I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School. I coach with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

dana.bell@saschools.org for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

I believe in being the brand. I look for scholars who not only know their policy but are able to articulate it beyond the cards. An argument that isn't concise is no argument at all. I aim for my scholars to present themselves along with the materials they've prepared. I look for presentation and projection; if a scholar knows information but can't present it as if they wrote it, I deduct. I don't want you to memorize; I want you to enact the procedures of informing and persuading. Having worked in news and politics for over 3 years and being part of multiple political campaigns, I seek scholars who believe in the narrative they are pushing. A lack of confidence results in a lack of composure, and you can't win a debate if that's where you start.

***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.

I've debated in middle school for 3 years and high school for 3 years

add me to the email chain: gideonfry1@gmail.com

Do not run a K against me. I will vote for it only if the other team handles it horrifically.

I LOVE TOPICALITY!!!!!!

run DAs and CPs, I'm cool with them, especially weird ones.

I feel the same way about Conditionality that I feel about K's. I will vote for anything over Condo.

If you have any other questions, just ask me.

COACH G - EMAIL : RYAN.GOSLING@saschools.org

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Citations after article introduction are preferred. How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? It won't How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? Empirical Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. How should debaters run on case arguments? Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. How should debaters run off case arguments? Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. How should Debaters run theory arguments? The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of method.

Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. What other preferences do you have, as a judge? Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

Affiliations

North Broward Preparatory School (Assistant Director): 2021 – Present

University of Michigan (Assistant Coach): 2020 – Present

Northwestern University: 2016 – 2020

Email Chain (yes): gabrielj348 [at] gmail.com

Placement

The affirmative team should read a topical plan that agrees with the resolution. The negative team should defend the status quo, a competitive alternative, or a topicality violation. The ballot picks a winner and I’m not likely to be persuaded I should attempt to use it for anything more.

Debate is a voluntary academic contest. Debate rounds should be as fair as possible. I’d strike me if you disagree with that premise. I’d also strike me if your argument says debate is bad, debate rounds should be unfair, the other team/school/community is bad, or in general requires avoiding a well-prepared opponent.

Community events and historical disputes should be separate from debate rounds. If a genuine issue arises during the debate, please alert whomever you feel most comfortable with (judges including myself, your coaches, the tab or tournament staff, etc.) and we will stop the debate. I won’t decide these issues through offense/defense, tech over truth, or line by line. Adhering to debate norms like speech and decision time, spreading, and the flow seems antithetical to resolving genuine concerns and is a disservice to all involved. Please avoid ad hominem attacks, reference to out of round events, or disingenuous complaints and/or accusations. I generally will not vote for them even if dropped.

Tech over truth in most debate... see above. Any argument is on the table. I won’t reject false arguments for the sake of truth alone, even when confident about the issue. I have a low threshold for dismissing incomplete or illogical arguments, especially if you are technically proficient and on the side of truth. My goal as a judge is too avoid unpredictable intervention without giving you a change to adapt. I’ll communicate in my decision if and where I thought I had to intervene, especially if an argument makes writing a coherent ballot for either side difficult.

I default to extinction bad/util good, especially if not told otherwise.

Topicality v. Planless

If the 1AC is planless or does not defend topical enactment of a government policy I am much better for the negative. If debated close to evenly I have a hard time reconciling affirmative offense with the competitive nature of debate.

I have presumptions that debate is first a game, games should be fair, and enforcing norms is not de facto violent. The negative does not need many words to convince me those things are true. If your arguments disagree with those premises, you should strike me.

Both fairness and clash are impacts and considering reasons why they might not be requires fair adjudication and clash.

I have a high threshold for what a complete argument is in framework debates (claim, data, warrant) and labeling something as a DA does not substitute for the parts that constitute one.

I will not footnote in presumed community knowledge or events and strongly prefer debates about the current topic to debates litigating past community conflicts. Even if included I’m not automatically convinced that these are inherently impacts, that the only negative ballot disavows history or that it’s inherently violent to agree with an interpretation that past 1ACs also violate.

I’ll likely vote neg if the following arguments are included: debate is a competition/game that requires fairness, preserving fairness is a prerequisite to achieving other potential worthy outcomes, well-prepared opponents who clash over the same topic improve the quality of rounds, improving rounds is good, strategic choices and competitive desire for the ballot motive every argument, claims to the contrary are strategic choices even if genuine, I should presume them to be motivated by competition since the only certain motivation I know is that all participants currently want the ballot, competing interpretations must consider the likely and worst allowed examples under each interpretation, no interpretation is every interpretation, the resolution is the most and likely only predictable interpretation, and what matters for predictability (and what the ballot is a referendum on) is whether the negative should be able to go for topicality in future debates when faced with a similar 1AC.

