PLEASE COME ON TIME AND START THE ROUND ON TIME - we are all busy and don't want to wait 15 minutes for an email chain, speaks will directly reflect this preference, you will also get better speaks if you can end early or take less prep but please don't do so at the expense of speech quality

brett.t.fortier@gmail.com

Mandatory things about debate so you know I'm somewhat qualified to judge

Debated for Lexington HS from 2018- 2022

Competed on nat circuit from 2019-2022, got 15 career bids, qualled to TOC junior + senior year, won a couple tournaments, deep elims of a handful of others (not that any of this actually affects how good judges are but I get why it's useful to know).

TLDR; run whatever you want, I'll evaluate it as best as I can, I wont refuse to evaluate anything and I will try my best to evaluate everything, below is mostly a list of familiarity with arguments and rants about debate

Theory- 1

Trix - 2 (if you read actual warrants you are fine but I'm not gonna make the argument for you)

Phil - 2/3 (good if you want to actually debate, if you use it as an excuse to do trix debate but with less warranting I will be unhappy) please acc explain your phil some of it is dense

Policy- 2

K- 2/3 (Becoming more comfortable but still have less experience)

I have run most arguments from Deleuze K, to skep NC's, friv theory, Policy, and also debated at several local tournaments. That being said I mostly read theory as my A strat, tricks occasionally when I could, and policy and phil in other rounds

Please add me to the email chain brett.t.fortier@gmail.com

I will flow any speed, but I reserve the right to say clear or slow 3x, after that point if I don't catch something I consider it to be on you. I am generally not great at flowing, I am fine for most things, but if you are spreading at 500wpm and extempt 'evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR' or some other blippy 1 liner that you expect to win off of, if I didn't flow it then I will not vote off of it.

Statements do not have to be true, but they do have to have a warrant, the warrant does not have to be true, but it does have to exist. I will vote off blatantly false statements if there is an extended warrant and impact. Truth and tech trade off which each other, the more true you are the less tech you need to be and vice versa.

Attacks on other people are not arguments and thus don't belong in the space

Misc

I default no judge kick CP's

I am not voting on evidence ethics. Stop being scared of debating. Run it as a shell or get me to reject the arg, if you stake the round you will lose.

I will not evaluate 'give me 30 speaks', I will give you what you deserve. I will probably just drop your speaks for this

Call-out affs are not real arguments. I will not vote on call out affs, even if you can prove that the debater is bad in some way, it's not my job to evaluate if a debater is a bad person and I won't do it

I will time prep if I remember which I will try to, please don't steal prep, its not fair or allowed

if you post round, do it respectfully, ask questions, I mess up sometimes, if you get your coach to come and yell at me, I will just get up and leave

I won't read evidence unless you ask me to do so, and if you ask me to do so, please say what I am looking for i.e. 'their impact card has no evidence that global warming is reverse causal' is good but 'their evidence is bad' will not cause me to go back

I will sometimes close my eyes while I'm flowing, I'm not asleep, just helps me concentrate

Defaults

Presumption goes to the side of least change (very easy to change), permissibillity negates (harder to change just bc most arguments as to why it affirms don't actually justify it)

Theory is CI, DTD, no RVI

TT paradigm

Theory>K>Substance

All of these can be changed very very easily but just making some type of argument about it, please dont make me use these defaults

Policy-

Go for it, have well researched positions that you can understand well, just please don't be boring. If it's the same generic Aff that 100 other people have on this topic, and there is nothing about yours that makes it unique, I will be sad. I will still pick you up even if it's not interesting but I will probably give you worse speaks as a result of my not being invested in the debate.

I don't understand why people don't make more analytical turns on case, just because it's a Policy debate doesn't mean that you need a card that takes 30 seconds to read when you can say the same thing without a card in 10.

CP's: go for it, I like all CP's

I think analytical CP's that intuitively solve for all of the Aff's offense are underused, solvency advocates are probably not needed to make a CP legitimate

I like cheaty memey CP's and they are underused as well e.g. space elevators

If you insert evidence, you should read it, if you are pulling specific lines I think its your burden to read it, if you want me to read their evidence, tell me what specific things to look for, I am not going to read every single line of the article before making my decision. I.e. 'read their evidence - it doesn't isolate Russian aggression as the IL to war, it says bear attacks cause war' is good whereas 'read their evidence it's bad' is not something I am going to do.

Condo is prolly good unless you use it in a way that is explicitly to take advantage of condo, solvency advocates probably aren't needed, Pics are pretty neutral, process + agent CPs r probably bad. (Change my mind through debate, these are very light defaults)

K's

Go for it, I am familiar with the rough ideas of most K literature, but I will not use prior knowledge to evaluate your K

The further out of debate I get the more I enjoy these BUT you should know your lit, good K debate is teaching me about models of the world and explaining why and how violence occurs, if I leave the round feeling as though I have learned something your speaks will be accordingly boosted

I personally never read that many K's, but I have hit most of them, and now have experience teaching or being taught a majority, so feel pretty good evaluating them

HOWEVER, if you read some new K that is 99% incoherent, and your explanation of the K in the last speech is not sufficient for me to understand the K then I will not vote on it.

Please don't give a 4 minute 2NR overview to the K that does a bunch of implicit work everywhere, I would much prefer a brief overview then LBL, I am unlikely to give implicit clash on either side, but this will hurt you more if your work is OV heavy and relatively light on the LBL

I don't like death good, I will vote on it but I just don't find myself very convinced by it and I think ethically debaters probably shouldn't read it.

I would prefer if you have framing mechanism and that you weigh it against theory or the aff framing mechanism. However if your ROB is something that is basically just a trick, you know what this means, I don't understand how its good for debate. Your ROB should not be 'I auto win' because this would seem to rely on you winning debate bad or ontology to justify the ROB at which point you have already won.

If you are going to go for the alt as a floating PIK, indicate it in the 1NC please

Theory

I love it, I think it's very strategic, rhese are the most entertaining debates to judge a lot of the time

Friv theory is good, however the more frivolous the shell is the more frivolous of a response I will accept on the shell

Read unique shells that I haven't seen before or old shells with new standards and you will make me happy and probably get better speaks, it can be a frivolous shell, friv shells that are new are often hard to respond to which is good for you

I will vote off a RVI on pretty much any theory shell, even if it's just an I meet on theory as long as you justify it

Disclosure is probably good, disclosure theory is also probably good

If you read reasonability please give some sort of way for me to know what you think is reasonable 'good is good enough' is not sufficient to justify reasonability

That being said, theory debates with 5 shells and 2 RVI's floating around get messy quickly, weigh between aff theory and neg theory, fairness and education, theory and RVI's, etc.

Tricks

Go for it but please read this whole section, don't just assume I want to sit through this. People are not reading this and getting bad speaks lol, debate tricks well or don't do it, don't be messy

I ran these positions and generally find them either interesting and entertaining or completely a waste of everyones time. At their best it causes tons of critical thinking, line by line arguments, and interesting weighing interactions. At its worst its two people grasping at complex positions reduced to 1 line blips which are both fully conceded and I have to intervene or flip a coin

Yes Tricks are stupid and usually bad arguments but that means it should be fairly easy to answer them and I don't get why people don't just answer them. IMO if you can't do lbl and so drop a trick that would be on you.

Don't say 'whats an a priori' in cx, I will drop your speaks, you know what it is

If you read tricks but you don't understand them then it's probably not strategic to just bombard them with tricks

If you cannot explain the paradoxes that you read, I will not rely on prior knowledge to evaluate them

If you read evaluate x after x speech I will wait until after the 2AR to see if I ought to evaluate after x speech and if you have won the argument at that point I will backtrack and evaluate the round as needed.

Like with all things- the blippier the trick is, the less you need to respond to it in order to disprove it

Tricks need warrants, otherwise you can just say 'no warrant' and move on

This 'no 2N I meets thing' lacks the warrant for an argument, you still need a violation for the theory shell and if you don't have it you will lose idrc if the 2N isn't allowed to make I meets. Also it seems like you could do this and read a very questionable shell that they probably don't violate which would possibly be a strategic way to read this argument.

If you read something without a warrant I will not vote on it, full stop.

The worst arguments I have ever seen in debate are probably trix, if you read these types of argument VERY REAL CHANCE YOUR SPEAKS ARE TANKED. I consider this fair warning to be harsh.

