Policy debater at Bellarmine

Ryan Mills Note: I understand the basics of LD, just debate as you normally would

Also, my views are firmly aligned with Andrew Wen

I have been a parent judge since November 2022. I have primarily judged LD but have judged one round of Parli. Please speak clearly at moderate speed so that I can understand your arguments. Please be polite to your opponent. Please provide sufficient evidence for your arguments when asked by your opponent. Don’t introduce new evidence in final speech.

Don't spread

hi my name is nhi (she/her/they/them) i used to debate policy in high school (go yb!!!!!)

run whatever cases/Ks/theory/DAs/CPs/whatever/etc you want the worlds ur oyster

i appreciate signposting and off-time roadmaps as i do flow the entire round. i will not weigh dropped arguments

i <3 impact calc

i <3 analytics (when well-explained, and used as a supplement)

i <3 k affs

DON'T be bigoted or condescending

DO have fun :D

and put me in the email chain: nhipbui04@gmail.com esp if you plan on spreading

peace and love

I am a middle school speech and debate coach. I have been a coach for over ten years, and I have been a judge for the high school level speech and debate tournaments for over five years.

My decisions on debate are based on familiarity with the topic and the complexity of understanding the topic, and refuting the opponent's arguments. Also, important facts should be cited unless you are doing Parliamentary debate, then no citation is needed . Off time road maps also help me keep track of what I should be looking for in your structure.

As for speed, I do not mind speed of speeches but debater must be able to articulate what they are saying. Debater will need to present their speeches rather than just read them from a device or paper. Communicate with the judge .

For Policy debate: as long as I have the cards a head of time, spreading is okay and eye contact during spreading does not need to be made. But, eye contact should be made at some point during cross fire and rebuttals. Delivery of your debate rather than just reading off from your cards is a plus [ except when spreading].

Congressional Debate, I will need to know your names ahead of time and a seat chart is always helpful.

Structure of the speeches must be clear and when asking questions make them purposeful. Also when asking for cards, have a reason to do so. I have judged many debates where the opponent asks for a card and then finds a flaw with the source or finds the context was not as the opponent attended it to be. These are examples of what I am looking for when asking for cards.

I do appreciate the debaters standing when speaking. Try not to be monotone but I do not want a debater to yell at their opponent. Do not mock your opponent. Be respectful when debating. Always a good idea to fist bump or shake hands with your opponent/s after a round or simply saying great job. But DO NOT tell them good job DURING a round.

As for Speech. I need to feel the energy in your presentation. Eye contact / camera contact is important. Annunciate and make sure your moves are sharp and distinguished. Also, voices need to match character/s. I have seen EXCELLENT speeches judging online and in person. Both ways deliver great speeches. If doing online, try and make your lighting in front of you versus behind you. Also, make sure that camera is treated like the judge/audience. This way the energy can come through.

I am always impressed the moment I see you in a room. Joining the speech and debate team in school has so many advantages not only while in school but later in life as well.

Great job!

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

What I like to hear: when it comes down to it, pacing, and emphasis on important points are key to great speech delivery, and direct refutations are a must

Total old school debater, just prove how you win each stock issue, and be convincing. Speech roadmaps and organization is much appreciated!

Normally, T and Spec arguments mean that the neg doesn't have much to run, but if it is blatantly untopical, ect., go for it.

Spreading/Champ Reading- awesome, as long as you're good at it. don't try spreading if you haven't practiced, ect.

Public Forum- Clarity is important, why your reasoning is most logical, impact/advantage magnitude, weighing

Ks and CPs- Yes. Kritiks are great as long as you make the three parts clear, and I'm a sucker for philosophy Ks. Counterplans are cool, just again compare stock issues, show how you solve better.

Congress- clash is obviously super important judging aspect, speech organization with a brief overview/roadmap is always great

LD-well developed value&criterion, demonstrate steps of refutation

hi I'm aimee, I do ld and I've judged ld, pf and some policy before.

• I don't flow cross
• I don't time speeches- if you'd like me to time for you or your opponent, please let me know

be clear with impact weighing + warrants

speak clearly

don't be rude to your opponent and keep your own time

signpost

My name is KaLeah Guptill. I competed in debate competitions my entire high school career. I competed in PF, LD, CX, EXTEMP, and Poetry/Prose. I judged in several events in several separate competitions.