Topicality v. Plan

I’m best if you have a specific violation that was clearly tailored to the affirmative ahead of time. If your violation can be read against most 1ACs on the topic I think it’s probably wrong. I’ve voted for bad interpretations but have a low threshold for calling nonsense if there’s an answer that justifies doing so. Acknowledge strategic costs and benefits of an interpretation truthfully rather than asserting it is “best” for both sides or solves everyone’s offense.

I lean affirmative especially if the interpretation is unpredictable, poorly evidence, or creates a slightly more limited topic for the sake of limits. I often find myself frustratingly reading through the unhighlighted sections of out of context definitions that I wish someone had pointed out with an implication beyond “your card is from X”.

I’m more persuaded by debatability and fairness concerns than education. Connecting your standards to impacts and differentiating them each interpretation is important.

Fine for PTIV arguments and have made peace with vague plans. I think solvency and circumvention arguments are a better remedy than topicality.

Usually, I think that arguments that the topic is broken or unworkable for one side are overstated and should be mentioned once if not skipped.

Theory

Conditionality is the only presumed voting issue. Conditional advocacies may be infinite in number and introduced in either constructive. Advantages with intrinsic internal links are my preferred recourse. Most persuaded by logic.

I’d prefer if the negative didn’t CP out of straight turns but more for cowardice than theory reasons.

States uniformly doing the plan and/or all amending constitutions is questionable.

International fiat is bad.

Counterplans

Good for most but the more it tests the plan the better I am. Not a fan of CPs without evidence but evidence may be read after the 1NC.

Fine for process and I appreciate the craft that goes into writing them. They aren’t a personal strength or research priority so try to clearly explain the mechanism, scope of fiat, and standards. Mandate, effect, function language is useful.

Competition debates should include normative justifications for both definitions and counterplan/permutation interpretations.

You cannot selectively “defend” something for a DA but not for CPs.

Disadvantages

Politics is on life support. You should let it go. I have not judged a coherent politics debate backed by quality evidence in years. Most of these scenarios are nuked by a few analytics. There’s no bill yet? Zero risk. No vote for months? Zero risk. Biden must “sign off” tagged as “PC key”? Zero risk. No cards but somehow prices in all thumpers but can’t overcome the link? Zero risk. Bill solves climate change? Probably zero risk.

The block should read additional impact mods and carded turns case arguments.

Zero risk is possible but rare.

Case

I prefer numbered 1NCs that include solvency and internal link presses, re-cuttings, and case turns over a slew of analytics and impact defense. Don’t number if you can’t correctly refer to them throughout the debate. I’ll number my flow regardless.

Impact defense and alt causes are good but you should make arguments specific to the 1AC rather than copy paste a generic block.

2As get away with murder on the case. “Yes X, that’s Y” is not a complete argument. The block should exploit light 2AC coverage. I have a low threshold for zapping case. Being present in the 1AC is not a free pass to resurrect an argument in the 2AR.

Impact turns are great, some of my favorite debates. I tend to start with sustainability/impact framing before transition. Remember to answer/exploit arguments based on the specific internal link conceded to access the impact turn.

Kritiks

I’m better for the aff than neg but went for, have researched, and am gettable on kritiks. The more they test the plan the better.

I generally think the plan should be weighed for fairness/clash reasons, the neg should engage/turn/solve the case, and that permutation double bind is a good argument. I can be persuaded not to weigh the plan at all. I can also be persuaded to say Ks should functionally be CP/DA with link uniqueness, alt solvency, etc. The negative usually spends too much time doing a little of everything without developing anything. I’m more likely to vote neg on a K that’s clearly the Fiat K, no tricks or disguises, than a K that attempts to do everything at once and fix it in the 2NR.

Framework is the most important part of the K for me. I've often sat for the affirmative when the neg was ahead on most of the page but losing framework. If case is dropped and the affirmative gets to weigh it, I generally vote affirmative.

Don’t spend unnecessary time one FW without explaining the implication of winning your interpretation for the other parts of the debate. When both interpretations are compatible with one another (this happens too often and means your interpretation is probably not serving as much utility as you think) the team that identifies that first and allocates time accordingly usually wins.

Neg teams lose me when they conflate being slightly ahead on an interpretation like "we get links to stuff other than the plan" with "we don't need to answer case/those links auto-disprove/dismiss entire affirmative".

If you want the implication of your framework to be that I shouldn't weigh the case, clearly state that in the block.

I'm most persuaded by in descending order: neg can get links to stuff other than the plan, neg can lower the threshold for alt solvency, neg needn’t necessarily solve case to win, case doesn’t matter.

My ideal compromise is the neg gets links to things other than plan implementation but must win that the implication of those links outweighs/denies the hypothetical benefits of implementing the plan.

I am not “deep” in any particular literature base so explain your theory and apply it to the case as much as possible for Ks that are more complex than Capitalism, Security, etc.

I have yet to see a compelling reason why most identity kritiks negate the desirability of the plan or why debate should be primarily about a particular group. Explaining how the kritik implicates the case is very important in these debates. If your strategy does not attempt case debate I am probably bad for it.