T vs. K affs

I lean for T in these debates due to my experiences as a debater and the side I was usually on, but I have nothing against K affs, have and would continue to vote for them

I think that when done well K affs can be strategic and good for the space, but that if you read a K aff and are unprepared for T that you will probably lose

If your K aff or Frwk block is just OV generic stuff from 2012, I will be very unhappy

Your T 2NR should respond to case, if you don't it's very likely that you will lose the case debate and then lose the framework debate

Speaks

I start at a 28.5 and move from there, below 26 is reserved for fully offensive things. The speaks you receive are relative to the pool you are in, e.g. a 29.5 at a local is different than a 29.5 at TOC.

Speaks are a reflection of not only how good you are but how happy you make me, if I am happy then you will be happy with your speaks, if I am sad than you will not be happy. Resolving good debates that are close is very very different than judging bad debates that are messy and hopefully you can draw that distinction.

If you sit down early or take less prep I'll give you higher speaks :)

Novice/Lay debate

If you read something that excludes a novice or lay debater from engaging, and it is clear that you knew they could not engage and yet you still continue with this strategy, you will get a L 20. For example, if your opponent reads a case at a conversational speed and then you spread a skep and Baudrillard NC and it is clear they don't know what is happening during CX and their 1AR, then you will lose. I don't care if you are ahead on the flow, you should not have to read arguments they can't engage with in order to win. You should try to speak at a max roughly 50% faster than them. I will not drop you unless it is a case of blatant abuse, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you read a tech AC without realizing they can't engage, you should 1) help them understand in cx and 2) dont go for the tricky parts of the T

Debate what you feel comfortable with if you are a lay debater or novice, I think these debates are good and definitely an important part of learning to debate

Don't have justice vs. morality debates, they are the same thing and picking one over the other makes ultimately no difference

(I go by Sai + they/them)

Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22

(skaravadi.2001@gmail.com) -- Pls use speechdrop, fileshare, or add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging, but pretty extensive notes here!

If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, pls don't hesitate to reach out!

I don't know how much this matters, but this is my 9th year in debate -- pls I'm so old. I debated for Quarry Lane in high school and then for NYU in college. I had 9 career TOC bids in high school LD, broke at the TOC, won a college policy tourney and reached late elims at others, and coached LD debaters who reached late elims at the TOC and other bid tourneys. I've also judged like 300 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments since 2019, including bid rounds and late elims. I care about my role as an adjudicator and educator, and also think extensively about my paradigm when making decisions, meaning I try to make sure nothing affects my decision that is not on here and I avoid intervention as much as possible to ensure the debate is in your hands, not mine. :))

UPDATE FOR TOC:

This is my last tournament in debate, so I am feeling more generous with speaks than usual, unless I get the ick! Check the bottom for more on how to avoid that.

Will be taking a bit longer to decide than usual since I know rounds are more high stakes for y'all (and will likely be closer), so please bear with me.

No tricks pls! :D

(Moral uncertainty --> util, regress and bindingness, aspec and plan flaw = yes, these are just framework or theory arguments -- those are fine and are just, but no im not evaluating the round before the end of the 2AR or voting for the resolved a priori -- you can ask me if I will evaluate/vote on X argument before the round, but the litmus test should be whether or not the argument is relevant in discussing the aff irl -- plan flaw is and paradoxes are not imo)

TLDR:

Pls go 70-80% speed. Sucker for a good K, techy phil debate, smart impacting on a spec shell standard, well-researched small advantage plan aff, etc. -- framing and impacts!!!!!

Tech > truth -- I aim to be as tab as I can and have experience reading, coaching, and judging every style of debate in LD -- I'll vote on anything, within reason. My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity.

I have specific sections below for everything, but larp is cute but please comparatively weigh, phil is dope but please collapse, K's are fun but you need to be clear and warrant things, T is I love and I default T > case, and theory is cool but idk what the brightline for spreading is and yes on disclosure but meh on docs, new aff's, open source, etc. -- not discouraging general disclosure theory tho. I am willing to vote on impact turns, perf cons, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I don't like lay debate -- you can spread, but just still answer stuff. Also, misgendering, slurs, etc. -- those are voters.

Also check my rant at the bottom on speed and off's!

My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfort evaluating certain strategies or arguments.

Defaults only matter if not debated, but:

Substantive: comparative worlds, tech > truth, epistemic confidence, presume neg unless neg reads a counter-advocacy or reads 3+ off

Procedural: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater

SIDE-NOTE: If you don't want someone in the room, feel free to ask them to leave (or email/contact me privately if you are uncomfortable with having to say it yourself and I will ask them to leave).

For prefs -- I like to think I'm a good judge for you regardless of what you read (except tricks -- im over it), as long as you warrant and explain how I should evaluate arguments. I read everything during my career and have actually mostly judged non-K rounds (despite having mostly read K's as a debater) -- I feel confident I'm a good judge for really any style of debate because I'll grant anything with a warrant -- the bigger the claim, the more established the warrant should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So yes, I will grant your non-T aff and be interested, I will grant your framework warrants and be interested, I will grant your interps and be interested, and I will ALWAYS grant a well-researched and updated DA story, but I will also easily grant answers to any of these -- read what you want, just be creative!

SPECIFIC SECTIONS/TYPES OF ARGS:

Policy/LARP:

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me.

However, these debates do end up getting quite messy, especially in LD. I am a sucker for strong link overviews with impact calc that's also comparative. I think collapsing, impact overviews, and framing analysis can help here.

I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison -- when I say comparative, I basically mean that you should also make sure you answer/deal with weighing arguments made by the other debater -- these debates can sometimes become frustrating to resolve as a judge because there's a lot of impacts thrown out in later speeches with weighing implications attached to them, but I'm often left having to resolve them or figure out who did that tiny bit of comparison that I can vote on -- you can easily win my ballot by telling me how to evaluate this/compare between weighing args -- you can call it what you want, framing or comparative weighing or second level impact calc -- I find it super persuasive and a smart technical move that often wins my ballot.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations. I think 2 condo PIC's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Butler's work and Kant, but also have experience with Epistemic Humility, Civic Republicanism, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, Deleuze, Levinas, Hobbes, Rawls, Locke, Descartes, and skep (also of course, util of all forms). I've read into the literature of and/or defended all of these, but never studied them too in-depth academically and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine. Also I love Kant LOL.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

I think phil arguments are strategic due to the amount of credence I must grant them -- i.e., I don't think someone can ignore independent framework warrants like shying away from answering bindingness or regress -- but I would need you to slow down a tiny bit and collapse harder in later speeches. Again, you do you! I am happy to judge anything and love framework debate a lot.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.

I also really really like phil vs. phil debates -- these are some of the most interesting debates and I am impressed by both the technical proficiency and critical/logical thinking skills that debaters employ. I am likely to grant both debaters very high speaks in these debates if they are done well, but also really feel like I learn a lot in these rounds. This also includes like Kant vs. util, but I think something like ordo amoris vs. Deleuze would be so so interesting.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't auto-vote on Kant (as in the guy) is racist, unless someone proves that his theory itself also is and does the work of proving that thus the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but again, it requires a LOT more work than simply saying it. Of course, this does not mean I won't vote someone down if they drop the argument and its implications, but you need to give me those implications.

To that end, you can't just end it at Kant or Hobbes (or X author) is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading against aff's that don't actually even cite primary source philosophers. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is NEVER ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks.

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card (like citing Immanuel himself lol) and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a real no link argument or a way to prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary (i.e., they could just cite Korsgaard instead right?) -- at which point, the author is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me (this is true regardless of whether it's a philosopher) -- however, this is pretty rare and it's 2024, so update your authors.

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to ROTB spec to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (I basically won't vote on clothing-related theory) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me, but the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also have some notes on a couple specific shells near the bottom of this section.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.

Reading paradigm issues in your second speech collapsing to a shell is a bit late and persuades me to grant the other side leeway on controlling them, but still debatable I guess (does not mean I will give leeway to brightlines on reasonability, just reasonability itself).

On IVI's -- impact turns are not RVI's, but rather independent voters/offense, and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too or make args for why the shell is a prior issue in the case that you go for it -- however you deal with it, deal with it. I feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA/impact turn doesn't link, why the shell comes first, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turn/independent voter.