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY

All things said in the round need to be clear! You must clearly articulate while speaking whatever it is that you want me to understand, vote on and so forth. I make this stipulation in order to place the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments that are presented.

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

kritiksarecheating@gmail.com

Certified 'snacks judge'.

Don't care about being on the chain. I flow without the doc. What you say is what I get down.

Obligatory "I think like my coaches" - thanks Pat Fox, Brett Cryan, Bryce Sheffield, Vik Maan, and Aidan Etkin.

Additional thanks to some of my best friends in debate - Sterling Utovac, Niranjan Deshpande, William Trinh - and my CX partner, Laura Huang.

0. Conflicts

Peninsula SU, St. Francis ZC, anybody from Break Debate.

I. Basics

These are the rules of debate:

- None of us had to be here at 8 am on a weekend. I will give my full attention to whatever you have to say, whether that's the death K, Baudrillard, or the rider DA. Likewise, I expect to you to treat your opponent with respect.

"That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster" - pat

- I flow on my laptop, but will not have other tabs open.

- ADDENDUM: LD debate should stay LD debate. I like policy-style arguments, but spamming 8 off in the 1NC and 30 cards in the 2NR creates fundamental structural problems in this activity due to the nature of the timeskew and the 2AR's capacity to respond to new arguments. Moreover, these strategies tend to be deeply underdeveloped and require significant reconstruction post-2AR on behalf of judges that I am unwilling to do. Depth > breadth.

II. Ground rules

Nothing you do or say will change these factors in my decision calculus.

A. Debate is a game that requires 1 winner and 1 loser.

B. Do not misgender people. This is non-negotiable.

C. Do not be racist, sexist, etc.

D. Ad homs will not earn you the ballot. They will earn you 25 speaks. "entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know" - pat.

E. The affirmative speaks first and last and thus has the burden of positive proof. The negative speaks second and thus has the burden of rejoining the aff.

F. Speech times. 6-7-4-6-3. These do not change.

G. If an accusation of clipping or an ev ethics violation are alleged and the round is explicitly staked, I will stop the debate and decide internally whether the accusations are true or false. The winner gets a W29, the loser an L20. Clipping tags isn't a thing.

III. Topic Familiarity

I no longer actively cut a lot of cards or do extensive research, but I do help out some friends that are still "in the game" occasionally, so expect me to have some level of LD topic knowledge.

Additionally:

"'Topic' research has so far been focused around critical and philosophical cases which means I require explanations of concepts like 'wage price spiral' or 'elite capture' in the rebuttal speeches. The Inflation DA is immensely boring but do what you have to to get the ballot." - Sterling

IV. Thoughts on specific arguments

A. Kritik/K affs

I was involved in a substantial portion of these debates in high school. I am better for K debaters that are highly technical. I am worse for K debaters that rely on fanciful rhetoric, grandstanding, and edgy performances to win.

Kritiks make no sense when debated as traditional opportunity costs to the plan. By definition, "K links" are nonunique as a matter of course, and rely on an alternative model of debate or ideological framework to generate an opportunity cost to the affirmative. This means that evaluating the K through the lens of a disad/counterplan is incoherent.

"Negative advocacies are opportunity costs to the plan. For this reason, I find it very hard to conceptualize kritik alts as competitive under traditional opportunity cost." - Andrew Park

Link turns case and K impact turns it are arguments that are criminally underutilized in LD. I'm increasingly frustrated with the amount of time LD K debaters spend grandstanding instead of explaining their theory of power or how the link indicts the 1AC. This is probably due to the way that judging traditionally considered "good for the K" has evolved, especially on the East Coast. Nonetheless, explaining why the link interferes with 1AC solvency makes the 3 minute 2AR on plan focus and extinction outweighs far harder to give, albeit still convincing.

People should impact turn Ks more. Every K probably thinks heg and cap are bad (or they probably don't solve the link). Although the LD 1AR is too short to read some of the better heg cards, impact turns as a component of offense against Ks other than cap should definitely become a more substantive part of the meta.

I lean neg on T-framework. I am persuaded by the idea that debates over a topical plan are good, but can be convinced to vote the other way. Impact turning framework is likely more convincing than a counterinterpretation that purports to solve the negative's limits offense.