Demonstrating an ontology argument does not automatically accomplish that task, necessitate a d-rule framing, or substitute for specific impact instruction and/or comparison. The neg needs to include reasons that winning a descriptive claim implicates normative ones. The world might really really really suck... the plan might make it better. Absent a strong framing argument that implicates that type of thinking, I’m probably voting affirmative.

Cross Examination

CX is important and you should consider it an extension of speeches. CX is binding and starts with the first question (no “did you read” before starting the timer).

You don’t have to answer questions after the timer, after rebuttals, or during prep time and I may not pay attention to questions asked outside of CX. Be reciprocal if you want them to clarify something post timer.

The negative should almost always include questions about the plan in 1AC CX. Random questions about impacts are not going to make or break the debate.

Questions about solvency/mechanisms/links/internal links/alternatives/competition > alt causes, meh analytics, impacts, revisiting past questions.

Evidence/Ethics

Inserting evidence is fine but should preferably be read out loud before the debate ends if you think it’s important. I’m probably won’t care much about recuts if you don’t restate the important lines in final rebuttals.

Ethics "violations" are not a thing. Ethics challenges are. I will stop the round and attempt to reconcile them according to what seems most fair and/or true, best adhering to the governing rules of the tournament. If your argument is best made as a link to something else, make it as a link. Anything rising above that threshold will stop the round and include the possibility of either team losing. Practically speaking this means think hard before saying "new sheet". If you aren't willing to stop the round, I'm not flowing or evaluating it. Speaks will be capped at 28.7 if the round stops. The round will not resume after it stops. There are too many low to no cost voting issues or ethics violations that heavily favor the accusing team, especially when it is evident that pre-tournament preparation has occurred. I will not continue the debate or "draw a line" from past speeches when questions of integrity or character on made.

Speaker Points/Decorum

Treat each other with respect. If you cannot, do not expect respect from others. Put simply, ask yourself if the room would be pleasant were everyone to behave like you.

If a core component of your strategy is ad homs, out of round accusations, screenshots, or refusing questions, strike me.

29.6 – 30.0: Top 1-10 debater at the tournament.

29.0 – 29.5: Should clear/win a speaker award.

28.5 – 28.9: Above average to solid.

28.0 – 28.4: Still learning, stick with it.

27.6 – 27.9: This was tough…

27.0 – 27.5: You were rude. Being here sucked.

25.0: You cheated/clipped/etc. Coaches or Tabroom should be alerted.

LD

I coached LD at Harker for a year but was mainly tasked with policy assignments. If you get me and treat it like a policy debate, you'll be fine. I'm not familiar with phil shells or tricks and very likely won't vote on them.

I'm honestly truth over tech in this activity because so many of the things people say are nonsensical. T is not an RVI. Conditionality is okay. Aff framework choice is fake. Don't proliferate new pages.

I would like to be on the email chain - kimbreba@cbhs.edu

I will look at the evidence if I am told to and at the end of the round but I am going to flow what I hear, and I will vote off the flow. I consider myself a very strong flower so don't worry about going fast.

I am very tabula-rosa so I'll vote for anything, but tell me what you want me to vote for in the last speech. I would recommend starting the last speech with "Judge, this round you should vote for _______ because...". or "Judge, these are the reasons to vote aff/neg"

I do not like screaming/screeching during your speech or quietness, I will take speaker points off for screaming an entire speech or being so quiet I can't make out individual words during speeches. It is also far less persuasive to scream/whisper.

I prefer it when debaters label their positions. There seems to be a new debate trend where debaters won't name their positions in order to confuse the other team; this seems like a lazy and cheap trick. I want to judge you on your skill level not because the other team could not figure out what your claims were. But also in contradiction I am not going to disregard an argument just because the other team mislabeled your position, if it applies it applies.

Please ask questions after the round if you have any. I am not all-knowing and if I make a mistake and no one ever calls me out on it then I will keep making the mistake. I know a lot of teams think they should have won but never ask any questions and will leave feeling very salty. If you think you should have won don't worry about asking about it or trying to tell me I'm wrong: the reason for debate is to learn and its as true for the debaters as it is for the judges.

2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)

I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.

Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: jlebarillec@gmail.com

I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.

Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.

Clash debates:

Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)

Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)

skills (less good)

Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.

Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.

I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing and that's a problem.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

darinparkdebate@gmail.com

please call me darin and not judge!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you can't insert re-highlights.

do not talk about things that happened outside the round.

Hello -

I am a simple person who prefers a natural tone in debates.

My only request is that you do not spread if you do not need to. If you raise an argument by spreading, and an opponent does not address that argument (purely because of technical speed) I will not hold that un-heard argument as more valuable for scoring.

Good luck & have fun.

email:

christopher.polidoro@saschools.org

About Me:

-Hello! Please add rnivium@gmail.com to the email chain.

-Debated at: University of Kansas '18-'22. Arapahoe HS '14-'18.