Random note on disclosure these days -- I'm not that persuaded by these shells that you should send full on docs before rounds or that you must open source in order for negs to prep, etc. -- not to be an old zealot, but the norm when I was in high school was mostly just to disclose cites, tags, and the first 3 + last 3 words of cards -- we were fine and had more in-depth clash than what I've seen people read these days, so I am not that convinced -- THAT BEING SAID, I will still vote on it, but don't expect me to be that excited bout it or give you the highest speaks + I will have a low threshold for answers. However, if someone is fully not disclosing past rounds or telling you what the aff is gonna be, that changes the matter ofc -- still fine for disclosure, just not convinced that people need to give you every single word that they're about to read

Also not sure how I feel about spreading theory -- feels arbitrary to delineate as a judge where I draw a line between what is too fast and what is not. I'll vote on it, but idk -- the argument that it is impossible to delineate what is too fast prolly makes reasonability super persuasive. That being said, if you're obviously going fast, then LOL it seems reasonable that I would consider that to be spreading and evaluate the debate based on the standards. Either way, going for this in the 2N isn't really the move for me and I hope it's not for you. I'll still vote on it, but ugh, you and I both don't want to bring the debate to this issue (pls). If you read spreading bad and spread, I will prolly tank your speaks. Should be self-explanatory why.

Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with.

Topicality:

I read topicality against most K aff’s that I hit my senior year and every time I hit one in college -- including both defend the topic and read a policy action -- and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my senior year too. I love T, despite reading a ton of method/performative K aff's, but I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think either having offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive, and also useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me rather than pretending T has nothing to do with the aff. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people. I'll vote on it either way if you win it on a technical level, but this also leaves room for the aff to grandstand on your model being exclusive.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on and love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best rounds. I am here for it.

Most of the arguments for why I shouldn't vote on independent voting issues are terrible and not persuasive, BUT I still need y'all to answer them. Collapsing to a single DA on T in the 2AR is a great strat for me and I've done this myself in the past, but you have to answer these args. That being said, I've also been on the other side (kicking T) and feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA doesn't link, why T is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters ---- (also check my note on impact turns in the theory section since some of this is copied from there/similar).

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me cause it sounds like a colonial norm and I'm not American/English was not my first language -- this does not mean I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why the argument is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on English grammar is racist.

That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating and what I've spent the most time debating, coaching, and also studying academically. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit -- buzzwords need to make sense. That being said, I'm pretty familiar with almost every area of critical literature that I've heard of or know of in debate. I like seeing how people use K lit to formulate interesting advocacies or methods, I like seeing new K shells and scholarship (like 2023/24 lol), and I also simultaneously like when someone defends a classic K but does it really really well.

I’m most familiar and comfortable with identity based lit -- especially Critical Race Theory and Antiblackness, Queer Theory and Queer of Color Studies, South Asian/South Asian American Studies, Postcolonialism, and Performance Studies. I'm most familiar with antiblackness, postcolonialism, queer theory, biopolitics, and necropolitics -- some of my fav authors: José Esteban Muñoz, Sarah Ahmed, Tiffany Lethabo King, Alexander Weheliye, Jasbir Puar, Achilles Mbembe, Marquis Bey, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I'm also comfy with Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. -- all the pomo shtuff is fair game. I don't really think there's a K you'd read that I'd be completely unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but I also don't care what K it is and am happy to listen -- get creative. :))

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your K tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory ABSENT some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the K, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that. This doesn't mean you need to run from reading the K -- just be able to answer these questions and defend your position. This applies to black studies, indigenous studies, queer theory, etc. -- I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues.

Update -- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimism without any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about.

Along those lines, since this has become a serious area of discussion on the LD debate circuit -- non-black people reading antiblackness is ok BUT you should be prepared to discuss what your role as a non-black person is, both in reading the K and in relation to antiblackness, and pls do it well. I will vote on arguments for why non-black people shouldn't read antiblackness, but I am also open to voting the other way. I think y'all need to stop running from the challenge of answering the argument because the scholarship is great, BUT be prepared in case the argument is made.

I am also not happy that everyone has just decided to turn to reading (and commodifying) literature about Native American/indigenous peoples instead, especially when debaters actively say they don't pay attention to the authors or only read "X" argument so it's fine -- I am persuaded by arguments that this should not be allowed and find it more persuasive due to this occurrence that literature or images of suffering about a group being used to justify a ballot are instances of detached commodification. You don't need a card, but do need warrants. Bringing up the history of debate and also specific practices in LD is great. Pessimistic claims are somewhat problematic, but more so is using violence against a group as an image to claim you're radically decolonial and using an arbitrary method or alternative to claim you do care about them. I will watch these debates very closely due to the way that debaters are behaving.

On the issue of queer theory -- I am skeptical of whether someone should be able to speak from the closet to read ontological/epistemological, etc., claims about queer people, especially being a queer trans* person of color myself -- if you are reading queer theory, I think you should be prepared to defend whether a cishet person should be allowed to read it, since if you are unwilling to disclose your queerness then that would enable the practice of non-queer people reading queer pess. I don't think outing DA's are that persuasive to me (in these specific circumstances only) if someone asks you whether you are queer while reading this because it should matter whether or not you are and you can choose to say that you are unwilling to disclose that, BUT that still begs the question of whether or not one should be able to do that. That being said, I will vote on an outing DA if it's won, but this is an answer that debaters can make that I believe is a relevant discussion and legitimate answer. I am vexed by openly cisheterosexual people turning to queer theory because they think that they can win every round on an outing DA, so I have decided to add this here to pressure more authentic engagements with the literature base.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them for like 7 years, I've coached them for like 5 years, and I've debated/judged them for longer. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it. I also did read topicality/framework against most non-T aff's I debated lol, so I am happy to vote either way, but I am definitely a good judge for these aff's.

From the moment that I realize the aff is performative and/or critical, I am watching very closely to see how you perform it, defend it, and frame it. I also physically am usually watching you and making eye contact because I know that part of your discussion is also about me and the fact that I am not a passive decision-maker. I know that can make some people uncomfy, so I apologize in advance and promise I'm not like staring at you with bug-eyes or anything, but just noticing the choices you make and the way the aff is presented. I appreciate the fact that you made a lot of intentional choices when writing and formulating the aff, so I am respecting your use of them, especially in CX as well.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do not read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got you. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal and successful CX strategies when done well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real and pls warn me about flashing lights (personal medical reason). In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't. I won't be happy and coaches/schools won't be happy. Other than that, have fun! I like hearing creative arguments and fun stuff that makes me pay attention and wake up. :))

ANSWERING THESE -- Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I prefer presumption arguments to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

State good is an underused and undervalued strategy, clashes with these aff's so enables you to avoid impact turns on T or other issues that rely on the aff winning internal links for why certain state-oriented procedures are bad, and is a great option (be wary of your language, but hasn't been an issue so far).

I do not like Rickert or other arguments that are like "oh subjectivity is not real in debate, but is elsewhere so please leave" type args -- I think these are actively racist. BUT I think there are certain specific issues you can push on.

What is the advocacy/method past the 1AC? What is the value or impact of the performance? Why is there a binding reason to vote aff? How does the aff resolve skep/induction issues? How does the aff relate to the other debater and/or the judge? Why is debate bad, but also shifted to being good through the aff/voting aff? etc. etc. -- all of these are relevant considerations and valid points of contestation -- i.e., whether or not the ways the aff responds to these questions are good or sufficient.

Also really like K links as case turns against these aff's, skep is fair but be wary of your language and type of skep ofc, counter-K's are fun, T is great, and phil is so interesting and I wish more people did Kant vs. K-aff's (or other frameworks) because these are some of the most interesting rounds I've had or heard.

For Policy/CX Debate:

I'm cool with whatever you read and would prefer you do what you're best at! I'm chill and will follow anything -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I've also judged and coached high school policy, read every style of debate, and I still currently actively cut both K lit and policy args -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you. Specific sections below might be useful (minus the tricks stuff for LD, etc. -- not gonna vote on tricks, frivolous theory, etc. in policy).

I don't care if you read an aff about great power competition and extinction or a K about settler homonationalism -- I feel comfortable and confident in my ability to render the right decision no matter what you read, but my favorite rounds are when a team reading a plan aff really knows their scenario and evidence super well or when a team reading a K provides really in-depth explanations and examples -- don't adapt your style itself to me, just focus on what you do best and win it. :))

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cross-ex, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts -- judge instruction, collapsing in later speeches, and framing are your best bets.

I especially think framing specifically is important -- this doesn't mean winning util or a role of the ballot necessarily, but rather please just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round in later speeches.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you (unless it's overtly discriminatory).