B. Disads

I largely went for these negating. 2NRs on DA/case should be short on internal link explanation/overviews, heavy on turns-case analysis. Two sentences is a sufficiency. You should also weigh. Weighing is good and important. Explain why your offense comes before theirs.

Meta-weighing is also good and criminally underutilized - a lot of debaters just assert that timeframe comes before magnitude, or vice versa, without a warrant. "Intervening actors check" is not an argument.

Evidence quality matters, but sometimes analytics are better than evidence. Card quality in LD is atrocious. Sometimes, instead of reading your russia D from 2012, you'd just be better off making analytic arguments about how Ukraine proves Russia's washed. It takes less time too.

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. If there is a 50% chance that Ukraine aid passes in the world of the plan, but a 0% chance that it passes in the world of the DA, I vote aff.

This should also highlight the importance of cutting updates to internal link ev and uniqueness. I will be displeased if I have to judge the farm bill DA with uniqueness from 2020. This will be reflected in your speaks.

C. Counterplans

Dense counterplan competition throwdowns were the debates I was least involved in and, by extension, the debates I am the least comfortable with judging. That said, I should be relatively okay for these rounds.

Debaters should think a lot more about the quality of evidence for a lot of process CPs. The authors of a lot of these articles are writing in the context of legal hypotheticals and often hasten to explain that anybody who tried these things in the real world would be patently insane. Letting the solicitor general, courts, or whatever make decisions about how the military works or whether UBI should be implemented would probably collapse the entire US government and it's legal, institutional, and historical legitimacy. Aff teams should say these things more.

Function > text. I'm not sure why changing "ought" to "should" means that the counterplan competes. This change in wording probably doesn't affect whether or not the counterplan could be implemented in the world of the aff. I think the most persuasive argument for textual competition is that it's most consistent with the legal process, but this seems to be fallacious. While legal interpretation certainly places an emphasis on semantics, it is generally recognized that the functional effect of the law should supersede quibbles over it's wording.

Likewise, I'm not persuaded by textual nonintrinsicness as a check on fully intrinsic permutations. Functional competition makes a lot more sense to me in a purely logical sense - if the counterplan cannot occur in the world of the aff, it likely competes.

Advantage counterplans are good, but debaters should write real planks. "Substantially increase aid to the Middle East" is not a real plank. Where? Who? How? It makes no sense to me that process counterplan debaters are generally forced to delve into the minutia of the mechanics by which their arguments function, but advantage counterplans are written incredibly vaguely.

D. Topicality

Don't have much to say here. Definitions are good. You should counterdefine words in the topic as the basis of an argument for why your interpretation of the topic is predictable and do a lot of comparative analysis when giving a 2NR on limits/precision.

I have little patience for LDers that treat T like frivolous theory. No, I will not be happy evaluating your RVIs.

E. Phil/Theory

This is the type of debate in which I am the least experienced. I'll still vote on these arguments, but I had relatively little contact with them as a debater. However, I am studying philosophy in college, so I'll hopefully have some idea about what you're talking about. Better for fully carded kant, skep, etc (in the Texas DK style) and less good for cheapshots like hidden indexicals, etc.

Likely not an incredible judge for most LD theory.

"No weapon formed against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you" - Isaiah 54:17

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and use fewer well developed arguments than too many. Emphasize your important contentions/points. I will pay attention to the strength of your argument and how well you refute your opponent's argument.

Good Luck!

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

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

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

Due to the fast-paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

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

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

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

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

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

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

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

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

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

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

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

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

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

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

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

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

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

I have coached middle school speech and debate teams and have also judged high school speech and debate tournaments for at least five years. For debate, if you want me to hear you, stress your points and look at me. I know you might want to get as much information in as you can, but if speaking quickly make sure your words do not roll over each other. Speech, look at your judge and your gestures and voice and volume must bring energy to your piece.

Debate:

I do not mind assertiveness , but must remain polite towards your opponent. Cite your evidence when needed , unless you are doing a style that does not need citations, and when asking for cards, make sure you are doing so for a reason and not to buy time.

Speech:

Energy, volume, gestures must go with your speech. Do not add gestures just to do so, make them meaningful.