-Coached for: Asian Debate League '22-'23, Arapahoe HS '22-'23, Lawrence Free State HS '20-'22.

Paradigm:

-I don't think arguments start at 100% weight/risk. I believe it is my responsibility to assess the extent to which your warrant supports your claim.

-I encourage you to have a coherent overall narrative/strategy, to provide argument comparison/interaction, and to emphasize clarity/organization.

-I would definitely prefer to judge the "best possible argument" as opposed to the "most possible arguments."

-I'm apprehensive about "insert this re-highlighting." If you do this, please make the tagline very clear and don't highlight more than the key part. The trend of "insert this section of a card we read earlier for reference; its warrant is applicable here" seems fine.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Gene Thomas

Debated at the University of Kansas 2016-2020

My ideal debate is a massive detailed counterplan w/ a good DA - do with that information what you will those are just my preferences and what I enjoy the most, but I have judged my fair share of clash debates and will give my more detailed thoughts and preconceptions below

Context is important so any of my thoughts below may change depending on what is happening in a given debate, so any of my ideas listed reflect how I would approach debate absent of judge instruction and the context provided by the situation.

I love seeing students having fun and being engaging. Please, if you feel comfortable, make jokes and employ your personality.

FW/K affs

For K teams: Please do your thing and do what you do best. My thoughts on framework are below so you can tailor your strategy to beat what I think are the most convincing arguments.

FW: I think fairness is an almost impossible impact to win against a prepared opponent and most of the internal links here(like predictability) are just internal links to education arguments anyway so your time is likely better spent making your impact just be education. I also think that a TVA is likely your best way to generate some level of impact mitigation to a non traditional affs offense. If your plan is to say the aff isn’t discussing something important I think you’ll be unlikely to have a lot of success in these types of debates. I’d recommend focusing more on internal link defense or offense because I can almost guarantee the aff is talking about something pretty important.

Random thought but I think your interpretation of the res isn’t any more predictable than the K aff if your interp picks and chooses portions of the resolution.

DAs

What is there really to say here? I like politics DAs, but topic DAs are likely more valuable from an educational perspective.

CPs

I think competition is ideally the result of textual and functional competition. Counterplans ideally have a solvency advocate. 2nc counterplans may persuade me that condo is bad so ideally counterplans have all their planks in the 1nc.

Ks

K team: Like I said before please do your thing and my comments on what I think are most persuasive are listed below to help you tailor your strategy to me. One more thought - I think movements alts don’t make a lot of sense to me

Vs K: I think when debating Ks impact framing and framework are your best plan to win because permutations and defense are likely pretty hard to win against most of these types of arguments. I personally prefer the style of big stick aff v K rather than soft left affs but do you.

I coach speech at Loyola School. My pronouns are they/them.

My speech paradigm is simple. Don’t be ableist/homophobic/racist/etc when choosing your material, and be a respectful audience member. Otherwise do you. When I was a competitor, I performed the seminal teen vampire romance Twilight as an HI, a DI, and a duo in the same season. Truly anything goes.

_________________

The following is my debate paradigm from my days coaching policy at SA Harlem North Central:

A note for high school JV/varsity competitors: my paradigm is geared towards the kids I typically judge, middle school novices. However, a lot of this applies to high school novice debate, and dare I say higher level high school debate. I'm a little rusty on higher theory/kritikal lit because the median age of my students is 12, so just make sure to explain those texts thoroughly. Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech.

4. 99% of T arguments are not convincing and unless the aff is wildly untopical, I will not vote on it. I will almost always default to reasonability, unless you can give me a fantastic reason not to.

5. I recognize that spreading is a necessary evil of this activity. I’d prefer if you wouldn’t for accessibility reasons. If I cannot hear your arguments, I cannot weigh them.

6. Speak like you care about what you're talking about. Inflection will boost your speaker points. Studies have shown that communication is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% words only. Keep that in mind as you give your speeches.

7. My least favorite kind of debate to judge is one about procedural issues and debate norms. Keep it on the issues. Let's talk about how to make the world a better place, not whether or not condo is bad (and for the record, I'm on team limited condo good).

8. Any kind of "death good" or "rights bad" argument will get you an automatic L. I'm not here for racism, homophobia, transphobia, cissexism, ableism, classism, or any other oppressive frameworks of thought. Cheap tricks will get you an automatic L.

9. Argumentative clarity > technical flair. Debate can be elegant. Complex topics can be explained in concise language. I will often defer to the team who demonstrates the most effective understanding of the subject matter. Kritiks are welcome only if you deeply understand them.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters.Time that I have to spend shuffling my flow tabs and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you. Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Above all else, be kind to each other. Demonstrate respect in the way you listen and respond to your opponents' arguments.

12. If you're not taking notes during my RFD I'll stop talking and leave :) I know that sounds really aggressive but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend time and effort parsing through my notes and giving detailed feedback if you're not going to write it down somewhere.

jack.valentino@saschools.org for the chain.