I do really like K's though and this is where most of my background in debate lies -- through debate and my undergrad coursework, I read a ton of Muñoz, Puar, Spivak, Said, Halberstam, Stanley, Ahmed, Lamble, Mbembe, Tinsley, Hartman, Warren, Wilderson, Weheliye, Wynter, Spillers, Gumbs, King, Edelman, Preciado, Bersani, Nash, Bey, Gilmore, Davis, Gillespie, Mignolo, Rodriguez, Morgensen, Eng, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, and I'm sure I could keep going -- this is mainly to say that I will likely contextually understand what you read, regardless of my familiarity with the literature. I think I am a great judge for any critical arguments and feel super comfortable evaluating these, but also thoroughly enjoy the scholarship and the creativity that debaters employ when reading these arguments. Personally, I also read cardless aff's using original poetry as well as critical aff's that were very close to the topic/resolution -- I don't care how specific or generic your arguments are, I care about how well you go for and explain them!

For policy/plan aff's and teams -- I usually get bored in these debates ngl, but I think I'm a sucker for a really good link story on a DA, straight turns, and strategic advantage counterplans. I think condo is good in policy debate and feel like the condo bad debate is lost on me. Despite everything above, I enjoy the state good or heg good defense and think that I can easily be persuaded to vote on arguments about why we have to focus on policymaking/reform. Do good weighing, impact framing, internal link warranting, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing. I also love T-framework, T-defend the topic, and other topicality arguments -- I also like T or spec bad against non-topical/extra-topical plan aff's -- but I need these arguments to be well impacted out. I think fairness is just an internal link to education really, but I'll vote on either one and I just need the ballot story to be clear. You do need to answer impact turns, TVA's and switch side seem like game over you won T type issues, most T arguments are just about limits or prep and clash, and I am great for T.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

For PF:

Pls read the TLDR right below this, but I am relatively experienced with debate, so I don't think you need to adapt much. I also went to Quarry Lane for high school till 2019 (QLS was very involved in PF so I'm no stranger to the event) and traveled with the PF debaters everywhere, but also did a bit of PF at smaller tourneys and judged it before. I am down to vote for anything, just don't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, etc. I also read a lot of performance args and K's as a debater, so that's something I'm comfortable with -- BUT don't read it just to read it, I'm also very chill with policy-esque args and general topic area args + would rather hear what you're good at than a random K that you pulled up.

ALSO -- I have trouble following card names sometimes cause y'all do be paraphrasing and moving past things real quick, so please reference arguments rather than X author name so I can follow you -- I don't expect this to be a big issue, but if you're ramping up the speed and gonna give me one-liners as you move between cards, either send me the doc so I can follow OR reference impacts over last names.

Speaks:

So you want a 30? -- I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

1. Pls do NOT use my name unless we know each other LOL
2. + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
3. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
4. If you are able to give a solid speech at a good speed where I can write/type out every word and feel very part of the process, I will be VERY happy
5. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
6. I like tasteful references to things -- drag race, anime, Marvel or Disney, sitcoms, etc. -- don't really know much about sports so that might go over my head, but I like creative args that draw on other art forms, whether media/film or otherwise
7. I average a 29.5+ and give higher speaks when you slow down, are very clear, or when you collapse really well
8. If you go on your phone during someone else's speech, you are likely to get the lowest possible speaks I can give without having to talk to tab :))

I have become quite generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution is the key! I'm more than willing to give out a 30 and have increasingly done so. Do you and make sure you signpost, warrant, and slow down on important things -- I appreciate passion, strong research and/or analysis, and well-crafted strategies! I also think a smart CX helps with ethos and also definitely will help bump your speaks -- many debates are also lost and won in CX ultimately.

If you slow down to an easily flowable speed and give a good speech, I will be far more likely to be persuaded to vote for you and give you a 30 (or 29.5+). I find that I am also most persuaded by debaters who close doors, slow down and impact things out, and avoid silly args. Go to the bottom for more qualms of mine!

Please give me trigger/content warnings -- go for it, just warn me -- important to me as both a judge and participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about graphically sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally

Speed and Off's Rant: I am going to say clear a lot more to ask you to slow down andI think I will need you to go AT LEAST 70% of your top speed. I want to be able to hear every word, but I also think this is important to check for clipping. I think that we should preserve the value of debates through contestation, which I find is less possible when someone spreads through a ton of arguments waiting for something to be dropped, and I also just find myself exhausted listening to those debates because it feels like a waste of everyone's time. I also am just unable to flow some of this most of the time, which is not unique to just me and is a common shared experience of many judges. I believe that the ways that people are spreading through a ton of off case positions at incredibly high speeds is problematic because I find it rather difficult to follow and I should not need to rely on docs to flow you but I cannot hear these words, I find it hard to check if someone is clipping, I don't think I should encourage this practice, I don't think there is or has ever been a need to speak that fast, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have found and experienced situations where debaters use speed to get away with performing/reading racist and violent arguments, which I think I have an ethical obligation to correct for by at least making a relevant note here.

SO with that in mind -- please do not spread through analytics -- there is absolutely no way I am going to get all of these down and if you spread through these, it makes me very sad because I do want to get every argument but I just will not be able to.

I also will not be flowing after the 4th off and will dock speaks. If there are more than 4 off's, I also feel comfortable with the 1AR getting up and telling me not to evaluate it since this is on my paradigm. I also think that more than 4 off's will lower my threshold for responses and 2AR spin.

Finally, I have also decided that more than 3 off means I should definitely presume aff under a role of the ballot where I am supposed to vote for the better debater. I think that more than 3 off makes the debate quite structurally difficult for the aff, so I believe the aff did the better debating.

That being said, if you read more than 4 off after seeing me on the pairing, I think we have bad blood from the beginning of the round. Choose your positions with care, defend them, and focus on relevant substantive discussions. If you think you need more than 4 off to beat an aff, you are reading 4 bad off's.

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

1. I will not give you a 30 if you ask for it.
2. Non-black folx who read anti-blackness specifically against black folx will prolly lose in front of me (I have not yet seen it happen), but I am likely to give you pretty low speaks either way -- however, non-black folx reading anti-blackness generally is fine.
3. I am happy to vote on non-black folx should not read afropess and/or antiblackness, but also to vote for the idea that it's ok -- this is a debatable issue for me -- and I also think that it's debatable whether a non-indigenous person should be reading certain strains of set col (i.e., people who are not Native American reading set col about Native Americans) -- I can be persuaded to vote either way and think this applies to every group-specific strain of literature
4. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
5. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better
6. Evidence ethics is quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when) and so are clipping, etc.
7. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
8. Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways -- I will vote on misgendering
9. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- be prepared for CX and please flow
10. Please send a doc as soon as you stop prep -- putting together the doc is prep time imo (emailing is not, but I will be upset if you spend more than 30 secs before saying "sent")

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 2

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed regardless of the reason.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. Not based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Sam Barlow '22 - ld and policy

Wake Forest ‘26 - ndt/ceda policy

they/he

Yes, add me to the email chain: leadthem.eli@gmail.com

Background: I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debate for four years in Oregon. Currently, I debate in College Policy at Wake Forest University. I was a finalist at CEDA Debate Nationals in 2024. I have now been coaching high school LD and Policy for the past theee years and have taught at multiple camps.

As a debater, I read mostly kritiks, soft left policy, and theory. I’m best in clash debates, K v K, or K v T-FWK debates. Also, if you would like to talk about Wake Forest or about attending RKS, feel free to send me an email! Also email me any other questions you have, as a debater I remember I benefited a lot form the guidance of a few judges in particular.

Pref Short Cuts:

1 - identity/performance, pomo/high theory ks

2 - phil

3 - policy, theory

4 - tricks

General things to note:

Speed is fine, it's just a question of clarity. Please be clear.

At the end of the round, I vote on arguments that can be articulated back to debaters.

I prefer rebuttals that have crystallization and lay out the debate. Please be comparative.

Please, please, please record your speeches/debates.

Case

Going for straight case is perhaps the best thing a 1NC can read in front of me. I‘ve almost never not voted on this strategy because a lot of debaters are a lot less ready to actually defend their case than you may think.

Kritiks

I went for the Kritik in almost all of my rounds senior year. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating and what I live for, so please don’t make me sad. I highly value stepping outside of your literature’s jargon especially when said literature is dense. Also, framing is massively underutilized in these debates and you need a robust defense of your theory of power. Use examples, they help clarify your theory of power, advocacy, and link story. I’m not picky about how you read a Kritik and don’t think Ks require an alternative. Links of omission are bad and specific links to the affirmative are good.

