatively more about your impacts relative to your opponents? Most of the time, teams that lose lack one of these characteristics of arguments. The best second speeches add a new sub that puts a somewhat unique spin on the topic - get creative.

Models v. Counter-Models: The prop has the right to specify a reasonable interpretation of a motion to both narrow the debate and make more concrete what the prop defends on more practical/policy oriented motions. To some extent, I think it is almost necessary on these kinds of motions because while focusing on 'big ideas' is good, talking about them in a vacuum is not. Likewise, the opp can specify a reasonable counter-model in response/independent of the prop. I try my best not to view these debates in an LD/Policy way, but if it is unclear to me what the unique net benefit of your model is (and how the counter-model is mutually exclusive), then you are likely behind. On value based motions, I think models are relatively silly in the sense that these motions are not about practical actions, but principles. On regrets/narrative motions, I need a clear illustration of the world of the prop and opp (a counter-factual should be presented e.g. in a world without this narrative/idea, what would society have looked like instead?).

Strategy: Most important thing to me in terms of strategy is collapsing/crystallizing and argument coverage. Like other formats of debate, the side that gives me the most clear and concise ballot story is the one that will win. The less I have to think, the better. Obviously, line by lining every single argument is not practical nor necessary; however, if you are going to concede something, I need to know why it should not factor in my decision as soon as possible. Do not pretend an argument just doesn't exist. I also do not evaluate new arguments in the 3rd speeches and reply. For the 3rd speech, you can offer new examples to build on the analysis of the earlier speech, which I will not consider new.

Also, creative burden structures that help narrow the debate in your favor is something I would categorize as strategic. The best burdens lower your win conditions and subsequently increase the burden on the opposing side. Obviously, needs to be somewhat within reason or a common interp of the motion but I think this area of framing debates is under-utilized.

(sorry if the above is somewhat lengthy, I figured that I should write a more comprehensive paradigm given that I am judging WS more often now)

Zavia Z Bellingham High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 27, 2023 at 10:10 AM PDT

Zavia (ZAY-vee-ah) (She/Her)

Categorically refusing to be identified as diversity enhancing

Put me in the email chain: waka.wow64@gmail.com

I did 3 years of LD in highschool and now I'm assistant coaching LD. I did some circuit debate, mostly reading Ks, but not a ton and I've only been back involved in debate for a year, I think my speed tolerance is probably around 80% top circuit speed and I'm unfamiliar with any recent debate norms (especially ones related to online debate).

My first concern is always that debate is a safe and accessible space for everyone, if you ever feel that something made you round unsafe or uncomfortable for you feel free to talk to or email me about it. I will fight TAB/Judges/whoever on your behalf.

I will vote on pretty much anything and am generally pretty tech > truth. The only exceptions to this is if you say some racist/transphobic/ableist or whatever I will absolutely vote you down and may stop the round. Also I'm not a fan of bullying newer debaters, if you're a circuit debater you should not need to read disclosure or spread out some 1st year open debater at their first big tournament, just win your arguments, that shouldn't be hard. It would have to be especially egregious to lose you the round but will definitely hurt your speaks.

Spreading is fine and I will clear/slow you as needed, your opponent can also clear/slow you, debate should be accessible.

Flex prep is fine but your opponent doesn't have to answer, if you ask me if flex prep is okay I will know you didn't read my paradigm and while this will have no effect on my decision or your speaks I may glower at you.

My judge philosophy is that debate is a space for debaters to have the rounds they want to have and the judge should interfere with that as little as possible. So run your cool cases you really like and have a round you enjoy. If you and your opponent both want to do something that isn't even debate, good for you, no idea how I would evaluate it but I certainly won't stop you.

Argument specific:
Tricks: I will vote on tricks but have a high threshold and expect them to have actual warrants, I wont vote just because your 6 word blip got dropped.

Theory: I'm totally fine with theory, really friv theory might lower your speaks and I tend to have a higher threshold but I'll vote on it if you win sufficiently warranted reasons why I should. RVIs are fine. Please don't read paragraph theory in front of me, just read a shell.

Kritiks: I love a good K, if I think your K was interesting I will probably raise your speaks. I am familiar with a lot of the common K lit but always appreciate good explanation of the way your K works. Feel free to ask me before the round how well I know the lit you're reading. Aff Ks are fine be as nontopical as you want. In responding to a K I tend to be much more convinced by specific line by line analysis than reading a bunch of generic blocks.

Plans/Counterplans: make sure your plan text is specific and does what you want, feel free to run planks, condo, whatever but I will also happily vote on the inevitable theory shell if your opponent wins it.

DAs: sure. I generally think neg cases that format their topical offense into DAs and not contentions make more sense and are better

Trad LD: pain and suffering. Okay but actually debate how you want its my place to evaluate the debate you guys want to have and I will do that to the best of my ability, it will make me happy if you make it interesting with a cool framework or something. Please tell me very clearly what you want me to vote on.

ROTB/J: I try not to assume any particular role of the ballot but give that's impossible I probably err towards being an impartial mediator who votes for the team that won an argument that they warranted gives them (better) access to the ballot. But I am more than happy to change that if you win an argument that I ought to be a critical educator or whatever.

Speaks:

I generally base speaks off how well you presented your arguments, meaning: clarity, sign posting, how easy it was to follow the argument you made and to some degree speech strategy. So tell me a good impact story (I don't care how much weighing you do in your last speech you should do more), tell me exactly which card you're putting offense on and what specific warrant in the card you're attacking, be easy for me to flow.

Other factors that could hurt your speaks are: saying something minorly messed up but not enough for me to vote on it independently, bullying less experienced debaters, running really friv theory, misgendering me (bad) or your opponent (worse)

I am happy to clarify my paradigm and answer any questions before the round, though I will be a little annoyed if you ask me questions and have clearly not read my paradigm

Have a good round, try to win and don't be a coward, cowardice is always a voting issue.

Lily Zeleny Lincoln East High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 7:40 AM CDT

Note for 2025 Milo - I've never judged pf so know your speech times, time yourself, all that stuff. In general I'm probably fine with whatever you read so feel free to try out your less trad stuff on me if wanted- just make sure you can actually debate it well. I literally have never touched pf before though so don't make it too hard.

Hi I'm Lily! I graduated from Lincoln East High school in 2022 in Nebraska and did predominantly LD and policy debate.

pronouns are she/her

Notes for online debate: I usually don't have issues with speed and always spread as a debater, I actually prefer it, however, expect to go at 80% speed when online debating in front of me- if I can't understand you I'll say clear once. I will flow everything I hear, so if I miss something due to your speed that's on you.

If you have any questions you can email me @lily.zeleny@gmail.com- please send a speech doc! Disclosure is a must, unless you have a REALLY REALLY good reason and communicate that well and make sure the round is totally accessible for your opponent. If there is abuse in the round and you run theory- I'm going to vote on it. That means If you're being mean in round or refusing to make the round accessible to your opponent, I don't care if you're the "better" debater, I will vote on theory. Debate needs to be a safe and accessible space for all, if you are creating a negative environment, you can expect your ballot and speaks to reflect that.

I'm not good at judging T don't run it if you're not good at debating it.

Run what you want in front of me, I primarily ran more progressive arguments but debating in Nebraska I'm very comfortable with your standard trad round. Just because I'm familiar with the structure and have run many progressive arguments doesn't mean I will understand your specific literature- make sure you are explaining your arguments well. I mainly read literature around gender, queerness, and disability and am most familiar with those kritiks. Feel free to run a nontopical K aff- I love them.

Plan affs are boring (like really boring for me to judge, if you want me to be happy don't run one)(unless your in policy then fine ig) but also I'll vote for them. Don't run tricks in front of me, it will be the fastest L of your life. Also I REALLY don't want to vote on your RVI and it will be the very last resort. That being said at the end of the day I'll vote for almost anything that's not abusive and I'd rather see you debate what your confident in then running something you never have before just because I said I hate your plan aff.

I don't care how you debate, what your wearing, if your camera is on or not- just debate.

Debate is educational (unless u tell me it's a game). Please be kind. IF you are Racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I will drop you immediately.

Jie Zhou East Chapel Hill High School 3 rounds

Login to Tabroom

TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 2

2023 — NSDA Campus, US

Lincoln-Douglas (Varsity) Paradigm List

Judges