I competed in LD, PF, and Extemp for Chaminade High School (NY) until I graduated in 2018. In college, I studied congressional politics and law while keeping up with current events. I'm now a coach at Success Academy Harlem East.

Medium speed is okay, but it needs to be understandable. Taglines need to be read slowly!

I give speaker points for confidence, articulation, and poise. As such, I'm looking for a well orated and well "weighed" round from the winner, not a line-by-line or technical win.That being said, I'm anti-intervention -- if they drop an argument completely in multiple speeches but you don't bring it up and tell my why that's important then I won't intervene and count it as offense for you. Similarly, if they tell me the sky is red and you say nothing and they extend it... the sky is red.

Engaging with the resolution at hand is CRUCIAL to me. Not receptive to Theory or K's -- engage with the resolution itself. Non-topical contentions need to be clearly articulated as to why I should vote on them. Clarifying/debating definitions of words in the resolution is part of debate, but rewriting the resolution is not.

PF specific: Open cross-examination needs to be agreed to by both teams for it to exist outside of grand cross.

Speak slowly/clearly, connect cases back to the topic ESPECIALLY CLEARLY, and feel free to be appropriately witty or humorous :) This is a public speaking activity, not a spreading activity.

Hi,

First and foremost we’re here to have fun and learn. You should be treating each other with respect and be kind. I take speaker points for rudeness.

I judge under the assumption that stock issues are the framework of the round. If you wish the round to be judged based on a different criteria it needs to be made clear in a framework argument.

Final speeches on both aff and neg need an overview with impact calculous.

I do not judge nor vote on cross x but i do listen to it. If something is stated in cross x that you feel will be beneficial to your debate then you need to address in a speech. Nothing in cross x will apply to voting decision, but you can pull from cross x to use it in your speech.

If you make a fairness argument then tell me why don’t just say fairness. Don’t contradict your own fairness argument. (ex. If you states bringing up new arguments in a neg block is unfair bc aff doesn't have time to answer it but then the 1ar answers you are proving your own fairness argument wrong)

I DO NOT vote on new arguments brought up in 2 a/n. You should know your 1 Ac and how long it takes to read it, shorten it if you have to. 2 AC is not there to finish the 1AC. Same for 2Nc don’t run a whole new argument in the block.

I don’t flow based on the email i flow based on whats said I have no problem with spreading but you do need to slow down on tags and authors also provide clear transitions for cards and arguments.

Roadmaps: 1 ac doesn’t get a roadmap, that makes no sense to me, 1NC need to just say how many off case and then where you plan to go on case (ex. 3 off then on). All speeches try to stick to the roadmap you give.

Dowling Catholic 2020

University of Kentucky 2024

Do what you do best.

I care about responsiveness more than anything else. Don't just shotgun warrants/restate arguments, listen to what your opponent says, apply your warrants to what they are saying, and explain why your arguments subsume theirs.

Line by line is the most important part of debate for me.

I try to be more deterministic than probabilistic when evaluating arguments. Strong comparative analysis and argument resolution can turn 'risks' of things into decisive yes/no questions for one team.

Add me to the chain (weinhardtdash@gmail.com) however I try to look at speech docs as little as possible. I think the increasing card-docification of debate is an unhealthy trend. The value of cutting really good cards should be that you can explain and apply them advantageously and access a higher standard for ev comparison, as such, the purpose of me having access to the doc should be to verify if what you're saying your ev says is true in the event the other team disputes it, not to assess the quality of the cards in the abstract. This is also why slowing down and being clear helps since If I flow your arguments from hearing them first I feel less interventionist when granting you their weight.

Slow down for arguments that have a really dense concept-to-word ratio like T and theory.

I'm cool with inserting rehighlightings as long as you actually explain in depth what the rehighlighting says/why it matters rather than just exploiting it as a method to read cards faster - if this turns into a moral hazard for one team the other should call it out.

CP competition admittedly isn't my strong suit.

lesser stylistic things -

Pick your battles, especially in CX. Chances are, not every word that comes out of your opponents mouth is an F tier trash argument. I get that having conviction and passion is important, but sometimes knowing when to give certain opposing arguments a respectful level of credence can convey nuance and demonstrate to me that you're smart enough to be cognizant of the substantive difference between certain arguments in the round.

numbering arguments is always a plus.

I like when tags have the card's warrants in them.

PF - in all honesty I will probably judge this like a policy round, so most of the stuff above applies. if you're responsive and focus on developing less arguments more in depth and with more warrants you should be good.

LD - tricks suck. please don't pref me if this is your style.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Peninsula '23 | Emory '27 | Peninsula, OCSA

coralynnchiang@gmail.com

Pre-Round: Do whatever you need to do to win, my argumentative preferences marginally affect your chances at winning relative to dramatic strategic adjustments.