Policy Arguments

I like these debates when debaters fully explain their scenarios as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence. In dense policy rounds, please take note of my lack of experience in these debates and adjust by over emphasizing depth over breadth. Thus, policy teams should pref me as a clash judge that leans more critical. With that, I think the aff really needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates. Generally, I think conditionality is good but more than two off-case positions the more I can be persuaded otherwise.

Theory

I lean towards competing interpretations over reasonability but can be persuaded otherwise. Theory is by default a priori, you can make the argument that it isn’t or that I should evaluate something else first. Fairness and education are bad voters alone, so please contextualize what kind of fairness and education. When going for theory please please please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications. I don’t recommend going for the RVI in front of me.

Additionally, I have NO interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments. I will immediately lower your speaks. I’m just not the judge you should pref for any of those arguments. If the argument doesn’t have a warrant, I will not vote for it.

Topicality/T-FWK

It’s fine but I find it unimpressive. If you go for a good case press instead, you’ll be strongly rewarded! I lean more toward competing interpretations than reasonability. Aff teams must answer the TVA. Again fairness isn’t a voter on its own so please contextualize what you mean or if you’re just trying to get out of a hard conversation. I will be more persuaded by standards like clash and topic education.

Ethics Questions

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused.

If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C.

Questions of misrepresentation/miscutting should be addressed in the round - in whatever form you determine to be best.

Online Debating

Please start off at 75% of your speed and then gradually get faster. Overcompensating for clarity is critical to dealing with internet lag. I will not vote on arguments that I don’t catch on the flow. If you do little to compensate for online debate I am heavily open to just saying "I didn't catch that argument" as my RFD.

Speaks

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny – I assign speaks relative to the pool.

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

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

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.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)

Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.

TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)

Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.

If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.

Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge

Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University, Canadian Policy Debate

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com

I would strongly prefer not to judge online, please strike me if you debate online. I understand and empathize with accessibility issues. I will of course not hold it against you if you do pref me but I also request that you please place other judges above me if you debate online.

Dropped arguments are considered true. If you aren't a very technical debater, then I am likely a poor judge for you. I am unlikely to be forgiving of technical mistakes and I am unlikely to dismiss arguments on your behalf.

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

I only evaluate arguments on my flow. I do not evaluate "rep", good debaters give bad speeches and vice versa, your past successes do not matter to me --- I only care how you debate on the flow. I dislike judges who give indefensible decisions and do not respect the efforts of debaters and care more about their perception in the community. Unlike judges who claim to be tech over truth but make exceptions for certain arguments, I do not bias against arguments just because of their content. I don't bias against arguments simply because are K or Policy. I do not bias against arguments like death good simply because they are immoral. I will not discount arguments like ASPEC if dropped simply because it is a "cheapshot".

Note that being technical is not an excuse to replace depth with blippy argumentation. I will reward quality arguments, judge instruction, and big picture round vision.

Please do explicit application of your overview/blocks and crossapplication of your arguments on the line by line. Otherwise you risk being upset at how I put the arguments together.

Wake 2024 Update:
Please read fun arguments! I love debate because of intellectual freedom, which matters more to me than simply winning. I love creative positions, impact turns, random procedurals, & funny meme arguments. I will share three of my many meme arguments as inspiration. 1) I ended my career arguing that we should all confess our sins to the Christian God (I am a buddhist) 2) In high school I pioneered the wingdings CP --- read the plan text in wingdings with a variety of net benefits like secrecy good, baudrilliard, etc and argue that it textually competes and lol I somehow was 5-0 on wingdings. 3) Lastly, my favorite: in the spirit of Wake Debate, shoutout to Taj1.5Chips, who voted that Messi was a nuclear weapon.

Michigan 2024 Update:

Here is some more detail on my takes on arguments. Note that technical debating outweighs these.

• I have zero desire to judge anything not about the debate in front of me. Please no screenshots. Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.
• I have a lower bar for a warrant than the community. This means that I will vote on severance perms are a voter.
• Despite a low bar for a warrant, I am often persuaded by high quality arguments and evidence. I read along following the cards during the speeches.
• Inserting rehighlightings is fine.
• Well explained specific recent evidence > good spin & analytics > horrible evidence
• I flow CX --- I am easily persuaded that CX is binding.
• I rarely vote on zero risk, but I can be persuaded by developed framing. Usually try or die is quite persuasive. Usually fast DA, "live to fight another day" is also persuasive. I could also be persuaded that magnitude times probability framing is bad.
• In advantage vs disadvantage debates I care a lot about uniqueness. Generally if the status quo is doomed then I end up voting aff more often as most people in the try or die cult do. Vice versa if the squo is fine, then I am very persuaded by only a risk of a link framing.
• My pet peeve is laundry list impacts, be so fr. My bar is very low for analytic impact defense to these.
• I will vote on intrinsicness against politics. Be technical on this question, if you blow it off you can lose if properly executed.
• Turns case is very persuasive. Carded turns case is extra persuasive. However, I find accessing an impact is generally far more important, it is better to invest time proving the substance of your advantage or DA which you need in order to win turns case. Additionally, this is why I find arguments like 'link alone turns case' very persuasive, it lowers the burden of what you need to win.
• I often care about comparative risks. If the aff doesn't go for a solvency deficit and says that the CP links to the net benefit but the neg argues that the CP links less, then I would vote neg. Similarly I care a lot about whether the link turn outweighs the link and vice versa.
• I interpret sufficiency framing as judge instruction not to do work for aff solvency deficits. I would prefer direct comparison between the solvency deficit and the net benefit. Solvency deficits need impacts.
• I have to know what the CP does to vote for it, a complicated/vague CP text paired with poor explanation is unlikely to get my ballot.
• I am good for CP theory. I think well crafted interps are essential, for instance all CPs have a process. I understand but slightly disagree with the sentiment that theoretical objections are better expressed through competition, I find "this cp good/bad" theory arguments persuasive. I find textual and functional to be quite defensible. I think functional only is also fine. I can be persuaded that intrinsic permutations are justified. Note that I flow CX and can be persuaded of positional competition. Note that I am far less persuaded by taking lines from aff evidence to justify competition than CX. If you say the plan is congress in CX, then I am easily persuaded that courts compete. If you say the mandate of the plan must include a list of things, then I am easily persuaded by PICs out of one or more. However, you can avoid this with vague language or being explicit your response is a possible way the plan could be implemented. However, note that I am good for vagueness and specification procedurals.
• I don't judge kick unless instructed. My bar for what counts as instruction is low. If you say condo in CX I assume this means judge kick. I also assume dispo means judge kick. I also can be persuaded that judge kick is bad.
• Condo is about models. I don't really care about a particular number. I have no issue with neg terrorism and perf con but also do not bias against a condo 2ar.
• Regarding condo I find this part of Jordan Di's paradigm persuasive -- "It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR."
• I am easily persuaded that rejecting the argument remedies the introduction of abusive positions into debate. I am easily persuaded that condo is different because kicking no cost options is the warrant for skew.
• T is about models. Reasonability is best explained through arguments like arbitrariness or substance crowdout and not whining about why your aff is core of the topic. I do not care about camp norms.
• I am generally good for plan text in a vacuum. To win the opposite you need to clearly define and justify the alternative. For instance, I think generally CX is binding and can be persuaded that CX explains what the plan means. I am far less persuaded by use of random aff lines to garner a violation. Please be technical, introduce justifications for PTIV with LBL against criticisms and vice versa.
• I'm far better than average for specification and vagueness arguments. I think they can be reasons to reject the team and if properly technically executed neg teams can defeat many of the 2ACs to these off case positions.
• K v Policy Affs - FW & Kaffs - be technical. I have been on both sides. I do not care.
• I make no apology for voting on technical tricks like truth testing or overcorrect. I will vote for theory against the alt like utopian fiat/PIKs bad. I will vote for independent voting issues/CSULB style of K theory arguments, especially if dropped. So be technical if you want to win. Tech over truth.
• In K debates, I think generally impact calc matters more than big picture defense. In a Kaff v FW debate, realistically the TVA rarely solves aff offense and the CI rarely solves limits. Similarly, in a neg K vs policy aff debate, I view middling interps as unstrategic and mediocre defense to the other sides offense. Tell me why your impact matters more. However, note that while I believe big picture defense is not helpful, I am easily persuaded by specific defense to specific points made on the flow. I am also persuaded by top level impact comparison. I can be persuaded that impacts like racism rely on fairness. I can be persuaded that racism is procedurally unfair. Use offense, impact comparison, & specific defense to get my ballot. The more technical team will win this debate.
• Also 3 hot takes about K debate. 1) The perm double bind only makes sense against alts that are implemented. If you fiat a philosophy that disagrees with the aff then the alt would be mutually exclusive and "ban the plan" 2) False equivalencies are false. Nearly 50% of the time, the link to the plan is a stretch. If you are a neg going for the K just go hard on framework if you have a horrible link. If you are an aff against the K, point out that the link is incoherent. 3) The Cap K against Kaffs is very very horrible at least 50% of the time. Read something else in the 1NR. Look at the Dartmouth wiki on alliances for inspiration.
• Lastly my most important take. Ballot defense is overrated. If you want to win a clash debate in front of me, this is the most important thing you should read. Two thoughts: 1) Do more line by line instead. Spending all your time on explaining why the ballot can only solve fairness is essentially aiming for terminal defense to K offense, which is winnable, but you're hoping I don't conclude there's only a risk of K offense and you risk losing to try or die for K offense + impact calc, so you are better off doing more line by line to take out K offense. Vice versa, as a K team do more line by line trying to win your offense. Ballot defense is not the end all be all. As a policy team you don't need to go all in on debate is just a game and you can go for fairness and clash/other external offense together. It is not necessarily the case that the ballot does nothing or it does something. I can be easily persuaded that it is an "even if" claim. If the ballot does nothing, then fairness is all that matters --- but if it does matter, then impacts like clash matter. I think other judges vote far too often on ballot does nothing arguments. I can be persuaded that arguments like the ballot doesn't need to solve all racism, ballot is a microaffirmations, ballot can serve as accountability, & ballot mean that there is only a risk of offense. To be clear this is a winnable debate. I find arguments like alt causes to subjectivity shift and the ballot can only solve fairness persuasive. You can technically win that debate is just a game and the ballot does nothing. But this brings me to my second point. 2)You are much better off going for offense explaining why a ballot for the K team is actively bad. External ballot offense is very crucial to helping you win debates. If you are a K team, exploit external ballot offense like independent voting issues as a net benefit to voting for you. If you are a policy team, explain why arguments like oppression olympics, negating personal identity bad, judge cooption, & Taiwo apply to the K ballot offense in addition to having fairness as external offense. The team that has better external offense + impact comparison and does better line by line will win my ballot.