Top Level:

1. Tech > Truth. Flow (straight down) > evidence (preference for comprehensiveness & conclusiveness over other metrics, but amenable to judge instruction) > intervention (unmade cross-applications, etc.). Intervention is a result of interpretive ambiguity - judge instruction, warrant comparison & argument implication minimize this.

*Won't intervene or reject arguments automatically, but amenable to argumentative clarity objections to a punitive tech > truth model. Embedded theory arguments, floating PIKs & argumentative extrapolations not clearly based in evidence justify entirely new answers.

2. Topic knowledge for fiscal redistribution is medium-high. I've judged a lot of debates and am involved with Peninsula but moreso in strategy than research.

3. Clash is good. Demonstrate topic knowledge, consolidate the debate early & read more evidence. You will 'have my heart' & be rewarded with speaker points. This is my only 'strong' opinion and frames the rest of my thoughts about who 'should' win a debate.

Content:

1. Topicality. Affs designed around clash-avoidance should lose to T, but otherwise, going for T is susceptible to reasonability.

2. Counterplans. Better for the aff on theory & competition than most. The aff should center reasons the counterplan doesn't answer the 1ac / is anti-educational & the neg should center fairness in their defense. Impact calculus & interpretive integrity (clarity regarding what counterplans are included / excluded) matter.

3. Disads. The link often matters more than uniqueness (think: a 40% chance of Biden winning in the status quo is still a 40% risk of extinction if the link is true). Narrative coherence & try or die matter.

4. Kritiks. Preference for at: case outweighs is answer the case > util k > alt solves > framework. Aff answers to framework need to center a defense of a model of debate (vs. clash) or a unique impact intrinsic to topicality (vs. fairness). Honestly, more persuaded by debate good + clash than no link to debate bad + fairness, but good for both.

5. LD. Relatively new to judging & exclusively competed in policy. No objection to substantive philosophy, but lack institutional memory. 'Tricks' are terrible for clash and unlikely to prove successful in front of me, especially given this activity's issue with clarity & argumentative incoherence (won't flow off the doc).

Former policy debater for MBA. I now study political science and philosophy at Loyola Chicago. I have worked for ModernBrain, OCSA, and MBA. I have been active in debate for 7 years and have judged ~50 debates on this topic and cut a few files.

jackyoungpqw@gmail.com. Please add me to chains.

I don't do speech-by-speech comments, and I will probably be briefer than most in giving an RFD. I generally don't look at evidence unless it's a 'deep' debate, and take concessions seriously. I don't envision every outcome to vote for a certain side, and if one issue has already settled the debate, I will vote on that issue immediately.

I am a fundamentals judge. I like it when debaters flow and execute intelligent strategies. I don't like it when people say "Can we have a marked copy, including you deleting cards you didn't read?" or ask for cards not read before cross-ex. I view debate as a strategy game, which should reward good competitors. Spreading should be intelligible and line by line should be organized.

The purpose of a paradigm is to detail to debaters your biases. The goal of my paradigm is to indicate where I stand, and I often do so by saying "I dislike..." or something similar. This does not mean I will never vote for a K aff (look at my judging history), but that K debaters should know that I'm not generally persuaded by them. Don't be led astray by the language of my paradigm. I will do my best to vote technically.

I. Judging Framework

I flow tags of cards, authors, and analytic "arguments." If you want to make sure your analytic argument is flowed, put it in a numeric list or make it distinct from whatever else you are saying. My flowing ability is as good as your organizational ability. A lot of kids go too fast between flows or spamming analytics.

Obviously untrue statements can be, if dropped, true. This applies to statements about the debate itself, such as "they dropped x." Some of my decisions are awkward because I attempt to apply this principle unconditionally. I don't necessarily care what I vote on--spark, the extinction K, or the econ DA--so long as it is executed intelligently.

One relevant caveat is notably what constitutes an "argument" in this context. "Condo is a voting issue" is not an "argument" because it lacks a warrant, but "condo is a voting issue for aff ground" is. This goes away when discussing factual information--"the sky is red" is not an "argument" per se because it is a claim (it lacks an impact/implication). So, for instance, if someone said "Hell is upon us: the sky is currently red" then I could logically assume, given dropped, that doomsday is near.

I don't care what arguments I vote on, nor what values I am signaling by voting for them. Debate topics are generally unbalanced, so if a team defends an 'evil' impact turn, surely their opponent can articulate why it's evil.

Inserting highlightings is fine, most of the time.

II. K Affs

I think fairness is good, individual debates have no impact on our subjectivities, and most K affs are bad. Honestly, I don't love judging these debates, but I have adhered to all of my technical principles and on many panels have become the 'swing judge.'

My opinions derive from a valuation of debate's value: I think it's almost impossible to say particular rounds have a noticeable value on political practice. Merely proposing radical beliefs does not generate revolutionary potential. But when teams claim that T is "psychic violence," or that there was an "in-round violence" that occurred, usually I have no idea what they're talking about. It's as if teams reading an untopical affirmative are surprised their opponent is reading topicality. And it makes even less sense when teams say that topicality makes kids have headaches or cardiac arrest.

The more persuasive K aff arguments to me understand that individual debate rounds likely have no value, but that the individual practices of exclusion over the long-run are bad. I don't think debate has zero impact on our subjectivities, it obviously has some impact over the course of many years.

III. Theory, Competition, T

I like these debates. Most topics demand some sort of aid for either side and in principle, these debates can equal the playing field. To succeed in front of me, you should treat these debates similarly to disads, where each side has links and impacts. "Neg ground" is not intrinsically an impact.

I am a conditionality maximalist and a competition minimalist. My general presumption is that process CPs are bad, even on aff-biased topics, and if they were to be universally accepted, debate would disappear. Conditionality is good, but aff teams don't need to prove an "in-round impact," so long as they're going for models. I'm fine with neg teams defending infinite conditionality, as there aren't infinitely many CPs and Ks to be leveraged against affirmatives, and if the CP/K is bad, the 2AC should be good at answering it.

Generally, I'm more deferential to predictability than debatability. This informs a lot of other things, too: "condo is a fake rule that doesn't matter" makes more sense to me than neg flex does. I would rather see a permutation with an "aff ground" standard than a theory argument. "Small changes in predictability" are, indeed, not so small to me.

"Err aff" vs "err neg" usually means nothing to me. It seems irreconcilable.

I'm not too fond of reasonability. Competing interpretations are intuitive to me. I don't like intervening, and so why would I say a neg's interp is "unreasonable?" Time is better spent logically advancing a counter-interpretation that is defensible. The "reasonability should become offense" crowd should thus call their offense what it is, whether it's predictability or otherwise, instead of "reasonability" if it is an offensive argument.

Not a fan of plan text in a vacuum, either. This is probably my least principled T-related take, but cross-ex, tags, and pieces of evidence seem inevitable without constraints on plan-text writing. I enjoy T debates when done well, and plan text in a vacuum seems to obfuscate them.

I dislike procedural arguments, including aspec and vagueness.

Process CP competition: I'd say I'm decently good at evaluating these debates. I generally think the aff is correct, and process CPs are junk. Sometimes, junk wins debates. That's ok.

IV. Ks vs policy

I almost always decide framework, then use that framework to adjucate the rest of the debate. This seems fairly obvious to me; indeed, "framework" means "the evaluating mechanism I should use for the debate." Linkscan andshould influence the framework, especially if the aff's interpretation devolves into "no Ks." It seems like the most reasonable approach is that neg teams can get links to the plan, and the aff team can leverage offense. But often I'm forced to judge debates on the extremes, like it's a matter of mooting the aff or mooting the neg. K teams let aff teams get away with murder on this issue.

Most of my framework opinions are transferrable. Some Ks might be more permissible, however. A demilitarization K vs a heg aff seems fairly logical, contingent upon the alternative.

I dislike ideological competition because it devolves into vibes-based competition.

V. Impact Calculus and Related Thoughts

If neither team instructs otherwise, I will defer to a consequentialist utilitarian framework that attempts to maximize value and minimize suffering. Utilitarianism is defensible and logical but has valid criticisms. Criticisms should have an alternative system of value.

I agree with KHirn in that most impact calculus is mediocre and non-consequential. Most debates are probabilistic questions: when voting for either team, what's the chance the world perishes? Differences in magnitude are irrelevant if both equate to extinction, and timeframe is unpersuasive unless it's wedged within a defensive claim (for example: "warming takes a while means intervening actors can check" is better than "1% risk of war that causes extinction matters more because its quicker than 99% risk of extinction due to warming").

I don't think everything needs to result in extinction to be bad. Perhaps extinction is categorically different than death of billions--but I think probability has a role to play there. Similarly, extinction is a few categories different than smaller structural impacts, but probability should have a role. The question is how much probability should have a role. The whole .000000001% risk crowd is pretty unpersuasive.

This has implications for impact turn teams: I think I'm more of a sustainability guy than an s-risks guy if that makes sense. I also am generally reluctant to sacrifice vast swaths of the world to prevent some nanotech.

VI. Politics

Politics remains a consistently decent arsenal in the negative's toolbox. That's good! I like politics, but don't read the minutia of politics every day. Somewhere in between Asher Maxwell and Marshall-Green.

How do affs get passed? Probably not instantaneously, and probably not without discussion.

VII. Misc

Speaker Points

I disdain speaker points: they're arbitrary, no one knows what a "29 debater" is because the standard isn't universal. When someone complains about a 28.7, I think it's pretty funny--even when I started debate in 2017 inflation wasn't as high. But judging is a rigged game in which I either ruin your tournament by giving you what I thought the speaker point spectrum was, or I cave to the inflationary mob. I shall cave. My speaker points are placed on a standardly derived spectrum where 28.7 is the mean, ~.25 is the standard deviation. Top teams will earn themselves ~29.6.

Quarry Lane High School 24

Policy (3yrs) and PF (1 yr).

Email Address (plz add both): zleyi0121@gmail.com; debate@student.quarrylane.org

I learn everything I know about debate from Chris Thiele - his paradigm is 1000x more detailed than mine will be

In general:

- Tech > Truth

- OpenSource is good. Paraphrase is bad

- Speech Doc is mandated. Please set up an email chain before the round starts and send all your cards for each speech.

- Don't steal prep and time your speech

- Speed is okay with me (ie: normal high school/college spreading, so don't read spreading theory against your opponent pls. it's dumb.) Just be clear and be slower at the tag and analytics. (Notice English is my second language.) Quality>Quantity.

- Please Line by line the argument. Don't drop arguments and bring up brand-new stuff in your last speech.

- I have no offense with most arguments. You may say, "human extinction is good" or "xx country is evil." I am cool with animal and alien impact as well. At least you should follow the structure of "author+claim+warrants+data+impact."

- I prefer getting judge kick instruction, but yes I would usually judge kick.

- (MS/Novice rounds) Collapsing is important: I found many teams choose to go for all the things they have at the beginning to the end for both aff and neg, but none of the flow is fully developed. pls don't do that.

- Overview: not a huge fans. Just need one sentence in the top of the 2nr/2ar instructed me how I should write my ballot and why you win the debate.

For policy specific:

Topicality

- Prefer competing interpretations. Offense/Defense + weighing is better than just going for reasonability.

- More evidence + card comparison determine the truth usually

- In-round abuse is good, but you don't need it to win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory. However, if you are going to run really weird theories, you should consider either you have amazing standards and warranting or the other team screwed up.

- I prefer to be more offensive in theory. The same goes for topicality. Competing for an internship is definitely stronger than saying we meet.

- I think the condo is a real winning strategy for me only when the neg team drops or the neg off case span is extremely abusive. You can still extend condo and go for it, but my threshold for neg to get away with it in 2NR would be low.

Framework

- If there's no counter-framework, I will concede that both teams agree on it.

- If you want to win the framework, please spend time completing frameworks. Don't just extend your card and text repeatedly to me. Give me warrants and impacts on why your framing is better or more important than your opponents' framework.

- FW policy aff vs k: There's a really high threshold for me to agree not to weigh the aff, but if the aff team drops your FW, then nvm. (Truth: I hate FW. Every 2N told me I couldn't weigh anything.)

- Framework vs. K Aff: Naturally, I prefer to go for Clash. Fairness can have an impact, but I feel like fairness is more likely to turn to education because there's less engagement, negative reflection, etc. The only two true internal links for me on the neg are ground and limit. (Truth: everyone read FW against me I hate FW, but still go for it b/c I hate k v k more)

Case Debate

- I am not a huge case debater, but I probably understand the most popular case on the topic. I think it's really hard for neg to know more about the case than aff does. If neg has an amazing case neg, I will reward the team.

- Go in-depth into the argument. Card comparisons are always effective. Weighing should not be later than 1AR.

DA

- Follow basic offense + defense pattern

- I feel like DA is the only section that is truth > tech for me. The evidence is the most essential part. The more recent cards plus good warrants always change the uniqueness and control the link.

CP

- My favorite off strat, go on competition

- As a 2A, I hate random cheating cp, especially when there are more than 6 offs. However, go for it when you need to win. (Truth: I also run these cps myself as 2N, but I still hate them when I need to answer them)

- Perm: prefer"perm to do both," "perm to do cp," and "perm to do the plan and part of the cp." You can read other forms of perms, but I don't think that's a winning strategy. (edit: if the plan is a process or devolution cp, i may buy intrinsic perm if u go well on theory)

Ks

- Prefer more plan based link.

- Both sides can fiat the alt. Prove to me how the alt solves the k and the case better compared to the plan. Of course, you don't need an alt to win the debate. I will treat the K like a philosophical DA if you don't go for alt; then weighing and framework is important. FW prefer weigh the aff against the alt. If your A strat is win the fiat K and "you link you lost," I am probably not the best judge for you.

- Perm is generally just served for checking uncompetitive alternatives. However, if you drop the perm and your opponent extends it, I will still vote off you. (this is just for the case when the link is not strong)

- Ethics violation: If someone's discourse has been called out as an ethical issue, I think an apology should always come first. If the situation falls into a deadlock, I would prefer to stop the round and call the tab instead of treating it as a link.

KAffs

- I debated K aff throughout my junior year, so I think I am somewhat familiar with it. I think K aff is pretty interesting, even though most of the time, it will end up collapsing on t-usfg. Statistically, 90% of the time, I am answering the framework, so I will still vote on it if you run it well. On neg, I usually run T against K aff, but you are free to run anything else.

For LD:

- I have no experience with LD debate or topic, so I may judge based on policy standards. This means I will still try my best to understand your argument, but better no trick and philosophy.

Be respectful

Have fun!