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com.

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. Otherwise should be fine.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and warren. The more specific the links the better.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Debaters should have the ability to argue about what the terms of the debate are and how that relates to my decision. I prefer judging debates where the competitors are invested in their arguments, whatever those might be.

It is very rare in the debates I’ve judged that one team loses every argument on the flow. Consequently, it often seems going for a few less arguments improves the quality of the debating for both sides. Most debates tend to be decided in terms of how well either team characterizes each other’s options and framing what matters. At the top of your final rebuttal, please clearly prioritize how I should evaluate the debate. I love when debaters give me a roadmap of what's going to happen and then make it happen.

E-debate/Paperless:

Prep time only goes until you’re done prepping your speech, which means email time doesn't count against you. Please always include me on your email chain.

I'm pretty sympathetic that the transition to online debate is hard for many people and not the same as doing it in person. I'll try to do my best to make sure the rounds go smoothly.

I am better at flowing if I can maintain eye-contact with the person speaking. If you need to have your camera off for connection issues / personal reasons, I totally understand.

Speaker Points:

I spend most of my time at the end of the debate trying to decide who won and what I would have needed from the other team to win the debate or general commentary about the debate. While I’m filling out the ballot, I spend a few seconds trying to decide speaker points. I don’t have a static starting point for assigning or categorizing speakers, but try to decide how well the speakers used / responded during cross-x, whether a decision made by one of the speakers uniquely helped improve/hurt the teams chances of winning, and how well the speakers brought together the debate in their final rebuttals.

I take notes during cross-x and enjoy when debaters get strategic concessions that are used in their speeches.

Argument related comments:

- Counterplans generally require a solvency advocate. This can be aff evidence or neg evidence.

- Critiques may not need to have an alternative to be competitive with the aff, but I will not judge kick an alt (or counterplan) for you unless the framing in the 2NR justifies that option.

- I often find it insufficient to read a hodgepodge of cards or arguments that “critique the squo” and call it an affirmative. Good affs have compelling methods, approaches to the space, or defenses of the resolution.

- In all debates but especially K aff verse K debates, links need impacts / clear internal links. The negative can win a link and still lose the debate if it’s unclear why that link “matters”.

- Competing methodologies is too often left as a buzz phrase that does not establish why the aff should not have a permutation. Similarly, asserting there is a permutation that is advantageous, does not explain why I should allow the aff to access that option. In either case, having a bit of depth goes a long way to win whether the aff should or should not have a perm.

In-round Accessibility

Part of my responsibility as the judge is to make the debate accessible. If there is something I can do to help with that – please let me know. If you don’t feel like verbally disclosing then you’re welcome to email me or have one of your coaches reach out (address above).

Pet Peeves:

1- Clipping cards is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points. I do not feel that I need a debater to initiate a clipping challenge, as an educator I feel I have a responsibility to monitor against cheating.

2- I value very highly the safety for ALL competitors to engage in this activity, so please be considerate of others. Making arguments with sexist, racist, ableist, and other exclusionary language can be especially harmful for people in the activity.

3- Please make sure you ask your opponents what pronouns they use. Misgendering is a serious issue.

4- Stealing prep time

5- Reading conditional arguments that clearly and unquestionably contradict

6- Repeating that an argument was conceded- especially if it clearly was not

7- Asking cross-x questions that go nowhere in developing the strategy or understanding of the debate.

8- Don’t be disrespectful to the people who host tournaments.

Brief Bio

I studied philosophy and sociology as an undergraduate, communication at UNLV for an MA, and finished PhD in communication studies at U-Iowa,

3 years of debate at Millard South High School,

4 years of debate at Concordia College – Moorhead,

2 years coaching at University of Nevada- Las Vegas,

5 years as a graduate assistant coach at the University of Iowa and 3rd year as the Head Debate Coach at Iowa.

topspin12.8@gmail.com - add me to email chain

lexington high '22

michigan '26(not debating there)

PF - you do you, be clear, be nice, control big picture arguments and be technical and you will get my ballot - do impact calculus and explain why you're controlling the flow

LD - just check my policy paradigm and i don't like tricks

Policy -

4 years of policy debate - first year out- debated throughout the nat circuit

qualled to toc senior yr if that means anything to you - probably know me best from the wakanda cp memes

TLDR: you do you, control big picture args, be technical, signpost, do coherent line by line, clarity over speed, be kind and respectful and have fun

Preferences:

1. Tech > Truth, but I don't evaluate arguments like racism good(sorry GBN) sexism good etc. because those are intrinsically negative and discriminatory arguments and I feel as a judge I shouldn't be fostering those kinds of discourses in the debate space
2. Framework vs K affs - my favorite debates. I read a K aff for most of my career, both with and without plan texts, but I also went for framework in almost every 2NR against a K aff. In an ideal world where both teams are equally prepared and are evenly matched, I strongly believe the negative would win 9 times out of 10. That being said, this world is not ideal. Now, I don't have a bias against K affs and I love hearing them and I probably get whats going on so you dont have to strike me if you're a K team but make sure you explain what the aff does(even if its nothing) and have a good impact turn to framework. K aff counter-interpretations are bs(sorry LRC) and they almost never solve negative offense. But the negative needs to explain why this is true and have a tangible impact to those deficits. Fairness is an impact, education is also an impact. Tell me how to weigh the two and why your model generates better debates. I'm not a "they said fairness so I'll just vote neg" type of judge but I do believe procedural fairness is an intrinsic necessity to the activity but that doesn't affect how I evaluate arguments if anything it just means I view the debate solely based on who debated better which is a net positive for both teams(I hope).
3. CPs + DAs - these are also fun. I hate CPs with 50 planks and a billion cards to explain each plank so don't do that unless your CP is actually fire. DAs are fine I know there aren't many on this topic but link and impact debating is essential in these debates and I don't think debaters emphasize these portions of the debate as much as they should. I'm a fan of process CPs, consult CPs, CPs in other realities, etc. they usually make the debates more fun to judge. If you are aff against these kinds of CPs I highly suggest you just out debate them on a technical level instead of shrugging them off as crappy args because I am not afraid to vote on meme arguments since I've gone for a bunch myself.
4. T + theory - Topicality debates are fun, and I find myself being split 50-50 on both sides. These debates are best when there's in depth line by line, clear analysis and explanation of your impacts and how your interpretations solve them and clear impacts to DAs to their interp. Just saying "that kills limits" means nothing unless theres a clear explanation of why preserving limits is good. Aff teams should have a counter interp with a solid net benefit and substantial defense to negative interps. You can always go for plan text in a vacuum too since I think negative teams usually fumble that debate but if you do make sure you explain your net benefits to plan text in a vacuum and why it is net better for debate. Theory debates are silly and I hate judging conditionality rounds unless the negative team reads 5+ condo. I do think international, object, and utopian fiat are bad but I'm still likely to vote up teams with arguments that utilize those kinds of fiat if the theory debate is a wash.
5. Impact turns - great and even better when they're paired with advantage counterplans, explain what your UQ is, the different impact modules and if you have an alternative of some sort(like in dedev debates) then why it solves any residual offense. im fine with arguments like spark or wipeout but make sure you ask your opponents first if they're ok with death related arguments before debating them in front of me.
6. Ks on the neg - just do you. I probably know what's going on and I definitely know whats going on in cap k, antiblackness, settler colonialism, anthro, cybernetics, psycho, and unfortunately baudrillard debates. However, if you are to read baudrillard in front of me your speaks are capped at a 28.8.
7. Speaks and presentation - don't call me judge. just call me shreyas. be nice, don't be overly mean its just cringe. be assertive but not aggressive and if you can make me laugh then +0.2 speaks. if i have to yell clear you're losing 0.5 speaks. line by line is my favorite part of debate so good line by line will be rewarded. references to rishi mukherjee, kunal kapoor, will yang, armaan tipirneni, chris yang, matt berhe, chris jun, jeffrey he, atul venkatesh, vinit iyer, alex eum or any lex debater in general gets you +0.3 speaks(unless you say smthn bad about them).

(updated Oct 2024)

Dylan Sutton (he/him/his)

dylan.sutton@gmail.com go ahead and include me on email chains please, but I try not to read evidence to make decisions unless it is unavoidable.

Background:

Debated national circuit policy for Fremont (NE) 2000-2004. TOC qualifier.

Debated at UMKC for a hot second in 2004-2005.

Assistant policy coach various schools in NE from 2005-2019.

Head Coach & English teacher, Millard North (Omaha, NE) 2021-present.

Quick Prefs: (1=best, 4=worst, 5=strike me)

truth>tech. That doesn't mean I intervene against arguments I don't like, but it does mean I don't care very much if the 2 second theory blip you shadow extended is dropped. For more insight, read more than the "quick prefs" section.

LD:

Speed: 5 (I come from nat circuit policy. I can handle the flow. In my experience, LD is significantly worse than policy in terms of spreading things that shouldn't be - specifically theory and large chunks of analyticals. I'm done begging. If you spread those things, just assume I'm not flowing it).

K/Phil: 1

LARP: 1

Theory: 4

Tricks: 5

CX:

CP/DA/Case: 1

K (aff or neg): 1

T: 2-3

Theory: 4-5

exclusive frameworks ("no Ks", etc): 5

PF:

paraphrasing: hard 5

General judging philosophy (all events):

I’m an educator first. This means I view debate rounds as extensions of the classroom and believe the primary value of debate is education. That perspective causes me to value the truth of your argument over your argumentative technique and also informs a number of my argument preferences. It also means if you do things in debate that create a hostile environment I will intervene against you. This primarily means no violent actions or hate speech, but it is not strictly limited to those things. Basically, behave as you would in school. Violations of this sort will be brought to the tabroom’s attention as well.

More generally, kindness/positivity is encouraged and will help your speaker points. Nothing will cause me to have a stronger bias against you than if I perceive that you are being needlessly negative/rude/mean/etc. There’s enough negativity in the world.

I try to be objective in the sense that I try not to let my preferences influence my decisions. This is why I try not to read cards after debates, as I believe part of being objective is evaluating the words spoken in the debate rather than literature that is vaguely referenced. If you want credit for a warrant, state the warrant out loud rather than repeating an author’s last name or a tagline (a claim). That said, I am not perfectly objective. My social location influences how I understand the world, including debate rounds. The preferences for certain arguments over others that I will express in other places in this paradigm also evidence a lack of total objectivity.

I generally prefer depth of analysis over breadth. What that means is I would prefer you spend your time debating a small number of things very well, rather than a larger number of things at a lower quality. Specific practices that line up with this preference: Know the warrants for the evidence you read and be able to explain them. Read your opponents cards, read the underlined portion of them even and use those lines to make arguments. Make arguments about the quality of their sources. Debate the case.

I’m fine with speed reading (I have a background in national circuit policy). That said, debate is a communicative activity. This means 1. I flow what you say out loud. For example, if you say “the Smith evidence proves this” you get credit for those 5 words, which don’t contain the warrant for the Smith evidence. If I need to read cards to pick a winner I will, but I will actively resist doing so until it is absolutely necessary. 2. I can’t vote for arguments I can’t hear/understand. I don’t think it’s my job to say things like “clear” to tell you you are giving an unintelligible speech, so watch for nonverbals and err on the side of caution. This is especially true for analytical arguments (arguments that aren’t direct quotes from research/evidence). If you’re reading theory or an overview or that sort of thing, slow down a bit.

Cross-x is both important and binding. I don’t flow it but I listen and often do take notes, and it does influence my decision.

I think disclosure is good because it fosters higher quality, more educational debates. I’m aware disclosure isn’t the norm in every region or activity, but my general preference is for disclosure when reasonable. That said, I’m not interested in listening to debates about the minutiae of how teams ought to disclose. If they don’t disclose at all, read the theory and have a debate about disclosure in general. If they disclose something, it’s probably good enough. I would encourage full source/round reports, but the distinction isn’t significant enough for me to want to listen to a whole round about that.

The more you can do to write my ballot for me, the more likely you are to win. While I’m here as an educator, I’m also not trying to work harder than is necessary. Do things like compare warrants for competing claims, weigh impacts, create layers of ways you win (“even if” statements), and when appropriate engage in ‘meta weighing’ or ‘framework’ debates about which kinds of arguments I should prefer as a judge/critic. In the absence of these framing devices I generally default to a cost benefit analysis, usually pretty utilitarian. I’m not particularly beholden to that though. Defense wins champions. I believe offense is necessary but defense can result in zero risk of an argument, so it is also a good idea. Good defense beats mediocre offense.

Online debate - The biggest concern here is audio/technology. I will try to be as lenient and understanding as possible, but also understand that the tournament is on a schedule and ultimately if I can’t hear you I can’t vote for you. I will follow tournament instructions on this issue, but my patience for tech issues is going to be fairly low given that we’ve been at this remote stuff for two years now and most tournaments have ample opportunities for you to test equipment before the rounds begin.

I’ll have my camera on, I would ask that you do as well because I believe your nonverbal communication is part of debate and is important. That said, I understand there may be equity related reasons you’d prefer not to have your camera on so it is not something I require. You don’t have to explain yourself if that is your situation.

Speaker points - On a 30 points scale, I tend to give a 26 if your speech contained numerous egregious speaking errors. Anything below that is reserved for things like hate speech. You get more points as you speak better moving up to 30. I very rarely give a 30. Since it is the top of the scale, I interpret that to me there couldn’t be a better speech. So if I can think of ways the speech could have been better, it’s not a 30. If the tournament has a different scale I will comply with tournament instructions.

Lincoln Douglas:

Everything from the policy section of my paradigm also applies to LD. The things in this section are things that are unique to LD.

My big thing about LD is that the round/speech time is significantly shorter than policy so it can’t just be a one person policy event, in particular with regard to theory. I would also suggest that this means that speed probably isn’t as desirable in LD, again particularly in regard to theory. I think these are factors that make the 1AR harder, not easier. I’m new enough to judging LD though that I’m still developing my belief system about the best pedagogical practices here, so nothing is set in stone. Except tricks. Those will always be bad.

Topicality/Theory - 4

I’m not your guy for this debate in LD. I’ve only really gotten into judging LD since 2019, but in my experience there is FAR too much theory debate happening in LD and much of the debate that is happening is very shallow. I think the AR in LD is very hard and am willing to make appropriate accommodations, and the neg gets some reasonable amount of flexibility, but I would strongly prefer to hear debates about the topic and not about theory.

That being said, if you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments. This is what you would do when going for any other position, but for some reason in theory students seem to believe they can successfully go for theory in like 30 seconds. To “go for” any position in your last rebuttal should probably take at least 2 minutes, theory included.

I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments. I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

RVIs are way less popular in policy so if you want me to vote there I need more work than most. I find the arguments that are specific to the format of LD to be most persuasive on this question.

"Tricks" - 5

To my understanding, these are arguments that attempt to avoid clash and are primarily anti-intellectual. As such, I hate them and am very unlikely to be persuaded that they are a reason to vote for you. I’m fine with y’all having fun, but not at the expense of the value of the activity.

LARP- 1

I approach this as I would a policy round. I was primarily a K debater in my time in policy but we did a ton of DA/CP/Case debate as well.

K/Phil - 1

Again, policy paradigm. I have experience with most areas of critical scholarship with the exception of psychoanalysis. I don’t have a problem with psych, I'm just not as well versed in the literature. In K v LARP or framework debates, I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. On the other side, I strongly encourage K teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Policy :

In my general info section I talk about how I try not to read cards to evaluate debates because I feel like that is me judging more than the words spoken in the debate. That means that my absolute favorite thing for you to do is to directly quote from your evidence. You explaining specific warrants from your evidence or re-reading parts of your opponents evidence to make a counter-argument are perhaps the best way in general to increase your chances of success in front of me.

CP/DA/Case 1

If this type of debate is your thing, go for it. I read a politics DA almost every round and have coached teams on these strategies many times.

I strongly prefer specificity over breadth. This means things like:

• As I said in the general advice section, debate the case. The more specific to the aff, the better.

• DA links should be specific to the action/advocacy of the affirmative

• CP text and solvency should be very closely related. The CP solvency evidence should say the text of the CP solves.

• Permutations are more persuasive and harder to answer when you explain the combination, how it works/what it looks like rather than just saying “do both”.

T v traditional aff : 2

I’m an English major, so I find debates about words interesting. The best version of T debates are robust considerations of what the word/phrase means in the topic lit, what would be best for debate as an educational endeavor, and how individual rounds shape community norms.

Things I would encourage:

• I strongly prefer examples of in round abuse to potential for abuse arguments.

• I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded to adopt a reasonability framework.

• Case lists. What is topical under your definition?

• No RVIs. I can be persuaded otherwise but in general not my preference.

That being said, I would expect you to develop T or any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

Theory 4 (5 if done poorly)

Please slow down when reading/going for theory. It’s all analytics, there’s no breaks. So unless you want to risk me missing arguments/warrants, slow down.

I’m going to say this again because it applies more to theory arguments than it does T: I would expect you to develop any theory with the same level of rigor you would a DA or CP if you want me to vote on them. Nobody extends a DA for 30 seconds and seriously expects a win, but it happens all the time on theory. If you insist on going for theory you need to actually develop and warrant it, and respond to all the opposing arguments.

I don’t have particularly strong opinions about specific theory arguments, but in general I would prefer that theory debates be a defense against practice that materially harmed/altered the debate for one team and not just a way to win. IE if the neg reads 5 contradictory timeframe CPs, sure. If it’s one conditional CP, not so much.

K - 1

I ran Ks, I coached Ks, I’m fine with the K in general. As a debater ran pretty generic K positions - cap bad, etc. When I was the assistant coach at Millard South our teams ran some more performative things. I’ve read at least some of many fields of critical scholarship and feel very comfortable judging debates about those issues. My biggest weakness is psychoanalytical theories; I just haven’t read much of that field so I’m less familiar with jargon and the relationships between scholars and ideas. I would encourage you to simplify psychoanalytic ideas as much as possible, or perhaps over explain them.

My biggest advice for the K is make it as specific as possible. The more specific the link is to the affirmative (whether that be the action of the plan, the words they said, the philosophies they advocate) the better. Same with the Alt. The more specific the description of what the action of the alt is and how it resolves the impacts, the more persuasive. The less specific the link & alt, the more leeway the aff gets on the permutation. On that note, have a defense of your methodology - however you are trying to create change, read some evidence or make some arguments about its effectiveness.

One important note for K debaters - I’m fine with multiple worlds/condo in general, but if one of your other off case positions links to your K, you are going to have a hard time overcoming arguments about how your advocacy as a team links just as much as your opponents, that if you get to kick things that link so do they, that it justifies the perm, etc.

K affs -

Conceptually fine. I ran critical affs as a debater and most of the team’s I’ve coached have done so at least once. I strongly encourage K aff teams to have a defense of your prefered impact framing and your solvency method/mechanism (ie, I’m fine with you singing a song to create change, but you need to explicitly defend that as a method that is successful and not just do it to do it).

Exclusive Frameworks 5

I generally dislike framing arguments that are just “this type of impact shouldn't be allowed” ie “no Ks” etc. If you’ve read my old paradigm, it called these kinds of frameworks “violent”, amongst other things. That should give you a sense of my opinion. Just because the ground you came prepared to debate (like a politics DA) doesn’t link to this aff doesn’t mean the aff is conceptually bad, it just means you have to have been prepared for different ground. This isn’t different than traditional affirmatives that don’t link to your generic positions.

While I am sympathetic to the reality that you can’t prep a specific strat to every possible K aff, and that sympathy causes me to be more understanding of FW in rounds where the K is obscure or opaque, in general I think the arguments about how you couldn’t predict a relatively known K (for instance cap bad) and don’t have any ground are silly. Especially when part of a framework that attempts to entirely exclude a particular genre of argument, like the K, I think that’s pretty bad pedagogically. Better version of that would be less exclusive (ie, still allowing all types of arguments to be read) and used against less generic/stock K positions.

Public Forum:

This isn’t an event I judge very often, so I’m not very familiar with community standard practices and norms. I would strongly encourage you to read the “general judging philosophy (all events)” section to get a sense of how I think about judging.

More specifically, I try to approach PF as I would a traditional policy debate round. So if you also look at the “CP/DA/Case” section of the policy part of my paradigm that might also give you some insight.

One thing I’m annoyed by - no more one word tags (or tags that don’t summarize the card). The whole purpose of a tagline is to summarize the card so that I can flow the summary and then listen to the warranting in the card. Using a tag like “therefore” is meaningless, you might as well just read the citation and then the body of the card. The system I’m asking you to use is WAY EASIER than trying to flow every single word you read in the entire speech, which is the only way the one word tag makes sense. Even in a world with speech docs, I’d have to copy the body of the card into my flow for the flow to make sense. You may lose speaks for this since it makes your speech harder to flow, seemingly by design.

In general in PF, here’s my advice:

• Even though I’m policy, don’t try to do policy in PF. Just do your thing. I’d rather see you be a really awesome PF debater than try to do something you’re not familiar with just to accommodate me. Doing a bad version of something I love is not going to endear you to me.

• More specificity is better. I’d rather you be very detailed and nuanced in winning one impact than be shallow in winning 4 impacts. Same thing applies to your attacks on your opponent's cases. The more specifically your attack applies to what the other side is defending, the more likely I am to vote for you.

• That specificity also extends to evidence. I hate the practice of summarizing/indirect quoting of evidence. I'd prefer you just use direct quotes but if that isn't possible please strike me. I hate it because it makes it much less likely that there is debate about specific lines/quotes/warrants from evidence, which is basically my favorite part of debate and I would argue one of the most educational. So direct quote your evidence, and read your opponent’s evidence to find things you can use against them.

• Impact analysis/weighing is vital. There aren’t very many rounds where you just win 100% of the contention level, so impact weighing becomes an essential way for the judge to resolve two competing contentions that are both mitigated. If you don’t weigh your impact compared to your opponent’s, you probably won’t win.

email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Framework > Theory > Tricks > K > LARP > Bad Tricks

Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before round. The line above just indicates my preferences for type of round and my approximate knowledge area.

- Time yourselves

- No "Eval After"

- Arguments must have a warrant when read, concession does not constitute a warrant on its own without a warrant being extended.

- Conceded arguments must still be explicitly extended, the extension can be fast and I am lenient with such extensions for the 1AR and 2AR.

- Not a fan of hiding tricks.

- No arguments for more speaker points. Earn the speaks with efficient and quality arguments.

- Don't expect me to know or utilize any policy norms, e.g. "judge kick"

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

1. Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
2. If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
3. I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
4. I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
5. In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
6. I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
7. Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
8. Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
9. If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
10. I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
11. I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
12. I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

K

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), UCLA '24. I debated at WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years, and coached Millburn LD from 2021-2024.

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes