Parent judge with experience judging humorous interpretation, impromptu, original oratory, public forum and Lincoln Douglas. As of late I primarily judge Lincoln Douglas(LD), and I enjoy it. I am ok with fast speakers, as long as you are clear and articulate in your argument. Please be kind to your opponent. I have been witness some of the Varsity students being condescending; bordering rude to their opponent. Please do not do that I will deduct points.

I volunteer to judge these events because I respect and value the time and dedication each student puts into their arguments. I value confidence, respect for your opponent, and a clear speaking voice.

Good Luck and have fun!

Updated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.

For locals: not lay. Please read the "traditional" section regarding my thoughts on lay rounds. If you have experience with progressive debate, go off. Few notes: a) learn to flow, asking what was/n't read starts CX/prep, b) be responsive, clash, engage w/ your opp (stop sending the 1NC before the 1AC has been read, contest the Aff in the 1NC), c) if you are sending a doc, I need it formatted similarly to circuit standards.If you aren't sure what this means, ask your coach or myself before the round, but I prefer no email for lay rounds (flowing is important).

About: 4 years of LD at a GA HS, currently a master’s student at UGA (’24, ’24), have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. I coach LD—will be familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she.

- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable

- Fine w flex prep

- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD

Speaks:

- Speed is fine if you’re clear, but if it’s the first round of the tournament or the day, pls start at like 60-70% speed and work up from there

- I appreciate slowing down on advocacy texts, interp texts, criterion/standard texts…basically anything you want me to get as close to verbatim as possible

- Similarly, I often find that I need more signposting and slight time to switch between flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second, etc. is extremely helpful in rebuttal speeches

- I base speaker points off efficiency, strategy, and clarity foremost—I don’t base these off arbitrary/ableist/historically sexist and racist metrics—will play behind the scenes to balance historic marginalization of women, gender minorities, POCs, and otherwise marginalized voices in speaks, will often lower speaks for split 2NRs

- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, no I do not disclose speaks

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Ks, Policy: 1

Traditional: 2

Philosophy*: 2

Theory: 4

Tricks: 4

TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work

Top-level/must knows:

1. I will vote on most arguments. I am probably better for policy and K arguments (method debates are fine). I’m experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution isn’t great. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments, not ad homs, and have real warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good. Hail marys are inadvisable regardless of stylistic decisions.

2. Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions between things, not just telling me “x matters before y” if your opponent is telling me “y matters before x.” Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on judge instruction (aka the flow), am open to many args and lit bases, but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there. Weighing relies on good args. If I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.

3. Most judges give awful RFDs—not listening to the round, ignoring arguments made besides what they like/don't like. I am trying my damndest not to be that, but there is a greater range of uncertainty in my decision when more work must be done—do more work explaining arguments, doing link weighing (not just impx), and resolving clash and interactions. Best RFDs come when the 2NR/2AR writes my ballot. Questions afterwards are fine, but aggression/postrounding = non-starters.

4. Debate is obsessed with ‘tabula rasa’ nonsense, which has genuine consequences. I'm not a fan of frivolous arguments (in any style, from the resolved NIB to riders DAs), and the closer an arg is to morally abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth” or other nonsense), the likelier it is I won’t evaluate it.

5. Won’t vote on any -isms (extremely likely to give an L20). I will not flow args from known hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will, however, evaluate impact turns, and am willing to vote on things like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving future value) arguments. Won’t vote on ‘warming good.’ My threshold for responses is lower the worse/edging on morally abhorrent the argument is.

6. AI rule: extremely loud incorrect buzzer.

7. More receptive to independent voters/voting issues over time for a few reasons: a) debaters are reading off docs blindly, not doing research, and thus more prone to saying something problematic, b) ideological gaps are widening and this has implications in speech acts, c) debaters in general should be held accountable for problematic speech.

8. Accessibility is important. Lmk any accommodations needed b4 the round,probably best to tell me directlybc most emails go to my spam (I say this after a round in which this happened), misgendering/racism/other -isms/nonsense in-round will lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot without an argument if egregious. My tolerance for this is low. Adapt.

If you misgender your opponent in the round, they can point this out in prep or downtime (THIS INCLUDES AFTER THE 2AR!) and you will lose regardless of the flow or anything else. I take this seriously and having to advocate for this is exhausting. If there is an issue of similar nature, let me know in whatever way possible.

9. weigh <3

Lincoln-Douglas

Kritiks

- These rounds can either be amazing or borderline terrible depending on your knowledge of the lit base and engagement with the opposition—don’t just talk past the Aff (or Neg if it’s a K Aff), actually engage with the lit, and know what you’re talking about—good K debate takes reading, determination, and dedication—you cannot sidestep all three of these, pull a K off the wiki, and expect good results

- I can’t always promise I know the intricate details of your specific lit, but I am familiar with a decent variety of lit (most familiar with queer theory and settler colonialism), and you should still explain arguments as if I don’t have base understanding—I’ve voted for arguments ranging from simple critiques of capitalism to psychoanalysis and back again, you do you if you explain it

- I will however admit that I need a lot more explanation in fields like cybernetics and dense criticisms of IR

- I have devoted a lot of focus to queer, trans, and feminist literature—some thoughts you should know: a) these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in terms of resistance strategies inside and outside of debate, b) pls don’t just go for this stuff bc I’m in the back, c) slightly higher threshold if “state bad” is the only link in the 1NC

- Use reasonable judgment for kritiks of discourse—much more than willing to buy links into things like “no, this is absolutely racist, reject it” (i.e., “illegal aliens” on the open borders topic…), but it can feel like policing (“queer” to “kweer” comes to mind), especially against K affs (this applies mostly to word PIKs)

- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)

- On a similar note, creative visions of affirmation are fantastic

- However, presumption is underutilized against K affs (more than just two short analytics)—I find a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does and especially its impacts—isolating what the Aff endorses, why the ballot is key, etc. are all important—explaining to me what these components are is also meaningful since I take a very “you do you” approach here—examples of what the Aff method looks like in motion can be very useful

- I’ve judged a few K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty straightforward imo but otherwise, do more weighing and framing work than you otherwise think—“root cause” debates rarely do resolving work that I need, and the two Ks in play are rarely a criticism of the same thing—perms must demonstrate interactions between lit bases, but “no perms in a methods debate” isn’t intuitive until you explain why it’s true—K Affs are still Affs (clash on case pls)

- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”

- While all debates are performances in their own right, unique forms of engagement are highly enjoyable to witness—explain to me what the purpose is

Independent Voters

- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are oftentimes too quick to throw out “auto-drop” or “repugnant” warrants without explaining DTD implications, but I also think problematic discourse is terrible—very receptive to things like misgendering as an IVI, less to things like “this is independent” if it’s a reps turn or something that should be resolved substantively; I find that many independent voters fall short of DTD and seem more DTA—for example, “legal definitions bad” seems like DTA

- Theory arguments (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) are not independent voters—conflating the two makes me sad

Framework (Policy v. K)

- Spending time on “this method is key on this issue” can matter, “just pls engage with the state and read a plan” is less persuasive—I think policy teams need to be willing to bite the bullet on “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods to answer the complexity of the world” and K teams should be willing to contest case and/or plan focus

- Aff FW v. K: a) not a win condition independently, b) ‘extinction outweighs’ is an overused response, usually links into the K, and avoids clash, c) most ‘procedural fairness’ warrants do not make sense to me on their own—spending more time warranting and impacting the deficit to fairness is highly advisable

- T-FW—a) not great for this if the Aff is affirming through an alternate method to “a plan” (esp philosophy or grassroots), b) good for teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movements and solving Aff impacts, or why the rez should be debated, d) fine with 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering case, theory of power, doing relevant impact turns, and pushing presumption (depth of clash is great)

Policy

- This is probably what I am most comfortable judging, fair game for most things, will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan read in-round) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential e extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on topics like “standardized tests?”)

- Fine w/ specific plans and PICs, just be willing to beat back theory/T, not fantastic for both extremes of the nebel T debate

- Ev quality matters—you don’t get credit for incoherent args (highlights must form complete thoughts/sentences), contest ev quality and do ev weighing (easy way to get good speaks btw)

- Inserting re-highlighting—yes if it’s from portions of ev already read, but must be read aloud if it’s same card and different section, etc.

- Zero risk is a thing

- Good impact turns are great, stale impact turns are less so, don’t double-turn yourself, ev quality is crucial on impact turns, you should do work in CX to frame it as a viable strategy

- More internal link weighing pls, contesting probability is great, teams that don’t go for impact and internal link weighing almost always lose to those that do

- I need more competition established in the 1NC, I love good perm debates but 10 "perm do both" analytics with no warrant isn't it

- Judge kick is bad.

- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)

- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case

- “You get ptx” or “we want ptx” is not a complete warrant for T, other than that, good for T interps that delineate models of debate and go for topic lit/controversy, 2AR must extend case if T was the 2NR, if you’re reading “X school’s Aff is the TVA,” explain what that means

- I am not moved by tournament dates, popularity, etc. for T—an Aff that is popular is not immune to T as a germane criticism,

- Do more work in the 2NR both to resolve competing interpretations and to impact the T shell

- I probably do not want to judge plan flaw unless the Aff’s plan is written in a way that is meaningfully different from actual implementation

Philosophy

- I studied social and political philosophy for some of undergrad, but it’s been a minute since I’ve been in any kind of ethics class; I’m probably quick to understand analytical ethical philosophy, but haven’t touched continental philosophy in a while, and execution in LD is often dreadful—good philosophy debates are fine, bad ones hurt my head—weighing justifications or doing hijacks is probably more useful than preclusion claims with no warrant or “extinction always first”

- Fake meta-ethics = sad

- LDers tend to be ineffective in explaining their theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics rather than just “that’s coercive so you can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case

- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level

- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky

- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are big culprits here

- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps you should revise the AC/NC

- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide

- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad

- AFC/ACC: this is debate. clash is a thing and good and args that deny clash make me sad. that said if it's util I'll be slightly less sad.

Traditional LD

- I started trad, been in the loop here for a while, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”)—if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of argument styles—this doesn’t mean I want to hear poorly conceived args or cheap shots. Unless definitions of words matter for the rez at hand (aka topicality), I would prefer that you just shelve that and debate substance. Also, while the Aff is never bound to defend a "plan," you can't just sidestep questions of solvency with "it's LD." Not an argument.

- The 1NC must engage with the Affirmative. It is, in fact, a rebuttal speech. My RFDs lately seem to include some variance of "didn't engage with the Aff at all."

- I probably do not want to hear cases that read like an essay

- Yes, I disclose. Will try to be as thorough as possible. If you have questions about my decision-making process, you should ask in-person if possible.

- Evidence comparison, weighing, and analysis are crucial—regardless of your experience, you need to tell me how to vote, what matters most—it’s not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x matters more than y; don’t just restate things, explain why it’s true; grandstanding is unhelpful

- Not a fan of “value is morality, criterion is util, contention one” with zero explanation of either (threshold for response is zero), FWs that are just “upholding my side of the rez” are even worse

- On that same note, unless there is clash at the FW level (i.e., Kant v. Util), I don’t mind if FW is conceded—two people can agree on a metric for impacts but disagree on what action is more ethically justified under said metric—never be afraid to just move on if there’s no clash at the FW level (I guarantee I will probably be happier)

- Trad v. circuit: it’s a learning moment, I think circuit teams should be willing to explain whatever they’re reading (esp in CX—if you’re a jerk in CX and won’t explain your args, the odds are good that you will lose speaker points and possibly THE ROUND) and simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/ no procedurals for policy = good), won’t penalize trad debaters for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, won’t penalize circuit debaters for playing the game (ex: if it’s late prelims/bubbles/elims and you need to go 5-off, I’m more sympathetic than in early prelims)

- Please say the name of the card before its content (i.e., “Jones 22: card content”), do not paraphrase evidence (that’s bad), made up evidence is an auto-L, brackets to inflate strength of warrant are almost definitely an auto-L

- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)

- Tell me how I should rectify abuse if you’re trying to call your opp out for being abusive—what is abusive? Do I drop the argument? Them? Why do I care that they were abusive?

- Follow norms on in-round safety—even traditional debaters should do things like respecting pronouns, this can and will cost ballots (debaters are starting to get overtly racist and antiqueer in rounds again, will penalize this even if your opponent doesn’t make an argument about it)

- No set perspective on the resolution (I don’t think the Aff has a burden to defend the topic as it is), so debaters’ dismissal of arguments isn’t a reason to reject it on my flow—if you think the Aff should debate the topic, for example, you must argue that they should debate the topic—read topicality and not an NC that doesn’t engage with a non-T aff

- Yes, I am fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” read in lay debate don’t make sense to me—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action with actual evidence that explains why the CP solves the Aff (aka a solvency advocate), not an abstract counter-claim—I am unlikely to vote on CPs that I don’t understand

Theory

- Have judged a reasonable amount of these, I think these rounds are highly dependent on execution and need more weighing between standards, more framing, and more i/l weighing to fairness/education—the less resolvability work done by debaters, the more I probably look to substance and/or presumption; fairness might be an impact but deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: how do I reconcile PICs stealing Aff offense AND the need for Neg flex)

- Most 1NCs/1ARs in policy rounds involve theory, fine here, make the abuse story and model of debate clearer earlier in the debate (how many condo good? why does dispo solve? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line between speeches, unlikely to vote on it (this means a 10 second condo arg that gets made into a 3 min 2AR)

- Beating back paradigm issues can make theory easy to resolve; generally good for DTA + reasonability, can be persuaded fairness and education are not voters

-Strongly dislike friv theory.Clear and specific interps are easier than anything remotely abstract;will not eval stuff about your opponent's appearance or similar. Use common sense.Very bad for "URL theory" or "punching theory" and stuff that's circulating rn.

- Combo shells are both strategic against super spiky affs and incredibly arbitrary

- I prefer that you do extend paradigm issues/voters on theory even if uncontested, but that you not be annoying abt it—treat it like a DA or something and this should hopefully make what I mean more obvious

- Theory to shut out tough convos is aSHAME,this reinforces violence and oppression.

- I’m not a huge fan of “must include links to circuit debater on your wiki” or the like

- Reading more than 2 shells on either side will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- Won’t flow new 2AR theory arguments unless the 2NR was super abusive; similarly, paradigm issues, etc. need to be in the 1AR

- I've voted for RVIs in the past and am not entirely against voting for them, though I will say that I think substance is usually easier to resolve given the lack of weighing that is prevalent in debates where an RVI becomes the focus, and they're usually not well-warranted or extended

- Misdisclosure is really difficult for me to evaluate—I need: a) slow down. tell me exactly what was asked for and what was given—I will evaluate screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference (e.g., prep skew), c) why it’s DTD (one analytic seems more like DTA, entirely different adv/plan is reasonably DTD)

Disclosure

- I do think that, on balance, disclosure has improved CX and LD, but reading disclosure theory seems like a mandate for equality when equity is the concern—as of late, I think that the reading of disclosure is often violent and am much more receptive to the idea that many groups have good reasons not to disclose—policy v. policy seems ripe for disclosure theory, but reading it against a K aff is not a good look

- Performances and similar materials do not need to be disclosed (you do you)

- Don't read disclosure at locals unless you're like both going hard circuit-style (even then, figure this stuff out yourselves pls)

- New Affs Bad: not my favorite argument, but I understand that it’s necessary as a procedural/possible 2NR out—go for better warrants over more, poorly explained standards, and skip “can’t engage with the Aff” if you put a lot of answers on case (relatively low threshold for identity-based responses here, just a heads up); the joke "I prepped for "it's new"" was maybe funny once in like 2019

Tricks

- Not the best judge for truth-testing as a ROB, okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and some epistemic paradoxes (one-card “skep Ks” are awful, gettier problems are kinda cool and not read enough), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—I really dislike arguments that say “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature

- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot

- Paradoxes can be cool but you have to devote more time to them if you want them to take out an entire framework

- I am not the right judge for crazy logic paradoxes, there just isn't enough time for me to flow these or understand an equation in the context of an LD round

- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded

- I evaluate all speeches in a given round

Evidence Ethics (all events)

- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets lowest speaks I can give

- If it's an ev ethics challenge, I'll allow both teams to make a written defense of their practice and we go from there

- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)

Misc Stuff

- Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility

- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear

CONFLICTS:

All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

About Me: Hi! I'm a parent judge who's judged a number of LD and Speech tournaments over the past several years.

Speech

I understand that each speech event is a bit different, but generally, I will judge your speech based on topic/piece selection, your technical speaking skills (enunciation, projection, etc.), your ability to engage me in the topic or piece, your ability to inhabit the characters and world of the story (Interp), and the flow and persuasiveness of your speech (OO). I view speech activities from the perspective of a former courtroom lawyer as well as a former theater kid.

LD

I was not a debater in school but I'm a (former) litigator whose instinct is to view LD as analogous to some of the hardest fought cases I argued in court.

Framework/Standards Debate: Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, I want to hear about the resolution.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts, and link back to the standards to provide a well-researched, well-reasoned case position. I will be listening for case positions that are supported by research and evidence.

I strongly prefer argument-focused rounds over technicality- or definition-focused rounds. I won't be able to follow the intricacies of a technicality-focused round, so it will not help you anyway.

I will flow anything that I can of what you run, and evaluate based on my flow. I am not familiar with the K or with theory. If you're running either I expect you to slow down on taglines, provide clear links and impacts (and a well defined alternative for the K). If I can't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

If running abstract Ks, complex theory with few links, or blippy philosophy with no clear in round and out of round applications, I am not the judge for you. I'm looking for something better developed and more understandable.

Speed: I take detailed notes throughout a round (don't worry; I'm a fast typer). Speaking too quickly -- especially spreading! -- likely just means I will miss a key point. Please speak slowly enough to ensure I catch every contention, piece of evidence, and rebuttal.

Time: Feel free to time yourself, but I will also track time. When time finishes, I will let you finish a word or phrase, but then I will cut you off.

RFD and Speaker Points: My decision will be in favor of, and I will award the most speaker points to, the debater who best provides analytically sound arguments that tie directly to the resolution, effectively rebuts their opponent's arguments, establishes points in a logical, cogent manner, speaks clearly and confidently, holds my attention, particularly through (appropriate) humor and/or interesting but not convoluted or overly technical language, and maintains standards for decorum.

Good luck!

Hello Students,

My name is Pia Benadikar and I am a parent judge who has judged a small number of tournaments in past years.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I will try to evaluate the arguments as fairly as possible.

Good luck to you all!

I am a first year volunteer judge and I did not participate in debate during high school or college. I prefer a debate that includes a persuasive style of speaking and debating. I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. Therefore, your speech must be clear and understandable, and your argument should be based on logic and factual evidence. The use of spreading or K-cases are not encouraged.

Please send cases to Christina.brockman@jefferson.kyschools.us

My name is Chris Brown. I'm a second year judge. I have had the opportunity to judge PF, Congress and LD rounds.

I strive to listen to the arguments of both sides. My expectation is for debaters to provide arguments with appropriate evidence. I also expect debaters to be smooth in their delivery, without pauses, ums or other sounds that interrupt their delivery. Being able to respond to your opponent in a cogent manner is very important.

I do not like spreading. If you are going to go as fast as possible, I require having a copy of your case. Otherwise, it's difficult for me to keep up and if I'm judging, you want to make things as easy for your judge as possible

In LD - the clashing of sides is really important. Although the opening speeches are important, the cross and returning speeches are a big part of how you do in LD. Listening to your opponent and being able to respond effectively is the name of the game.

I'm judging based what is presented by both sides - as much as I may disagree with a particular viewpoint, if the other side can't counter it, I have to go with what is presented.

It is an honor to be able to do this and I will strive to be the best judge I can be for myself and the debate community.

My e-mail is cmbrown007@aol.com

As a judge, I value engaging and substantive debates that focus on the core issues. I appreciate clear, compelling narratives and arguments grounded in real-world evidence. Quality is more important than quantity; I prefer well-developed, logically sound arguments with clear reasoning and meaningful connections between evidence and conclusions over numerous underdeveloped claims. I also value creativity and novel perspectives that bring unique ideas to the round.

In WSD, I assess each team's model based on net benefits and the comparative world it creates. Critical arguments should articulate real-world implications and provide tangible alternatives.

I evaluate the debate holistically, considering argument strength, responsiveness to key issues, and defense of positions. I compare impacts based on factors like scope, magnitude, probability, and level of impact. I appreciate effective comparison and weighing of different impact types, as well as the quality of evidence, clarity of reasoning, and persuasiveness of delivery.

Each speaker role is crucial in creating a persuasive case. POIs should be concise, relevant, and challenging. I assess a speaker's ability to handle POIs effectively.

Debate should be enriching, educational, and accessible to all participants. I expect respectful engagement, genuine interest in the topic, and intellectual honesty.

My background: I have a Ph.D. in American history, focusing on contemporary political economy. I teach US History and US Government at Jackson-Reed High School in Washington, D.C., where I also advise the Speech and Debate Team. My email is eduardo.canedo@k12.dc.gov.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Heights High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF:bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire, and coach a variety of debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

WFU 27

Paradigm

Tech > Truth

I strive to give RFDs that only use the words said by debaters in the debate. I determine who won by deciding what is the highest layer and then who won offense under that framework.

I've coached every style of debate and am willing to vote on any argument.

If you say the word "permissibility" it is an L 25. Say optionality instead.

Permissibility is inaccurate - optionality is accurate.

"something is permissible iff (if and only if) its negation is not obligatory"

" optional iff neither it nor its negation is obligatory"

"As in the modal case, the thought is that all propositions are divided into three jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive classes: every proposition is obligatory, impermissible or neither (that is, optional) and no proposition falls into more than one of these three categories."

op·tion·al·i·ty

/ˌäpSHəˈnalədē/

noun

the quality of being available to be chosen but not obligatory.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/Philosophy Debate/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Please add me on the email chain:amandaciocca@gmail.com

I feel like this is important to add at the top bc no one reads paradigms anymore: I want more policy and kvk debates please, I seemed to have ended up getting clumped with tricks judges suddenly....I don't enjoy tricks and skep.

Ex-varsity college policy debater for UMW who read primarily Policy and K's. Been judging for 5 years so Im slowly becoming more cranky about bad debates. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm, currently a MA student in the Women Studies program. I competed in LD for four years, mostly read soft-left policy stuff and fem/ borderlands Ks.

Refer to me in round however you'd like, my pronouns are she/her. Some people hate being called judge but unless you feel comfy referring to me as Amanda then do whatever you want idgaf <3

Im most comfortable with K's, K v T-fwk, policy, and some phil, slightly more comfy evaling substantive theory debates.

Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.

Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Clear Springs EG, BASIS ZR, Clear Brook AV, Clear Lake LL

__________________________________________________________________________________

Pref guide:

Ks (General) : 1

K Affs and Performance: 1

Policy: 1

Phil: 3 (more comfy w Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Butler)

Trad: 3

Theory: 2

Tricks/Skep: 4

________________________________________________

LD:

Here's the most important things to know:

1. Learn how to flow. Im tired of debaters answering stuff that wasn't read. Im THIS close to just not looking at the doc at all because y'all are just docbots.

2. Don't be racist/homophobic/sexist/ or just problematic. Any instances of BLATANT verbal discrimination/ harassment of an opponent then Im giving you an L 20 and will hard stop the round reporting you to tab.HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!!

3. Your pre-written analytics SHOULD BE GENDERLESS. Im ripping my hair out at the fact that people still aren't removing he/him/she/her from docs.

4. I'm expressive af. I will be actively making faces, most of them aren't actually directed at you. Also I do have an RBF so don't take it personally.

5. Do what you are best at.

6. Weigh.

7. Give me judge instruction.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Updated Preferences Stylistically:

Policy-I've started really loving good policy debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K-K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :)) Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.

Theory: I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes I guess. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells!I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Tricks-This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Skep-This is probably morally repugnant. Only chance I vote in this is when it is completely conceded and I can get a nice slow 2NR explaining the syllogism. I DONT enjoy these debates and would much prefer other things. I've voted on skep twice and somehow a entire tourney decided I should be struck in elims <3 tldr: dont read it unless its an easy debate, if you make me think even just a little about it then you'll probably lose.

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

In regards to Policy vs K debate, if I were biased either direction, it's probably in favor of policy, but I don't think this matters in a technical debate where your arguments have warrants. Do with that what you will.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

(9/11/24) Because of this, claims start from zero and are built up through warrants. I do not want to judge tricks debates. I will abide by the above paragraph with far more scrutiny than I have in the past. Theory and phil debates are still fine, but I'll be much more hesitant to vote on blippy shells, analytic skep triggers, and other less warranted args than I have in the past.

random thoughts:

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

In the absence of paradigm issues, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

I default to judgekick.

Northview '21

University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign '25

Debated LD in high school for 3 years and coached for 1 year, 10 career bids, cleared at TOC in 2020 and 2021

I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions

Doc sharing is good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

I prefer using Speech Drop for docs, its easier.

Email: sreyaash.das@gmail.com

Some quick notes and preferences:

1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.

2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments

3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.

4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.

5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.

6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing affect your arguments. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience; I wouldn’t have joined circuit LD if I hadn’t faced different progressive arguments at locals. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.

7) "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." ~ Stephen Scopa

8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.

9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.

Prefs Overview

Note: Just because certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this

Policy/Larp -2

Kritiks - 2

Theory - 1

Phil -3

Tricks -2

I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation

Policy/Larp:

Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics

Be smart and do link analysis

Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho

Zero risk is a thing

Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence

Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards

1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple

2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse

Don't forget to kick out of things

Theory

Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis

Standard weighing is dead - plz do it

Paragraph theory is fine

Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed

Terminal D on a shell is a thing even under competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.

Send interps/counter interps plz

Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them

Kritiks:

Dont be a doc bot the entire time

Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power

Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it

Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power

K Affs/T:

These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model

Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity

Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T

Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T

No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides

Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)

Philosophy:

Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds

I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required

I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense

Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more

Tricks:

Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms

If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx

Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow

Slow down on blips - flowability is key

Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.

Traditional:

I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.

Substance > V/VC debate

Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2

I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.

Speaker Points:

I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

Bennett Dombcik

Please add me to the email chain: benjaydom@gmail.com

My ballot will be determined by my flow. Technical concessions are taken as truth.

Some random things that may be helpful:

---you can insert re-highlightings, re-cuttings of things not present in the original card should be read.

---please locally record speeches/turn on your camera for online debates.

---line by line is helpful for the purposes of my flow but I will attempt to write down as much of your rant as possible.

---I am generally a fan of creative and interesting strategies.

---"I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that. I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so." - Rafael Pierry

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

• It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.

• The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.

• It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.

• I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.

• There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.

• A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.

• My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.

• There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

• That which is morally repugnant

• This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent

• X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School.

daviddosch@gmail.com

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

Updated 2024, following Greenhill

Dr. Brice Ezell – The Lovett School, Debate Coach (he/his)

Bakersfield Christian High School, 2006-10 (LD, competed mostly in local CA tournaments and at NSDAs; broke in LD in 2009)
George Fox University, BA, 2010-2014 (WUDC, competed nationally and at Worlds twice)
University of Texas, PhD and MA, 2015-21 (involved sporadically in judging, but was not on UT's college teams; my PhD subject matter involved a lot of reading in phil/K lit, however)

Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. PF debaters: scroll to the bottom (though plenty of my judging philosophy in the LD section aligns with my thinking for PF as well.)

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts.

Prefs: Though I hesitated to do this at first, as I don’t want debaters to get the sense that they have to run one kind of argument in front of me to succeed, below is how I’d categorize my preferences when it comes to LD. I recognize there is value to being transparent about this as a judge, though I really try to be tabula rasa in-round as this is an activity whose practices are created by its participants. Debate is as much a creative as it is an academic activity.

I Like These and Vote on Them Regularly - Run Truly Whatever

Philosophy

Policy (LOVE plan/CP debates)

Post-fiat K debates

Theory

Truth-testing

Skep (moral or epistemological - big fan of args involving the latter, actually)

I Could Definitely Vote on these But My Threshold is Higher

Pre-fiat Ks

Performance (though I stress one thing: make sure you know what the word "performative" actually means)

Serious gaming

I Can't Imagine Voting On These Ever

Tricks* [see note below]

Frivolous theory (e.g. "URL theory," font sizes, etc)

*I know there may be some confusion in having tricks ranked at the bottom here and skep/truth testing in a higher level of willingness to adjudicate. To put it frankly, I’m not totally clear on what constitutes a “trick” – it’s a confusing set. If by “tricks” one means what this definition on Circuit Debater tells us, wherein a trick is an argument that’s meant to be abusive, then I will say without reservation I will vote these kinds of arguments down. As a general practice, irrespective of the style of case one runs in front of me, I reward debaters for running toward the debate, rather than trying to win on the narrowest grounds possible. Go for clash! With that in mind, I’m not clear why truth testing and skep cases *must* constitute some kind of trick or attempt to be abusive to your opponent. Truth-testing is a flavor of old-school LD, and done well is hardly abusive, certainly not in a way where an opponent couldn’t sufficiently respond to it.

Stray Things

Speed: No problem! But be especially clear with your tags and author attributions. If I have to say "clear" more than once some of your args might not end up on my flow.

Tech>Truth?: Yes. But this bears saying: when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense. So if you're running a K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument with its own jargon, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. An example: feel free to run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what that means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals. The strategy of obfuscating in the 1AC/NC and then in rebuttals being articulate in the way you should have been in the constructives will bode poorly for speaks in front of me.

Cross-x: Is binding. I flow it and think it’s one of the most important parts of the debate.

Flex-prep: I’m cool with it.

Timing: I trust debaters to keep their own time but note that I will keep time as well (a) as an extra accountability measure in case there’s a dispute, and (b) because I like to make note on my ballot of how speakers allocate their time strategically.

RVIS?: Probably not.

Speaks: Here's how I allocate speaks unless a tournament gives me a bespoke speaker point scale:

30: No notes. If I were a betting kind of person I'd bet you're going to win the tournament.

29.6 - 29.9: Near-flawless strategy and delivery. If this kind of performance is repeated, I'd expect you to get to late elims at this tournament, if not win the tournament altogether.

29.2 - 29.5: Your strategy and delivery mark you as a debater I'd expect, assuming consistent performance at this level, to get solidly far into elims.

28.8 - 29.1: I'd expect you to break based on how you executed strategy and delivery in this round, assuming consistent performance at this level.

28.4 - 28.7: I'd award in this range if I thought you'd break or be on the bubble for breaking, but there are strategic or delivery issues that I could see being an issue in other rounds.

28.0 - 28.3: This is where I start my adjudicating of a round. A debater who stays at this score level is merely "fine" -- nothing too bad, but nothing too flashy either. I would not expect a debater consistently competing at this point level to break.

27.0 - 27.9: You've got a lot of work to do, either in strategy or delivery.

26.0 - 26.9: You've got a lot of work to do in both strategy and delivery.

25: You did something profoundly offensive.

One sure way to get good speaks from me: quality on-case argumentation and engagement with the opponent's cards and tags. I too often feel that even good debaters hear the tag of the AC (e.g. "oh they're running X policy case"), and then rather than engage the substance (or maybe lack thereof) in the AC, will go only for off arguments and weighing, leaving little time for direct arguments on case. Go for your offense, of course, but show me that you're engaging your opponent's case in detail! Put most succinctly, debaters that get good speaks for me eagerlygo for clash, and to me part of good clash is getting into your opponent's case and saying how and why they're wrong.

What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.

One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format, the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, on a topic like "The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt," the CON is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in "the rulebook" for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.

Digital Debate #1 Update:

- I prefer using email for file share, 1AC shouldnt be sent out at round time, you can at a minimum send to me 5 min before and then cc your opponent before beginning of speech. I drop your speaks for inappropriate uses of time in online tournaments (out of prep and going to get water, going over prep, starting late). If you are having internet issues, adapt by sending docs beforehand.

- First tournament of season so you should probably start slow.

- Just as a general overview, I really hack towards simple arguments that tend to flow on higher levels (if you were to take a % of rounds where X arg is top layer). I have theory as my highest pref bc its intuitive and usually results in the best clash... theory v K rounds make my head hurt bc neither prefiat implication is ever explained in detail to me relative to the opposing impact.

- If you have questions you need to ask beforehand. No guarantee I will see the email before start time but its best if you are confused or think i might not be the judge for you.

- HAVE FUN!!! A loss here isn't the end of your debate career or life in general, there is more to life after debate and there is more ways to be involved in debate after debate!

faindebate@gmail.com

Auburn ‘16-‘20

Auburn University ‘22-‘26

Prefs:

1 - theory

2 - larp

3 - trix

4 - k

5 - phil

Strike me if you are a traditional debater.

Intro:

• My name is Michael Fain (please refer to me as judge, Mr. Fain, or Michael, in that order). I competed in LD for 3 years and have been judging/coaching for the past 4. My background as a competitor was entirely based around hacky arguments, trix, and baiting theory. As a judge I have gone through many different phases of what I like to get out of rounds and what I am most comfortable listening to. For the longest time I was a hack for trix, this is no longer the case seeing as trix debaters use this to run relatively dense phil and not explain it. The pref chain above is accurate and should be used for big tournaments. As a judge I evaluate the round according to how I flowed it based off of the information that was given to me. I fully believe that a close round with many different layers of offense with 11 of the most qualified judges will result in some sort of judge split. I believe that I side in favor of the majority in these rounds as my squirrel rate in tech rounds is something like 1/100. That being said, I will score the round in my rfd’s about what I think the split would be, and could provide reasons why my contemporaries might vote the other way. All judges value different things, we all hear the round differently, so as long as its close on the flow there is always the potential for a split ballot.

Preferences:

Performative - I am hard of hearing in my left ear, this does not affect round outcome, however, you are responsible for being a mindful debater and positioning yourself in the room to be heard.

I am traditional insofar as debaters ought not look at each other when speaking, should formally address the judge, should stand to speak if able, and should appropriately use their prep time (see below). (IRL ONLY)

Strategic - My voting record and past RFDs indicate a few tendencies. I am comfortable voting on very small issues with little to no risk (best examples would be like ivis on reps, conceded spikes indicting speech validity, any accessibility arg). For some reason this tends to mean I vote neg more often.

LAYERING:

After having almost 30 different iterations of my paradigm I have settled on this being the only relevant section that ought to be read before a round, anything else can be asked via shared email chain between myself and the competitors before the round. Proper LAYERING and weighing is the only thing that matters when it comes to my ballot. It is your responsibility to defend your offense as the highest layer in the round, and if your offense functions on the same layer as an opponents, why your impact should be weighed as greater. Too many times is there floating offense on different layers where the procedural “rules” of debate force theory to come before substance. Maybe I don’t judge enough but it appears that gone are the days of policymaking good frameworks dueling against the K. I do not need to be scratching my head at the end of a round asking myself whether or not the K or T is top level. The battleground of the round is normally not on a link level in the rounds I judge, and if it is, enough time is not spent explaining it. The real clash is on which offense flows above the other, youd be best suited to spend your time on that.

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Graduated from UC Berkeley 2024. Currently DoD at Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker, Cal.

he/him

Of course i want to be on the email chain. nick.fleming39@gmail.com

Moreover, the 1AC needs to be sent out before the official start time for the debate, unless it is new. Speaker point deductions are in order for debaters that fail to do this.

I flow straight down on my laptop. I frequently flow CX in college policy debates. How/if I flow is non-negotiable.

College Specific Note

The debate must start on time. Tournaments are increasingly time-pressed and decision time gets shorter every year. As such, I expect college debaters to not only start on time, but minimize delays as much as possible during the debate. You are too old to still be confused about the email chain. The more decision time I have, the linearly better your decision will be. This applies less to JV/novice debates, obviously.

Important Stuff

Below are many feelings about debate. Precisely none of them overcome technical debating, with the exception of the couple clearly flagged. I have rendered numerous decisions for conditionality, against framework, and for the argument that capitalism is sustainable. If my feelings were determinative, I would never vote for these arguments. There is a great deal of wiggle room, but it is exclusively accessed through technical debating.

My two least favorite things on earth are self-importance and cowardess. Don't do either of them.

I was largely a k debater in high school but was exclusively a policy debater in college. I feel comfortable judging both sides of the spectrum. Regardless of the issue at hand, evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read every card mentioned by name in the final rebuttals before making my decision.

Similarly, I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points.

I believe being affirmative is fundamentally easy. On those grounds, I err neg on basically all theory. This is significantly more true for policy than LD, but my instinct to resolve theory in favor of the neg will remain strong.

Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and have lots of good evidence. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.

Planless affs ---

I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution.

I have been in many of these debates, both answering and going for topicality. My time as a k debater raised my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates.

I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conviently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.

Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.

Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.

I am increasingly persuaded by the fairness paradox.

I am unpersuaded by the trend of affs being topic-adjacent and answering framework with "you could have read x DA." I believe this reflects a fundamental, novice-level misunderstanding of what topicality is.

I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.

Kritiks -

Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework. If your argument is about you and contains no theory, I am a decidedly bad judge for you.

Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the link doesn't turn the case.

Theory -

I am not very good at judging T debates against policy affs. I like reasonability and precision, and my record is pretty decisively aff, despite not having strong feelings about T. At least an outside chance this means I am simply not doing a very good job evaluating the debates.

I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans. Consult 2N PTSD rant above.

I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments,

That being said, I am pretty decisively aff for a lot of process competition. Teams would be well suited to reformulate their theory arguments as competition arguments in front of me.

Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff (assuming perfect debating otherwise --- if you go for condo, you should expect your points to be in the 28-28.5 range.)

Online Debate

If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.

I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.

Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.

LD:

I am fine with flex prep if you want to ask questions, but I am not going to pay attention like it is a CX. If you need to clarify things, that's fine, but treating flex prep like time to make arguments is clearly egregious.

Edit 2/11/23

If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.

EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:

1. There seem to be issues with clarity plaguing this activity. To try and discourage this, I will do the following things: a.) I will never open your documents during the debate. I will read cards after if you tell me too. b.) I will say clear 5 times, after that, I'm not flowing c.) If, on the other hand, you are clear, I will give way too high of speaks. Some of the best teams in this activity sound great -- its clearly possible to win without being unflowable.

As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.

I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.

Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.

I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab

No RVI's ever under any circumstances

running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

new affs bad

no neg fiat

plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates

my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for

RVI's

Misc.

- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding who won.

- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)

- Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up

- I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)

- It is a damning indictment of our community that I even have to say this, but the debate will end immediately if it gets even remotely physical at any point. This includes touching other debaters' property. If this is any way surprising, confusing, or offensive to you, strike me.

- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.

• In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool, funny, or brave. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team cannot moderate your rudeness, or you cannot make your arguments without being mean, please strike me and save us both a headache.

Public Forum (copied from Greg Achten)

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

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

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying, which is grounds for penalties to speaker points.

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

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

overall, "takes his job seriously, but not himself."

the safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). you should not attempt to test me on this.

i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. i've been in debate since 2014, and in my competitive career i won little but learned lots. in high school, i went for politics disads and advantage counterplans while reading niche plans, usually with a process advantage. in college, i read exclusively planless affs starting sophomore year, with most of my 2NRs being the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i have coached every argument imaginable at some point at every level of the game.

"tab" judges don't exist, because every judge thinks some arguments are better than others, which inevitably modifies the thresholds for winning arguments relative to each other, even if unconsciously. this paradigm is not an attempt to convince you i have no biases, it is an attempt to make those biases explicit and explain how to overcome or adjust to them. i am happiest when the 2NR is a card-heavy disad or K with lots of case against an aff with a plan, but debate is for you, not me. I am more concerned with the structure of high-quality, well-warranted arguments and lots of judge instruction than the content of your positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can all produce vertically dense, interesting debates, and they can also produce nightmarish slop. i flow diligently and value "technical" execution and refutation above "truth", but bad arguments are still bad. ergo, dropped arguments are true, but only as true as the argument itself. impact calculus and judge instruction matters a lot to me, and debaters should explain their core offense in comparison to the other side's. at the end of the day, i am an incredibly die-hard 2N from D3, which probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. i will do my best to give detailed decisions and actionable feedback, as debaters deserve no less than my best effort. both coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i understand that passions run high, but i struggle to understand the utility of being angry with my RFD for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge and save us both the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

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

- inserting cards is fine if it is an indict of the same card they read and its implication is explained – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. i can be convinced to strike excessive insertions, especially when most amount to nothingburgers.

- functional competition is good and likely all i will care about. textual competition is confusing. positional competition is emotionally upsetting. solely competing off of immediacy/certainty makes me skeptical - the idea these are key to neg ground is a hard sell when never assumed by real-world literature. adding a plank to ban the plan does not make non-competitive things competitive. i vote for them anyways pretty often, because teams fail to make the good arguments for why these things are bad.

- state of counterplan (and plan) texts is an atrocity. this should matter more than it does in most debates. people get away with murder on solvency these days - evidence quality is paramount.

- i would consider myself medium-good for intrinsicness, but also think most "intrinsic" perms are not actually intrinsic.

- will judge kick if told, but only if told. generally think splitting the 2NR is bad though – I’ve never once kicked the counterplan and had it help the negative.

- "perm shields the link" and "links to net benefit" are the most underrated arguments in debate. however, most permutations seem to be nothingburgers in the 2AC, making debates unacceptably late breaking - the less i understand these arguments before the block, the more spin i give the 2NR and the less spin i give the 2AR. this is solved by reading fewer, better developed permutations - "do both, shields the link" is a tag, not an argument.

- uniqueness controls link and vice versa should be debated out contextually. extremist opinions on either side (i.e: "no offense without uniqueness" and "don't need uniqueness") both seem silly.

- impact turns often have overly totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest more time in these questions in addition to the impact debate proper.

- i care a lot about turns case in both disad and K debates. these arguments are ideally carded, but should at minimum be thoroughly explained with reference to which specific 1AC internal links/impacts they interact with.

- i don't know who introduced the idea of "meta-weighing" into the lexicon, but they owe us an apology for making debates worse. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" is a non-argument if the disad isn't faster than case in a way that actually matters, and if it is, just say that instead of pointless abstractions. i feel similarly about "try or die", at this point - i don't know why the aff impact being really bad and unmitigated means solvency deficits go away. if you mean "the aff impact is a higher risk than the disad", just say that and prove it.

- k teams that are very technical and read lots of detailed evidence should pref me highly. less technical/performance teams can also pref me highly with the understanding that this is not my wheelhouse, but i would consider myself much better for them than this paradigm would suggest. ideally, negative teams have a link that impact turns some 1AC premise or mechanism with an impact that can outweigh the net benefit to a permutation, an external impact that turns and/or outweighs the case, and a well-defined alternative that is both competitive and solvent.

- framework arguments should answer the question "which parts of the 1AC should be the basis for rejoinder and competition?" – “weigh the aff” and “reps first” are both non-arguments. i will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – i usually find these models to be both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus seems like it gives the negative more than you want (I am unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets links to both “reps” and the plan). This also means I am fine with “delete the plan” if won, but usually think the negative can win with a more nuanced framework push that gives them links and the alt without doing so.

- I vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more than I vote against it, but this is less ideological bias and more because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. when controlling for quality, I probably vote for the best K teams and framework teams equally often. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact appeal to me much more than “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps are equally winnable, but both require detailed explanation about how voting aff solves your offense. i think debate should be valuable beyond competition, but competition is still axiomatic. using the language of impact calculus (e.g: “turns case/their offense”, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot.

- i'd probably enjoy a good K v K debate more than a framework debate, but bad K v K is pure slop. judge instruction, organization, and specificity are paramount. i care a lot more about "turns/solves case" than "root cause". exact same ideals for policy v K debates apply here. i'd much rather both sides invest in explaining how i determine what is offense, what competes, etc (e.g: framework arguments) than say it's too hard for me to evaluate them (e.g: "no plan, no perm"). aff teams often benefit from a "functional competition"-style argument, since the meta seems to be to spam word PIKs and call it "frame subtraction" these days. the "ballot PIK" should never win a debate against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates when executed by a sufficiently prepared and knowledgeable 2N.

- critical affirmatives with plans and "soft left" affs should be much more common. teams that take me for this historically do incredibly well, but only when they actually answer neg arguments (i.e: the disad doesn't automatically vanish when you say "conjunctive fallacy")

- I care a lot about evidence quality for topicality - a more predictable and precise limit is better than a more “debatable” one, since literature determines what is debatable. that said, a marginally more precise but massively underlimiting interp is probably not a winner - risk of links and size of impacts should be weighed like any other argument, and in the context of defense. "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" is a much better 2NR than "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability is about the counterinterpretation, not the specific aff, and is good when framed as an offensive argument about substance crowd-out against silly violations, but bad when explained as "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum is probably good as a check against extra-topicality violations, but less convinced in other contexts. i am extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- I would consider these arguments theoretical non-starters if near-evenly debated: disads that link based on “riders” to the plan or being "horse-traded" (not how fiat works), counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (yes, this includes the states). i am unconvinced either are not solved by dropping the arg, and aside from these, you should consider me un-get-able for basically any aff theory argument if well answered. i consider conditionality a divine right bestowed upon the negative by heavenly mandate, and will defend it with the appropriate religious zeal (read: unless wholly conceded with an actual 2AC warrant, don't bother). "RVIs" get a verbal "stop it". neg theory is usually a total non-starter.

- terrible for LD “tricks” – beyond being unwarranted garbage, most of them (skep, a prioris, permissibility) are just fundamentally defensive.

- much better for well warranted, carded phil positions than you'd expect. Kant has a high win-rate in front of me these days.

- judges i generally tend to agree with if the above is insufficiently detailed include Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (my former coaches), Brett Cryan (my former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (my best bud in debate).

procedural notes

- I have hearing damage in my left ear, and I don’t flow off the doc. i consider myself extremely good at flowing, but given these two things, clarity matters a lot to me – you get two free "clears," then I stop typing. debaters tend to go through tags and analytics too quickly – i will take pen time whether you give it to me or not. you are welcome to ask to see my flow, but my shorthand is probably incomprehensible to you (i usually don't write vowels).

- I have a terrible poker face. you are free to treat facial expressions as real-time feedback on your speech and adjust accordingly.

- i have autism. what this means for you is that i may close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. i promise i'm still flowing. i also make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc is fine and good, but I will only read cards extended in the final two speeches – attempting to sway my evaluation of the debate by including extraneous evidence will be harshly penalized with speaks.

- CX is binding and mandatory. i will flow things i think are important. "lying by omission" is just smart CX practice, but direct dishonesty will prompt intervention (i.e: the 1NC reads elections, 1A asks "was elections read", and you say "no", i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch that flow).

- having a personality is good. i am unconvinced arrogance and self-righteousness count as personality traits, especially when you can be funny and intelligent instead. it's a game - you should have fun with your fellow players.

- prep time ends when the speech doc is sent. the amount of prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile a doc and send it efficiently, i suggest Verbatim drills - this is not a joke. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing additional prep time penalties for excessive dead time while "sending the extra cards" and such (thanks for the idea, Shackelford).

- there is no flow clarification timeslot – “what cards did you read” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the cut cards marked” is fine question to ask without prep or CX, because the team that cuts evidence should provide marked copies, but “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” is a question that the other team can say “no” to, because it is your obligation to flow (or you can burn CX time asking if they read elections or not because you didn’t - i don't care). the amount of not-flowing you do negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself. flow.

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

- speaks are solely decided by me, based on my assessment of the quality of your debating + how enjoyable you were to judge (i.e: being respectful, having fun). 28.5 means i think you should go about 3-3. i have been told this is at the low end of the speaker point distribution for HSLD in particular - i don't really care.

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

- any and all grumpiness above should not be read as without consideration for experience, i.e: I am not docking speaks because a novice accidentally answers a skipped disad or sends an extra card in the card doc. generally, how harsh i am (and how harsh you can be) is inversely related to skill level. trolling an opponent of relatively equal skill in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- ethics challenges (clipping, evidence issues): only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the burden is to reasonably prove criminal negligence or malicious intent. omitting multiple paragraphs in the middle of a card that conclude neg fundamentally changes the argument of a card; accidentally leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. i am open to alternative solutions - i'd rather we strike a card that was cited incorrectly than not debate. you can ask me if i would consider ending the round or some alternative appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording for me to evaluate the accusation, and is always an instant loss (as there is no other way to resolve it) if it is shown to be persistent enough that it substantially altered functional speech time (again, criminal negligence/malicious intent). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency on this issue. if the debate is ended, it will not restart, and i expect all evidence to be immediately provided to me and then for everyone to shut up - any attempt to sway my evaluation of the issue by debaters or coaches will result in an instant loss. the result will be solely decided by me, with losers getting an L0 and winners getting a W28.5/28.4. all of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do something else.

- disclosure is likely good, but increasingly arbitrary and demanding standards for it seem counterproductive. disinterested in voting on it in the absence of deliberate misdisclosure. unconvinced by mandating disclosure of unbroken affs or anything in the 1NC before the 1NC starts.

- edebate: it still sucks. i will keep my camera on as much as possible. in the event my wifi connection is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth for debaters, but will always turn my camera back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present before your speech starts unless you either see my face or get a verbal confirmation. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compressions means debaters should go slightly slower and focus more on clarity than they normally would.

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

- i like music. feel free to recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time. enjoyable music gives everyone in the room +0.1. music i dislike receives no penalty.

good luck, have fun!

pat

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains at cgdebate1906@gmail.com. If it’s a policy round then ALSO includelrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,If it’s an LD round then ALSO include lrc.lddocs@gmail.com please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Judge Commitments

I’m SO sick and tired of circuit-level teams/competitors providing NON-circuit/lay judges to cover their commitment. Debaters spend a LOT of time crafting/drafting arguments and deserve to come to tournaments and have judges who will work equally as hard, when it comes to evaluating debates. If I am judging you and your school did/does NOT provide quality judging then expect me to be more arbitrary in judging debates than I would normally; if you are unwilling to provide others with a quality judge experience then I have no qualms giving bad, arbitrary, or other non-flow based decisions. IF you want me to provide you with a quality judging experience then you should populate the pool with similar-minded people. If you are unsure of what constitutes non-quality judging then see the non-comprehensive list below:

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

We as a community understand that some people cannot hire out judges and maybe only their parent is available but the lack of training that they give to those parents/certain questionable ways that they teach them to judge are still not good. In short, if you want me to be the best version of myself then provide other judges who are willing to work equally as hard.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you win my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Debated for Nashua HS South and DebateDrills, graduated 2022 (fyo). Did policy my freshman year and LD the subsequent 3 years. 2x bid to the TOC my senior year. I ran primarily policy arguments when I debated.

Warning: I have been out of debate for a while. I haven't touched debate since I graduated, and I went to 2 tournaments total my senior year. I know nothing about this topic. I also forget a lot of the specific jargon specific to LD so you're gonna have to explain that to me if you're going for some esoteric Nebel standard.

General

Put me on the email chain: enyagu8@gmail.com

Pleaaaase slow down. If you're unclear or blippy it's gonna make it really hard for me to judge. Honestly you should probably go at 60% speed, 70% max. If I miss something it's only gonna hurt you! I will say clear and slow to try and help you gauge this, but try and be a little aware.

Important: Do NOT be mean in cross. You should know what this means. I will tank your speaks with 0 hesitation.

The following are things I haven't thought about in a while but probably still agree with:

Debate is probably a game

Arguments start at 0% truth, not 100%

If the 2NR is just T, the 2AR does not need to extend case (why does this happen in LD? why do judges want you to extend case? mindboggling)

Default Comparative Worlds >>>>> Truth Testing

Default fairness and education are voters

Time yourselves

Please weigh

Yes I am okay with open cross

If a question was asked before cross ended you can still answer it

My thoughts on disclosure? It's good, it's very good. You should be disclosing with best practices. Does it warrant reading a theory shell on? Depends on what kind. I'll be much more lenient for novices (and this obviously doesn't apply if you're reading from the novice policy packet)

+0.1 speaks if you say "the jig is up" in your last speech

Policy Arguments

I enjoy these debates the most! I love thorough policy debates. Weighing saves rounds, as does specific evidence comparison. Love IR debates, politics can be pretty funny

Theory

I seriously haven't thought about debate for a while so I think I'm average at best when evaluating these debates. I did go for theory a few times as a debater though, so I should be able to adjudicate a standard condo good/bad debate fairly well. I think condo 1 is very most likely good though. For frivolous theory, check the tricks section.

T

I'm okay with Nebel but I swear there is a winnable 2AR vs it every time. Standard T debates are fine

Ks

Act like I don't know your lit (which will probably be likely). Make sure I understand the thesis of your K, or else I can't vote on it.

Floating PIKs are probably bad.

I have very very little tolerance for bad K debate. If you can't explain your literature to a 5 year old (me), then don't run Ks in front of me. Long, incoherent overviews that just sound like you're reading the tags of your cards again are not gonna cut it. If this is in novice/JV, this doubly applies: don't run a K just because you think your opponents won't know how to answer it.

K affs (without a plan)

Defend something. I will negate on presumption if I don't know what your offense is.

T-FW

I'm probably better at resolving T-FW debates than K v K ones. I like fairness as an impact (probably more than education or research or something similar in these debates). These were some of my favorite debates to watch when executed well.

Phil

I don't like phil, sorry! I really like util...I'm gonna lean probably pretty hard towards it. Run phil at your own risk...

Tricks

No. I won't flow them. If you run them in front of me (???) and are sketchy about it in cross, L and really low speaks, like 26 or below.

Trad

I'm gonna be honest with you I don't know what a value/value criterion even is, so...

Novices

Signpost please, it'll make my life (and yours!) so much easier!

PF

The evidence standards in this event are very poor...I would be happy if there's an email chain. Please weigh.

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations:Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS, Johnson DH

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC, UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I generally only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject. DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if either you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris. A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF arguments are fine, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy. I don't think AFC is a great argument unless it's straight util or offense/defense under competing frameworks

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good. Obfuscation and gotcha tactics are bad.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. I'm not going to lie, trad debaters do not generally pick up my ballot in national circuit-style LD or policy rounds. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments. If you get spread out, I'll feel bad for you, and I'll be annoyed with your opponent, but it is what it is.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

Newish: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore;I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Email: juliaisabellhunter@gmail.com (please put me on the chain)

Background: I debated policy in high school at St Vincent de Paul High School in California, went to the University of Michigan and didn't debate there. I did a little bit of coaching/judging policy throughout college, and now I'm a coach at The Harker School.

TLDR for prefs: If you want to have a technically executed K debate, I'm your girl. I love a good framework debate. Classic substantive topic-based policy debate is great too. If you rely on theory tricks or are big on phil, I'm probably ~not~ your girl. Above all, be respectful and kind.

Lincoln Douglas: I judge Lincoln Douglas now. I coached at an LD camp (SJDI) a few years ago, but still be gentle with the quirks of the activity please. Some thoughts:

• If you want to persuade me on theory arguments, you're going to have to actually debate and explain the theory arguments. I'm not the best judge to go for conditionality in front of. This isn't to say I won't vote for theory arguments, because I will - just note that I have a low tolerance for bad theory arguments and theory debates that arent warranted and fleshed out. Any LD-specific theory arguments (tricks, etc) please take extra time on (or avoid).
• I love a good K debate, but note that my K background is in policy debate (gender, queer theory, high theory, identity stuff, cap, colonialism, etc etc) and I'm less familiar with LD phil stuff so you'll need to be clear/slow and really write my ballot for me.

• RVIs - I will not flow them. Not gonna happen for you. Goodnight moon, game over, no.

• There's a painfully bad trend in LD of sending analytics and then zooming through them in speeches as if they're card text. They're not card text! And I don't flow anything I can't understand! You should not be relying on judges flowing off the doc.

General thoughts:

Debate is a game. I will vote for literally anything* if you argue it well, frame the debate, and have good evidence supporting it. Techy line-by-line is the way to go always but especially in front of me. If someone drops an argument, don't just say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate and why I should vote for you with it in mind. The same is true of critical moments in cross-ex. Framing in the last two speeches is incredibly important - write my ballot for me.

PLEASE slow down on taglines, analytics, theory arguments. If you are not clear I will let you know. If you don't adjust when I tell you you're not clear, speaker points will start to go down.

*Literally anything still has its limits. I will vote for "death good" type arguments, impact turns of critical arguments (heg good, war good), and really any silly argument that you win but I will NOT vote for any argument that defends racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of oppression, or for personal attacks on your opponents' character.

Ks: This is my wheelhouse (any and all). Note that this does not mean it will be easier for you to win a debate just because you read a K - because of my background in this type of debate I will hold you to a higher performance threshold. For the love of god please do line-by-line.

K affs: When I debated, I consistently read a K aff without a plan text. I also consistently went for framework/topicality against other planless K affs. My knowledge is strong on both sides of this debate, so if you're going to do it, do it well.

DAs/CPs: Not sure if I have anything special to say here. Make sure you do deep impact analysis and case turn work. I err neg on condo + counterplan theory most of the time.

T: Make sure your definitions aren't from silly sources. You have to do internal link and impact debate for topicality too. Topical version of the aff is huge.

Theory: As said above, this is probably my achilles heel in terms of debate knowledge. If you're going to go all in on theory arguments, go slow and explain things.

Public Forum:

I'm new to this, but thus far my policy and LD experience has served me well! A few important things:

1) If I am your judge you must have an email chain or google doc. Calling for cards is a waste of time -- send your speech docs before your speeches WITH YOUR EVIDENCE IN THE DOCUMENT! If you do not do this, I will be taking the time it takes you to find the evidence and send it to your opponent out of your prep time.I cannot emphasize this enough.

2) I don't want your "off time road map" to be a list of the arguments you're going to answer. Just tell me which flow goes where - a simple "our case, then their case" works fine.

3) CLASH IS KEY - in the final speeches I NEED some sort of impact and link comparison or else I end up having to intervene more than I like to. Draw lines through the entire debate - your speeches are not islands. Connect them.

I have done both PF and LD debate throughout high school, but my expertise falls in LD judging. Here are some ground rules that I expect to be followed during the round:

1. Speak clearly, do not overly speed. I can keep up well with fast talking arguments, but please be cognizant of how this will affect your speaking style and the round as a whole, as that will play a role in my decision.

2. I can flow well, but still appreciate sign posting/outlining your arguments so I can understand what's happening in the debate.

3. Show respect to both me and your opponent.

4. I personally do not have experience with progressive LD debate, so I will prefer a clearer traditional debate. However, I am open to all types of cases.

Above all, make sure to have a good time!

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

ajkdebate@gmail.com

I’m usually tired when judging, so the less time wasted, the higher the speaks.

Flow, do line by line, include judge instructions.

+0.1 speaks for every minute of prep you and your partner don't use capped at 29.9

Hello,

I am a third-year speech and debate coach. My pronouns are he/him.

I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013.

I prefer a conversational speaking speed. Clarity is more important than speed. I’m OK with speaking fast, but if you’re spreading too fast for me to understand, then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. At your request, I can tap on the desk or otherwise signal you if you're speaking too fast for me to understand.

Don't run tricks. Don't run frivolous arguments full of arcane academic jargon meant to sound intelligent without any context or substance. You are not a sorcerer reading a spellbook.

Generally not a fan of theory shells unless there is a very real apparent violation/abuse in round.

LD - I prefer traditional debate in LD but I have been persuaded to vote for Ks, plans, counterplans etc in the past.

PF - I don't like progressive cases in PF. I believe a key part that distinguishes Public Forum as a debate event is it is meant the be interpreted by the "public", meaning the average person off the street could observe the round and understand what is going on.

General notes:

-extend your frameworks

-quality>quantity. Fewer better quality arguments with better weighing/analysis is better than winning lots of weak arguments

-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you

-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning

-Disclosure – include me in the email chain/speechdrop for your case/evidence. ESPECIALLY if you spread/read fast. I find that I can judge much more effectively and accurately when I can follow along with your arguments on my computer while I flow.

-Extend all arguments, don’t bring in new arguments in final focus, and weigh your arguments. What are the real world impacts? Why does this matter? I need to know the answers to these questions.

-Cross – It’s always tragic to me when competitors make great points in cross and then don’t bring up those points at all in any of their speeches. If it’s not in a speech I can’t flow it.

-Falsifying evidence/lying in round will lead to an automatic loss. On a related note – I don’t like paraphrasing. if you do so you better have that card in hand ready to show me. I have dropped competitors more than once for “stretching” / “creatively interpreting” evidence.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Email - arthur.kulawik@browardschools.com (but I prefer speechdrop)

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accessibility:

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

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

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck everyone!

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

Here's my judging stats.

Glenbrooks Update

I stillhave zero topic knowledge.

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

Cross-ex is a speech with limited time constraints; you can ask silly questions during prep but I won't flow them or think about them.

Cordiality is good and important. Stealing prep is bad and I'll obliterate your points.

For LD/CX:

I don't feel that I have robust ideological views about debate, and I find that most paradigms ultimately become a lecture about how people think debate works and why you should debate that way in front of them. I am certainly unqualified to explain what particular T argument is the most compelling and why, that being said, I think you should debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability as the debaters have told me to. I do have some 'warnings' that you may find germane to how I make my decisions usually.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

I tend to think debate is good because of clash, otherwise it's not debate.

I dislike blips. I tend to think that a winning argument requires an investment of time, and would prefer to vote on the core of the round.

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations is a tab question; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

Lexington '22. Qualified for the TOC twice.

Email: vmaan03@gmail.com

Policy: I am more comfortable with this style of debate than some may assume. I err towards more impact calculus and judge instruction. I enjoy election and PTX debates. I'm fine with T and process CP debates since it forces better AFF writing. For a DA to turn the case, it must turn the affirmative's internal links. I am generally persuaded that the link controls uniqueness, but for less probabilistic uniqueness claims (elections, politics, etc.), I can be convinced by the inverse. I am a fan of smart UQ CP's that artificially create DA's and/or side step impact turns. Default to judge kick.

Phil: Please read framework hijacks. Don’t shoehorn in bad offense just to read the philosophy you want—you’ll likely lose. I prefer carded philosophy over analytical justifications, but either is fine. Frameworks are an offense filter but if you’re reading epistemic modesty, be sure to explain how I should correctly resolve the round under that framework. "Extinction outweighs" is a contention level argument that needs to be paired with a warrant for consequentialism. Skep vs K Affs is legit.

Theory: There’s no such thing as "frivolous" theory but I am great for reasonability and drop the argument. Weighing and judge instruction are critical because theory debates can easily turn into a wash. I enjoy creative combo shells and unorthodox interpretations.

Tricks: This is a broad category. I like philosophical tricks and skepticism but dislike underdeveloped spikes and paradoxes. Stick to a few tricks and be ready to defend them when answered. Arguments start from 0 to 100, so ensure they include a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

Kritik: I’m persuaded by plan focus and extinction outweighs. I favor fairness arguments when going for T-Framework, though I am willing to vote on clash as well. I am quite terrible for K v. K debates.

hi I’m a parent and speaking is really important to me in debate. Most often I vote for the debater that has the best vocal fluctuations. I prefer that debaters stand while they give speeches. I would also prefer if debaters could print out their cases and not use technology during the round.

regarding speaker points, I usually give speaks from about 24-27 and it is very hard to earn a 27 in front of me.

Harker '21 - debated for 7 years in LD and Policy

email chain - 21akshaym@students.harker.org

Policy args > Ks >> Phil / Tricks

Policy args:

Vast majority of args I read in my career - i feel very comfortable evaluating these debates, go for it. love to see creative and well-researched strategies, which will be reflected in speaks

impact turns are some of my favorite debates - co2 ag, dedev, etc are all on the table, and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

politics probably a thing, but also probably can lose to smart analytics especially if your cards are bad. that said i'm a sucker for a good politics disad

i lean very heavily towards judge kick -- probably a really hard uphill battle for the aff to persuade me against that.

i'd be very hard pressed to vote on zero risk.

Theory

good for more stock theory args (mostly CP theory) than frivolous theory -- i am more receptive to reasonability and arbitrariness args against spec, new affs bad, etc. good for regular disclosure but not niche args like "round reports", etc

i prefer paragraph theory on the offending page (eg condo on a CP) then as a "new off"

i lean neg on most counterplan theory except for international fiat.

i find competition arguments against cheating counterplans more persuasive than theory arguments

default drop the arg (unless it's condo), competing interps, no rvis

i'll flow by ear for these debates so slow down

have warrants for your arguments beyond "vote aff for deterrence" or similar stuff

Ks:

better for these debates than you might think based on the arguments I read as a debater. I read through most literature bases during my time as a debater, and I feel comfortable evaluating these debates. 2nr link contextualization (e.g., drawing lines from 1ac/1ar evidence) factors heavily into my decision calculus.

Negs will do best by saliently dealing with the case -- either with robust link turns the case, alt solves the case, and unsustainability arguments, or with a *heavy* push on framework. the case page should make the 2nr. I find critiques of extinction impacts more persuasive than "structural violence outweighs". that said, i think most critiques have more compelling extinction impacts than a good deal of policy affs. i find aff ballots most persuasive when the negative underexplains the reasons behind their structural claims (especially regarding ontology arguments). equally debated, i think the aff generally gets access to the case, but specific framework evidence goes a long way for the negative (especially regarding epistemology claims). ROJ/ROB are silly/contrived mechanisms.

For the aff, I find 2ars on case outweighs or impact turns most compelling. impact turns are often underutilized. please explain perms -- "perm do both perm do the alt perm double bind" in one breath can be answered by a thumbs down from the neg. weighing is most important for me when judging this genre of debates.

between debaters of equal caliber, i think soft left affs would consistently lose to the critique. hard left/topical K affs (that assert a theory of power) seem extremely strategic to me *if* well-researched and germane to the topic.

line by line >>>> big overview

floating piks should be identified in the 1nc.

K affs:

Prefer affs that are within the parameters of the resolution. better for k affs that have a spin on the topic rather than impact turning every element of limits/debate. if you're negating, i mostly prefer arguments about skills or clash over fairness on framework. K affs probably get perms. the 2nr should cover the case. I think K v K debates can be incredibly interesting (and what I normally went for in these debates), but specific link and alt work by the negative is crucial.

Topicality

update: *not a good judge for nebel t - i very often vote affirmative in this debates*

probably lean towards competing interps. i'd prefer a substance debate to topicality but good T debates are enjoyable to watch and get good speaks.

i prefer topicality to be well developed in the 1nc, and I find many 2nrs to be almost completely new in explaining their standards. i dislike how prescripted these debates tend to be, especially with regards to nebel T -- I’ll lean against pre scripted nebel 2nrs and underdeveloped 1nc t arguments when pointed out by the aff.

Phil

i appreciate philosophical literature but find these debates to usually be exceedingly blippy or underwarranted -- not the judge for you if that's your style. i prefer ACs & NCs with evidence justifying the framework. slow down on dense or niche framework explanations. I did not read these arguments in high school but debated them a number of times.

Tricks

just read a disad please

"underview" of more than a minute caps your speaks at a 27. please debate the topic.

presumption always flips neg, unless the 2nr includes an advocacy.

Other things --

fine with inserting rehighlightings

i will definitely read your evidence. i'll reward good ev with good speaks, and punish bad ev with bad speaks. evidence quality caps your truth claims, even if they're dropped -- please reference ev quality in your speeches in general (this shouldn't substitute for explanation though). good topic knowledge is also good for speaks

smart analytics can beat bad cards

"independent voters" are usually not independent voters -- i am unlikely to vote for args flagged as such without a theoretical justification for doing so

dropped arguments are still influenced by how true they are -- e.g., dropping no neg arguments is not an issue. i won't be too interventionist/this is more aimed at tricks but dont prioritize lots of terrible blippy offcase or arguments in favor of a smaller more substantive strategy

good humor/sarcasm is very good for speaks

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

LD

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

PF

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

I've been coaching and judging for 8 years, primarily PF and LD.

Email- cale@victorybriefs.com (SpeechDrop works too)

Affiliations: Del Norte, Magnolia, Director of PF at VBI

Former: Westlake, Flanagan, Corona del Sol, Brophy, Quarry Lane

General:

I want you to read whatever you are best at provided you are clear. Judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun.

Debate is hard work, so I will work hard to flow closely and give you a well reasoned decision. However, absent clarity, I can't do that.

Being clear means you:
- Send a well-organized doc.
- Don't spread off-doc analytics.
- Are explicitly line by lining arguments, not vaguely cross-applying an overview all over the place.
- Signposting when you're transitioning between arguments.
- Numbering and delineating different answers.

Whenever I am not confident in a decision, I can usually trace it back to one of the above elements.

I won't 'gut-check' or hand wave away your opponents' argument because you think it's silly or under warranted. Engage in the argument- if it's as frivolous as you're suggesting, doing so should be easy.

Finally, be kind to each other. I am a teacher and would appreciate if you treated each other the same way you would in a classroom. This includes arguments that insert screenshots or other personal information about your opponent: save for disclosure arguments, this is not the place.

Policy:

I will judge kick the CP. I am good for your competition-based or process CP and find most blippy cp theory claims to be less persuasive than meaningful engagements in a competition debate. With that being said, walls of three word perms aren't 'meaningful engagement'- contextualize your permutations. My default is limitless condo. I won't hack for it, but it is a strong default.

Zero-risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero.

I do not actively coach policy, and have primarily judged LD the past three seasons, so you should probably err on the side of being extra clear in standards debates on T.

I can judge critical debates, but often find myself frustrated with teams that are too overview heavy. Please explicitly line by line your opponent's fw claims, particularly if you're a planless aff.

I deeply appreciate well executed impact turn debates.

LD:

Policy- what I judge most. Everything above applies, although I am much more open to claims against limitless condo given speech times- just make your cp theory claims more precise.

Theory- For some reason, this is 90% of what I judge. Please always send interps at a minimum, and slow for anything you extemp. To make this more tolerable, please lbl your opponent's theory hedge clearly. Debates where the 1n theory hedge is vaguely cross-applied to a 1ac theory overview are impossible to disentangle.

Tricks- Requirements for me to vote here: 1. It has a warrant & implication 2. It is delineated in the doc (not in the cut of a card or hidden in a tag) 3. You're not being intentionally obtuse in cross 4. You slow way down in the rebuttal speeches to make the extension + application of the argument exceptionally clear. With all of that being said, I have no predisposition against voting here, particularly if you're reading triggers for a fw, skep, or p&p.

K- I frequently judge and cut a variety of cap and setcol arguments. External to that, I will need more judge instruction/won't be steeped in your literature's jargon. Please lbl clearly: I find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere.

Phil- I have next to no experience save for Kant- I mostly judge nonsense tricky stuff. Need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

Traditional- I am unfamiliar with how to evaluate value/value criterion style debate. I am rarely sure what is happening in these rounds and will need extra judge instruction.

PF:

Extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument.

I can judge theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF- I only ask you don't read these positions just for the sake of doing it.

PF is basically never too fast, so the clarity stuff is less important. Just remember to signpost and to differentiate tags from the cut of your card.

Come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). The only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

Hey, I’m Jack and I debated for St. Petersburg High School graduating in 2020.

jackmckyton@gmail.com

2024 Update:2023 update still applies but worse. Signpost well, 70% speed or slower, and we'll be good. I've also noticed over the years that I'm WAY underqualified to judge certain arguments. I have no ideological preference against intense LARP v LARP or KvK debates, but I simply feel like I don't have the knowledge or experience to adequately judge them. If these are your go-to strats, pref me low for your own sake. If this is what you want to read in front of me I will evaluate them to the best of my ability.

2023 BF update: I haven’t judged for over a year and haven’t debated for two. This means I’m nowhere near up to date on new lingo/tricks, so err on the side of over explanation. Keep it 80% speed or less.

Update for Blake 21: Haven’t thought about debate in a year or so. That means you should definitely slow down to 75-80% speed and try not to extemp tricks Bc I’ll probably miss something. Also, I realized I’m even worse for performance K’s than I thought. If this is what you do best, I’d recommend you strike or at the very least pref me at the bottom of your list. While I think these arguments are really interesting and have their place in debate, I’m just not great at evaluating them.

Note for Lex RR: Please go at like 80% of your normal constructive speed. The audio might be kinda shaky on messenger and I don’t wanna miss an arg bc of it, so just slow down and it’ll be better for all parties.

Top level: Debate is fundamentally a game. Thus, when you’re in front of me your best strategy is to go for whatever you’re most comfortable with and gives you the best chance to win (barring anything that makes the round unsafe). I also believe that the role of the judge isn’t to inject my ideological biases into the round but rather to adapt to the debaters’ in order to create the most objective decision. I really don’t care what you read and I have appreciation for every style in the activity, whether that’s performance, LARP, trix, or anything else in between. That being said, I do have some preferences, and I don’t know how they will affect me since I haven’t judged yet, so those are posted below.

Theory

All good here. Read this in a lot of rounds so this is probably what I'm the most comfortable evaluating. Don’t care how frivolous or wacky the shell is as long as you win it. And no, responses like “this shell is stupid” isn’t gonna cut it.

Also, flashing analytics would be much appreciated bc I'm not the best flower.

Defaults:

- Competing interps. I’ll vote on reasonability but I need a brightline to be able to evaluate it. To clarify, a brightline isn’t a defensive counter-interp but rather a threshold of offense you need to mitigate in order to beat back the shell. For example, if your opponent reads disclosure, an acceptable brightline would be something like “in-round abuse”, not “it’s ok if they didn’t ask pre-round”

- No RVI’s

- Truth testing > comp worlds

- Metatheory > T > theory > K > substance

- I don’t default fairness and education as voters. If it goes unwarranted through the debate, the shell has no impact and I’ll vote off substance. Same with drop the debater/drop the argument

- Converse of the interp probably doesn’t make grammatical sense as a counter-interp but I’ll evaluate it as the opposite of the interp if your opponent doesn’t call you out. “I’ll defend the violation” probably makes more sense

- Presumption flows aff, permissibility flows neg

These are all defaults and I really don’t wanna have to remember them to make decisions so just take a stance and we’ll be good.

Phil

Good here as well. Read this a lot I think I’ll be decent at evaluating these debates. These rounds can get hard to resolve, but it helps if the 2N/2A cleanly wins their syllogism and why it comes first. The strategy of extending independent justifications to hijack the NC/AC is cool too just make sure to weigh. I default confidence, but I’m willing to vote on modesty if won.

Trix

Yep, coming from Florida I understand these fairly well. I have more experience going for theory tricks than substantive tricks, but I’m down to vote for both if explained. The only exception to this is evaluate the debater after the AC/NC. This is because in order to evaluate the argument I need to hear it in the last speech, but that would mean evaluating after the first or second speech would require me evaluating all speeches.

Please at least separate the arguments into numbers and subpoints so I can get everything down.

I’m cool if you read these against K affs, but try being a little more sensitive than “oppression doesn’t exist lmao gotem”. I think the inclusion hijack under TT can be really strategic here.

If you read these against novices or trad debaters your speaks are capped at 26

LARP

Didn’t debate this a ton in high school, but it's what I've exclusively done in college so I’m confident I’ll be able to evaluate these debates. Might not know topic-specific acronyms all the time, but I’ll be fine for jf20 at least. I think layered util frameworks with extinction first, EM, TJFs, reject calc indicts etc. can be really strategic.

.

Speaks

I’ll probably average around a 28.7, but I may inflate, who knows. I’m willing to disclose speaks if asked, if not then I’ll probably forget.

Good luck!

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

Pref Cheat sheet:

Policy: 2-3
K: 1
Phil: 1
trix: 4-5
K aff/Performance: 1-2
T: 1
Theory: 1
about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I am a big fan of big words but I don't always know what they mean.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips, Kwudjwa, Cat, and Krizel

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse. Theory v Theory debates are fun but I need judge instruction as to how to evaluate the theory shells against each other and comparison between the scope and magnitude of the violations or which interpretation is best for debate or else I default on which ever violation came first.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

Phil:I have warmed up to this style of debate in the past couple of months and believe it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.

Trix:Honestly explain your offense even if its silly and I'll vote for it I'm just not a big fan of a bunch of hidden args everywhere.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy. +.1 for brain rot reference (doesn't stack I got my limits)

email: leomokriski@gmail.com

background: did LD for 4 years in highschool, qualified for nats my junior year, qualified for TOC my senior year, did policy at Emory University. I'm majoring in math and philosophy.

aff should set up email chain asap

speaks: go as fast as u want if speech docs are sent, points for being clear and slowing down on tag lines and passionate speaking

disclosure is good

TLDR: tech > truth, i am a flow judge

1 - Cap K, Phil

2 - all other ks

3 - policy, stock, theory, t, fw,

4/strike - trix

Noncircuit: generally noncircuit ld the debate will either come down to competing frameworks or weighing impacts. When you're operating under utilitarianism, make sure to do explicit weighing of your impacts through the some combination of magnitude, timeframe, probability, reversibility, and cyclicality. The key is to compare your impacts with your opponents, and articulate why yours matter more. For competing frameworks, it is important to combine your arguments about why your framework is good with equally potent arguments about why their's is bad. It is important to leverage your framework to frame the opponents impacts out by saying 'this impact doesn't matter under X ethical theory.' It is also important to win offense under an opponents framework, so that even if you're losing the framework debate, you still have offense under their's. The most important thing is to address every argument your opponent makes, and to leave no ambiguity as to why I should vote for you. Remember to speak clearly and to signpost throughout your speeches.

K: if you're gonna read a k u hv a good understanding of it. i am comfortable judging most ks including pomo and high phil, when i was in highschool i mainly ran cap k, baudrillard k, and sometimes i ran sec ks, foucault ks, setcol k, and some others im probably forgetting. if u can't explain ur k or its theory of power then i will not believe it. performance is dope if its interesting! k-affs need to do lots of work to beat t-fw. For k-affs, i generally prefer advocating for different forms of education/fairness/debate rather than saying that education/fairness/debate don't matter and/or are bad. u can say squo debate/fairness or education is bad, but should try to offer a better version that the aff solves.

Cap K: saying "their authors are capitalist" is not an argument, u need to justify why their evidence is flawed. most "cap good" arguments can be debunked w/o cards just w/ marxist analysis imo, but they still require response. vague alts are cringey, and explain why cap causes extinction. also ROTB/J is p important

Policy: any stock things is cool, cps is cool, more than one conditional advocacy in ld is probably unfair, do ur thing.

T: one or two t shells in the 1nc is fine, i will evaluate it based on the flow. no rvi on T.

Theory: friv theory is kindy cringe, and so is spamming lots of theory shells in the 1n. theory in the 1ar is good strat, if u think there is abuse in the round running theory is a good idea. aff can win RVI if it is dropped or undercovered.

FW: running fw against k-affs is usually necessary, and i will evaluate it fairly, but it is not enough on its own. neg has to disprove the affs theory of power and prove stuff like "debate is good" and "fairness matters" or "education matters" which i will be pretty charitable towards.

Phil: love phil debate and really miss doing it, i am a phil (and math) major so i should hv a decent understanding of most phil args, which means if ur defending util u should prolly allocate a good amount of time to the fw debate. in highschool i regularly ran Kant/korsgaard, contracts args, hobbes, etc. i am also comfy with p much any other philosophers, i.e. sartre, camus, foucault, Derrida etc. just display a good understanding of their theories and be able to explain them well. author indicts; lots of philosophers (especially french ones) are very problematic ppl, but nevertheless i dont think its enough to just say X philosopher is racist/sexist/transphobic, u should also try to tie their x-phobia to their theory so that i find the arg more convincing, but if other team drops it i will still vote on it.

trix r4 kids, wont be evaluating these until halloween

Tech>truth

Put me on email chain amn321@lehigh.edu

I debated LD in the mid-80s and then policy in both high school and college and have judged at several tournaments in the last three years.

Nothing is off limits for me except trix and speed is OK with articulation; since I haven't been listening to spread for about 20 years (until 2-3 years ago) it is really nice if you slow down for tags and major arguments and then spread through the evidence; it is also better speaking form. The winning debater will make my job easy by writing my ballot. I may not be up to speed on all of the current terms and approaches, so please avoid the use of jargon and define terms. I can follow logic. Anything can be argued (i.e. theory) as long as it is clearly explained and there is proof that it should be argued. I like creativity, but the logic has to be solid.

The winning debater will make clear arguments, with clear links, consistent with the winning the framework. Rebuttal arguments should state an argument with clear proof; simply stating an argument does not prove it, unless its a well known fact like x person is president of x state.

Debaters who earn high speaker points will state a road map, follow the road map, use logic to prove arguments supported by evidence (not just refer to cards), use their speech time wisely, and treat their opponent and judge with respect. As mentioned above, slowing down a bit for tags and major arguments will improve both my flow and your speaker points.

Newark Science + Rutgers-Newark (debated for both)

-

Newman Email: [pending, haven't figured out the vibe yet]

P L E A S E - label email chains with the tournament, round + flight (if relevant), and teams.Something like "Newark Invitational R5 F2 - Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N OT [NEG]" would be great.

No SpeechDrop for me. I'm not kidding, I'm ideologically opposed to SpeechDrop. I don't flow off docs so my opinion might be whatever to y'all but just throwing it out there.

-

Now the stuff you came for: If it matters, I've done basically every debate style, both HS and College, full spectrum of the library. I don't care much about what you read but there's some stuff at the bottom regarding that "much" part. Just remember, I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it. On this, you should enter the debate assuming I don't want to be there (you'll see why in the "Random" section) and that your job is to enter the room, not make me sad, win the debate, probably take some RFD notes, and then leave the debate -- all as efficiently as possible.

General things:

• Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine. Inserted rehighlightings are fine. Cards in the body are fine. K affs are fine. F the topic affs are fine. Policy affs are fine. DA 2NRs are fine. CP 2NRs are fine. T/heory is fine. 12 off 1NCs are fine. Trad debate is fine. I really don't have particular gripes with anything but feel free to ask me specifics before round.

• Having an impact is good. Doing impact weighing is great. Impact turns are awesome.

• Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient). Good judge instruction resolves debates 9 times out of 10 though to be honest.
• I'm not tabula rasa (no one is) but I do like to make calculated decisions based on the framework of "a win is a win." In all honesty, I've only ever made 2 decisions that weren't based off of the flow and I was honest about why in my decision and to anyone who asked so yeah, I love my flows and I think honesty is important in an activity where you need it to grow as a person and debater.

• I am offering an ear to listen when debate forgets that it should be creating good (enough) people. Don't be afraid to find and talk to me. BUT while I love a good wellness check, I am NOT a therapist so no trauma dumps because I will only be able to tell you a good ice cream shop to go to with your team.

Random things I feel the need to emphasize...

• Please. Please. Please. Do not try to appeal to me as a person. I gave up my soul for a fun-sized Snickers bar years ago. If you say "judge have a soul" or some variation of that, you're speaking to an empty vessel. Anything that might still be left is dedicated to making sure my kids are learning, winning, having fun.

• I have a fairly good poker face. I say fairly good because I can't control my laughter, or disgust, so if I get an outrageous message or the round is meant to be funny or whatever, I'll probably crack. This just means please do not use my expressions, laughter, sighs, or whatever else as a measure for how well you're doing or not.

• I love this activity. I consistently dedicate my summers to debate/camp (Summer 2024 -- I was only home from for 8 days between May and September and it was because of a family emergency). Please act like you want to be here or just forfeit so I can eat or coach or get sun.

• ^^ Tangentially related to this, I am okay with if someone/team doesn't want to have a traditional round (like they want the round to be a dialogue or they want to flip a coin to decide the winner). I am not okay with having my time wasted so everyone needs to get on the same page quickly about what my role is, how I should decide/vote, etc. so I can, again, leave as quickly as possible to take a nap or breathe fresh air or laugh with friends.

The below thoughts are my attempt to change the panels I've been on/what I've been adjudicating...

• I like to vote for people who read and then can prove it. If you know the literature, then read it. If you don't know the literature, then don't. This sounds like a K thing but some of you don't even know how to go for a counterplan and your speaks would be better served reading a Kant 1NC.
• Strategic thinking is good. Sometimes debates have to get a little bit messy to show the judge the whole chess board but as long as you're instructing, it's all good. Don't be afraid! If your speech ends and I'm thinking, "oh man, that was smart" or "that was silly but well executed," that's good and you'll probably be rewarded (even if it means I have to sit through a "they dropped condo" 2AR).
• A lot of you believe that you can do tricks. You can't. It's annoying to hear. This is not an invitation to try and do it well in front of me. You're not that guy (general phrase, not a gender question) so I don't want to hear it.
• Many of you lack a conception of time and the physical limits of the body. You think your judges aren't tired after judging double flights all day and can blaze at top speed and then that you're justified being upset at decisions. That's silly.

Presumption

I am one of the most naturally neutral individuals I know. I will NOT favor a side because I SHOULD. I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. Don't assume -- just explain.

Speed

Be understood. Be clear. If I don't flow it... IT NEVER HAPPENED. Remember this during warrants / impacts / extensions. I rarely call for cards, so if I need to hear it, make sure you set the scene for optimal results.

Theory/ K

Debating about debate is fun and engaging -- if it makes sense. Silly theories are just silly, but go back to my section on presumption - I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. If you convince me that the theory is valid, then it is for the round. I will not assume how it functions or the reasonability of it. Prove that it does or doesn't. A good K with clear explinations, links and impacts are refreshing to me. Neg must explain why aff can't perm the day away -- why is the alt superior? Aff, why is the perm better than the alt and case solo? This is where speed choices are important.

Evidence

Here are a few questions you should ask yourself: Do you understand the card? Does it link to the argumentation presented? Is it topical to the context you're using it in? Do the warrants exist in the text? Is it qualified? Is it dated? ....is clipping truly worth it?

T's, DA's, CPs

Policy was my niche back in the day. That being said -- I'll buy it if its clear, all conditions are met, it makes sense, and if it actually does something / proves a point. I will follow the flow, and the flow alone. Keep it clean!

Finally... most importantly... tell me WHY I should be voting for you. Yes. I want voters. Explain why a drop is catastrophic. Tell me why case outweighs. You know what happens when you assume... don't assume that I'm rolling with you. Explain why I should be.

Spkr Point Breakdown

30 Likely to take the tournament

29.5 Contender to the crown

29 Excited to see how deep you go!

28.5 Highly likely to clear

28 Clearing is possible

27.5 On the bubble, keep pushing

27 Congrats on earning entry into the tournament!!

*email chain: - use file sharing software if available instead of email chain pls

Tabroom.com is mostly my fault. Therefore I'm out of the active coaching game, but occasionally will stick myself on a pref sheet as a free strike so I can judge in an emergency.

I prefer using the Tabroom docshare system (which I did not write as it happens) because it scrubs your personal data. I will not read along with your docs though and only consult them after. If I don't hear it I don't vote on it.

My history in the activity includes competing in parliamentary debate and extemp, coaching and judging a lot of extemp, PF, LD and some other IEs, policy and congress along the way. I've coached both champs and people who are lucky to win rounds, and respect both. I coached at Milton Academy, Newton South HS and Lexington HS in that order.

All: Racist, ableist, sexist, trans- or homophobic, or other directly exclusionary language and conduct is an auto-loss. Debate the arguments, not the debater. I will apply my own standards/judgment, it's the only way I can enforce it.

Policy & LD: I'm not active but do regularly see debates. I'm OK with your speed but not topic specific jargon. Be slower for tags and author names. If you're losing me I'll say clear a couple times, but eventually will give up flowing and you won't like what happens next. I won't lean on the docs to catch up and have zero shame in saying "I didn't get it so I didn't vote for it." If I don't understand it until the 2N/2AR I consider it new.

LD: I did a lot of LD in the late 90s until the mid 2000s, then mostly stopped, then started again at Lex and coached them for about eight years. So I'm comfy with both older-school framework debates and the LARP/policy arguments my kids mostly ran.

My threshold on theory tends to be high; dumb theory debates are part of why I stopped coaching LD. I wrote an article that people still card about how theory should be relegated to actual norm creation instead of tactical wins -- though if you card me as an attempt to flatter instead of actually understanding the point, I will probably be cross.

I also dislike debates about out of round conduct or issues. I can't judge based on things I did not see, such as disclosure theory, pre-round shenanigans, or "he said last debate that he'd do X and he didn't." I also will take a dim view towards post-rounding that crosses from questions into a 3AR/3NR and will adjust points to reflect that.

Don't tell me that the tab room won't let me do that. I can always do that.

K: I am sympathetic to the aims of K debate, and will vote for it if it makes sense in the round, but Ks get no more gimme wins from me than any other argument. If it doesn't link or I don't get the impact or the alt sounds like we're supposed to stop all the world's troubles by singing campfire songs you'll probably lose.

I take a dim view on the type of K or identity debates that demand disclosure of identity from anyone in the room. I'm part of the LGBTQ spectrum, and when I was competing, I could not disclose that without risk to myself. I therefore flinch reflexively if you seem to demand to know anyone's place on various identity spectrums as the price of winning a debate. A place in debate should not be at the cost of their privacy.

That said, if you put your own identity in the round you risk your identity being debated. Don't try to run a K and then call no tag-backs if someone actually engages and answers it.

Policy: I have less background in your activity than I do in LD. So I know the general outlines fine, as the events have converged, but I'm definitely going to need you to slow down just a titch especially if you're running topic specific T or policy specific theory/condo stuff. I'm not a fan of the politics debate and have a very low threshold on no-link args there, since I tend to believe politics almost never links anyway.

Also see the K section under LD.

PF: I mostly enjoy PF rounds and coached it as my only debate event for about 4 years at Newton South. I don't sneer at it like a lot of coaches from the LD/Policyverse might. However, there are a few things I really dislike that proliferate in PF.

1) Evidence shenanigans between speeches. Have your evidence ready for your opponent to read/review immediately. Your partner can create a doc while you speak, for crying out loud. If you fumble around with it and can't get your act together, you'll see your speaks dropping.

2) Evidence shenanigans during speeches. Look, PF speeches are short. I get it. But ultimately the decisions as to whether you're abusing evidence are mine to make and I will make them. Don't fabricate, make up, or infer things your evidence doesn't say because I will read and check anything that sounds suspicious to me, or your opponents call out. This includes PF Math™: taking numbers out of your ev and combining them in ways the author did not. I read a lot of news so the likelihood I know when you're making it up is rather high.

3) Good God most crossfires, especially the free-for-all at the end, make me want to stab my ears out. Here's where I import prejudices from LD and policy more than anything: cross is about setting up arguments and confirming things, not trying to corner and AHA! your opponents or sneaking in a third contention. Set up arguments, don't make them. If you try to extend something out of cross, that's not going to go well for you. If you are an obnoxious talkshow nitwit, that's REALLY not going to go well for you.

4) If you're playing the game of "Look How Circuit I Can Be Mr Policy/LD Judge!" and your opponent has zero idea of what's going on, I'm not impressed. Debate is engagement, and giving your opponent no chance to engage by design is pretty much an auto-loss in my book. That does not mean you should shy away from creative arguments. It means you must explain them so that everyone in the room can be expected to understand and engage with them as long as they're trying to.

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

Personal Background:

I have a foundation in Policy (Baylor Institute) and LD, with more experience in LD. Helped start the speech and debate program at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. For context, that was 25 years ago. Now a parent judge.

Judging Philosophy:

• Tabula rasa. Tech>truth. I enjoy originality, but it is up to you to persuade that your argument should be a voter.
  

• I still strongly believe that the framework debate is integral in Lincoln-Douglas debate, and that every word of the resolution has meaning and is fair game for debate. That being said, I'm fine if framework is essentially punted by both sides, and will then go where the flow sheet takes me.
• I should be comfortable/familiar with most philosophical arguments in LD. There was much more of a focus on the same when I was debating, while now LARP/Policy seems the norm. I call it LDINO (LD in Name Only). I do enjoy a vigorous debate on philosophy, but am good if it is merely utility.

• I used to say spreading was fine, but I have observed a clear deficit in debaters actually using persuasive skills, as well as critical analysis of the evidence presented in the case. I would prefer you consider me "lay" or "flay", if it will result in debating at a reasonable pace, balancing persuasion/analysis and quantity of words.
• Enjoy yourselves. This is supposed to be fun. Make it fun for me as well by not being obnoxious to each other in cross.
• I highly enjoy theory and K's when done well, but highly dislike them when not done properly and reasonably. Do not assume that I know the current customs of the debate world when making these arguments. I probably don't.
• In debate and life, the quality and reliability of your evidence matters. This is particularly true in this world of utility LD, and in PF/Policy. I prefer debaters that take the time to truly understand the evidence/studies that they are espousing, and avoid misuse and/or miscategorization of a the actual content of a study/article.
• The flow sheet means very little to me unless you effectively crystallize and weigh.

Please email material to: jpaul3405@gmail.com

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

poole.ronald344@gmail.com I may not look at your speech doc at all, as I rarely do, but I still want it.

TL; DR.

Debate is a game. After this round, the world will keep turning. I vote solely based on evidentiary clash and technical debating. I will not consider pre-round interpersonal conflict in my decision.

General Thoughts - Policy & Lincoln Douglas (mostly)

Everyone has equal access to competing interpretations. This is an important note on FW, T, the K... all of it. Participants should be prepared to defend their model of debate in the context of the opposing model presented by the opposing team. While I'm confident in my ability to judge ANY round, you can prefer me for pretty much all K & Theory debates (so long as you are sure you can out-tech your opponents). These debates-- K v. T, K v. K, (some) performative debates, debates about debate-- have the potential to be super interesting and enriching for the game. However, they most often are not. Since I don't know that this can be helped entirely, my suggestion to you is to be clear and to make it make sense-- defend your assumptions to get access to your impacts. Given today's average K-team, that's the very least you could do for me to be engaged. Ultimately, I'll only consider smart, thorough offense on the flow. High theory stuff (à la Baudrillard, D&G, Bataille, Kant, Heidegger, Lacan, and their others) is cool, but I tend to vote based on advocacy, i.e., through some definitive method that expands the (educator) framework I'm inclined to default to, not how well you can explain the ineffable in a 3 or 4-minute 2NR overview. I'll be honest in saying I'm not a fan of all-out policy showdowns since [1] I think a bad policy round is worse than a bad K round, and [2] because of 1, I (regrettably) end up sifting through massive speech docs, checking cards in the post-round. But I've found myself defaulting to stock issues in a lot of the rounds I've judged recently. All to say, I can keep up... Just make sure you can.

General Thoughts - Public Forum

Public Forum is not Policy debate. If you read a K in front of me or any manner of policy arguments, I will most certainly laugh. Coaches and Judges on national circuits spend so much time confused about how to stop Public Forum from becoming exclusionary and violent. I do not share in their confusion. Ballots are how this problem started, and ballots are how I intend to solve the problem from my small corner of the world. I'm not so sanctimonious that I won't consider well-developed (and sustained) arguments, but just know that teams that run Policy arguments in front of me in a Public Forum round are starting from behind.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

updated nov 2023 for gbx

I have been out of debate (washed/retired) for almost 2 years

this means

1) start your speeches SLOW so i can actually hear them

2) if i dont catch/minunderstand anything because its unclear/makes no sense to me,its your fault

---

yes email chain : anshureddy30@gmail.com

Harker 2022

Debated in LD for 5 years

favorite argument I ever read: T/FW vs K aff

policy:

(Case/DA/CP) > T/Theory >> Phil/Tricks > K

99% of my debates have been here - take that as you will

logical argument > unexplained claims, i love some W logic

i also enjoy creative impact turns, examples i have gone for: co2 ag, renewables bad, heg, spark, decol bad->loose nukes

t/theory:

i have had some fun theory debates, some with arguments worth hearing, some not

defaults: NO RVIS, reasonability (debate it out tho)

will be a lot harder to convince me to vote on an rvi

ks:

womp womp

thugs ts out

if it doesn't look like I understand what's going on its because I don't

lbl in the 2nr>>> the big overview

answer this question pls (or question its answer as aff): "lowkey what does the alt do?"

phil/tricks:

i have zero debate experience here - mostly avoided it all my life

surprise me

misc:

fine with inserting rehighlightings

refer to arnav dani and muzzi khan's paradigm for debate arguments I agree with

I debated for SLC West High School for 4 Years, and am currently a Second Year at Emory University

Please add me to the email chain: hanna.ricee@gmail.com

Big Picture Stuff:

Be nice to one another, I really value respect in debates (especially CX)

Read whatever you are comfortable with, I will judge based on the contents of the round- I definitely have more experience with Policy arguments though, so do with that what you will

Tech>Truth but you need warrants

Don't read death good or anything that could be deemed offensive in front of me!

T: I enjoy T debates with substantive and applicable interps/deep lit bases- try not to read contrived interps- I normally default to competing interpretations but reasonability is cool too

CP: condo is probably good- aff teams should read lots of theory against cheaty CPs- I'm a good judge for CP/DA debates- I like CPs with funky mechanisms/processes as long as you can explain them clearly and have specific solvency evidence

DA: super fun, have specific link evidence and tell the story of the DA- I <3 turns case

K: not the best judge for Ks- I understand basic K lit such as Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, etc, but reading any other K requires deep explanation and specific links to the aff and the aff's mechanism

Have fun! :)

Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Junior Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT 2022 and 2023) and head coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to avoid intervention and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tjriggs03@gmail.com

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.

Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.

Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)

Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.

CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you (NOTE: New affs probably justify infinite condo).

Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.

Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.

Preferences (Public Forum):

Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.

Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.

Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.

Speech Preferences:

Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.

Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.

If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at tjriggs03@gmail.com

Please put me on the chain -- hailey.danielle98@gmail.com

I did policy debate at Washburn Rural High School (2013-17) and the University of Southern California (2017-21). I was always a 2N. I previously coached LD at the Marlborough School in Los Angeles (2018-21). I am currently a PhD student at Yale (infectious disease ecology/pandemic preparedness). I judge for UDLs and some national circuit tournaments in Nashville/Atlanta/Kansas when convenient (but not consistently).

Update for 2024:

I am no longer actively involved in debate. If I'm judging you, please assume it is the first debate I've judged on the topic. I’ll pick up on the basics of the topic pretty quickly, but in-depth T debates and super-niche CPs might be challenging. If this is your thing, go for it, but add context and explanation. Avoid acronyms.

Basics

Your burden is to make it make sense -- I am pretty neutral on whatever "it" is. Choose a strategy (early) and write the ballot for me. The earlier you do it, the better.

Don’t take any of this paradigm to be hard and fast rules! These are just my general thoughts and reflections on how I feel about debate.

Please go like 70% of your fastest speed if you're reading blocks in rebuttals. If you want it to show up in my decision, I need to be able to type it.

I'm more tech>truth in policy, but that may differ in other activities depending on the context (and framing of the debate). That said -- not a fan of arguments that only win if dropped. Don't just throw things at the wall to see what sticks. Thoughtful strategy and creative argumentation are the way to good speaker points.

Cards dumps as a substitution for deeper analysis is bad. Use evidence for warrants, not claims. If your highlighting is just a repeat of the tag, you might as well not have read the card. I'm a PhD student – I'm going to read your cards, but I want YOU to have interpreted them and I want them to be good :)

I will not vote for moral blackmail -- this applies to “vote for me or else I have to quit” and similar. If you have a concern like this, talk to your opponent/coaches/me outside of the round, but please do not make my ballot the arbiter of that decision (!!!)

Meta-Thoughts

Consequences-X---------------------------------No Consequences

Always 1%-----X---------------------------------0% Risk a Thing

Stone Faced------------------------X------------Reacts to your args

K vs Policy

Policy----------X----------------------------------K

Vote to affirm me------------------------------X Vote to affirm my argument

Link of omission-------------------------X-----Omit this argument

Not our Baudrillard-----------X-----------------Yes your Baudrillard

Ks don't have to link to the plan text (yes the aff overall), the aff gets to be weighed. Again, consequences matter to me.

K Affs v Framework debates usually come down to who wins what the purpose of debate is.

LD Specific

Nebel T--------------X-------------------------------Pragmatic Interps

RVI------------------------------------------------X-Real Args

Tricks/Phil----------------------------------------X--Real Args

Short Policy Debate-X------------------------------Different Type of Debate

I refuse to vote for theory that I subjectively believe to be frivolous regardless of the line by line, but speeches can alter my views on what is frivolous. Yes 1AR theory.

Pet Peeves:

- Reading your blocks monotone at 100% speed :( and double sad if on Zoom :( :(

- "Do you disclose speaks"

- Bad/miscut/misrepresented evidence :(

- Tagging cards "extinction" and nothing else :(

- Asking for cards or combining speech docs and saying its not prep????

- Asking what cards were read when no cards were marked

- Google docs :(

One Last Thing

If there is something/someone that you feel unsafe around, I am more than happy to assist you in finding the resources necessary to remedy the problem, but I ask they do not become a central component in the debate. That's not to say your concerns are not welcome or invalid, but I'd rather pursue a solution rather than give you a ballot and move on with my day. To make this possible, please feel free to email me before the round starts. I'll also try to be in the room early so that you can find me to ask questions or bring up concerns.

My email is taj@unitingthecrowns.com

2023 NDT Champion

2023 CEDA Champion

I used to read plans and afropess. I used to do LD in high school.

The Black Chorus Sings

I'm a traditional parent judge. I focus on how you present and lay your framework and how strongly you do your research to support your contentions.

I'll time you guys, but I suggest you time yourselves and your opponents.

I like debaters who speak clearly and seem confident. I do not like to see arrogance. During Cross exams- respect your opponent- do not cut or be rude ( I will count it negetive) .

Have questions reach me at moonroy2405@gmail.com

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Former assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-2024

sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.

Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.

K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.

(Scroll down for my PF paradigm)

Defaults

Comparative Worlds

Theory/T -> K -> Case

Reasonability

Drop the arg

No RVI

Fairness

Ethical Certainty

Presume Neg

Quals:

I do LD. I've qualled to the toc and reached deep elims in a few tournaments.

Disclaimer: I haven't done anything debate-related for two years, so I will be rusty with getting back into it.

LD:

Framework: I enjoy framework debates. Although I am a progressive debater, I do understand and can vote off of framework if sufficient enough for me. Just remember to extend reasons as to why your framework should take precedence in this round. Also, don't confuse your case with the framework and cross-apply your case arguments to justify your framework. They are two very different layers of debate.

Kritiks: Kritiks are my favorite part of debate. If you are planning to run a K, please make sure you understand how to debate a K and know sufficiently about the K to debate it.

Theory: When there is real in-round abuse, I think theory is a good check to it. However, when you run theory just for the sake of winning, it's annoying. I will vote off frivolous theory and a priori arguments but with very great displeasure (expect a drop of speaker points). Disclosure is probably good.

Topicality: Topicality arguments are great.

P/CP: Case arguments that pertain to the topic are great. I like clever plans and counter-plans. PiCs are great as well. I'll take whatever you got but remember to extend.

Contentions: If you aren't a progressive debater, this may seem more familiar to you. I am completely fine with lay and traditional arguments, and don't let the previous stuff scare you into thinking that.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the rebuttal speeches, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments and be explicit.

Add me to the email chain if you are spreading: jungwoo.seo@emory.edu

Please don't spread if your opponents can't either; it's abusive and doesn't promote educational practices that way.

PF:

If you're going to be fast, don't read paraphrased evidence. I will not flow it.

Framework: Although I know that PF is more of a contention level debate, I have seen interesting frameworks being used, so I'm open to new and interesting frameworks that work on proving your point. I default to CBA if no framework is mentioned.

Contentions: You are free to use whatever arguments that you think may help you and if I think you won that, I'll vote for it.

Crossfire: I think crossfire is my favorite part of PF debate. Please keep it civil but don't be afraid to make some sassy comments or ask good questions.

Extend: If you don't extend your case in the summary speech, I'm not going to flow it through the round.

Impact Calculus: This is critical, especially in public forum. I, as the judge, can't attach a value as to how I'm going to judge an argument if you don't tell me how to assign that value. Please remember to weigh your arguments.

Defense: Defense is not "sticky." You need to cleanly extend the defense you want me to evaluate in the summary and ff if you want me to evaluate it.

Theory: I will evaluate theory just as how it is evaluated in LD and CX. You do not need to ask your opponent if you can run theory or not; that's silly.

Please don't shake my hand, thanks.

Introduction

Call me Sam, Oak Park River Forest '21 & Emory '25, coach for Pace Academy, yes email chain oprfgs@gmail.com, I know absolutely nothing about this topic...

In my mind there are two serious reasons you might be reading my paradigm: either 1. you are determining prefs before a tournament or 2. you are determining how I will respond to your strategy before the round. I have organized my paradigm accordingly.

Listed below are the things I think are most important to point out about the way I judge, and the places where I might differ from the "consensus" of the debate community. If I do not bring up a certain issue, you should assume that I adopt the general "consensus view." If there is a particularly question that is important to you that I do not mention, you should absolutely feel free to email me before a tournament or even before a round. I will not write you an essay on what arguments to go for but I will answer straightforward yes or no questions like "is inserting a card ok if it was read in cx" (yes) or "when debated equally, do you think a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid if both teams agree a counterplan must be textually and functionally competitive" (also yes). If you are unsure whether your question is appropriate, ask anyway.

For Prefs

General

-I like smart arguments. I like line by line. I like spreading (while being clear) and reading lots of cards and comparing evidence.

-I put substantial effort into evaluating every debate I judge to the best of my ability. That being said, the following is a ranking from most to least of my average confidence in evaluating each type of debate: DA/CP/Case Turn v Policy Aff, T v Policy Aff, K v Policy Aff, T/FW/DA v K Aff, K v K Aff.

FW/K

-Debate is a competitive research game with a winner and a loser. It is my job to determine who the winner and the loser are based on who does the better debating in the round. It is very difficult to convince me to vote for something outside of the round (however, a team responding to "out-of-round" arguments should still defend why these arguments exceed the ballot's purview).

-I have not judged many T-USFG/FW debates, so I am not sure how idiosyncratic my approach of them is compared to common community practices. However, all else being equal, I have yet to see a convincing argument for why the affirmative should not have to defend a topical plan.

For Pre- (and Post-) round

General Notes

-Do not over-adapt. Do what you do, do it well, and you will get my ballot.

-I am easily impressed by debaters who demonstrate that they command an extensive but approachable understanding of American foreign policy, the internal politics of other countries, "critical" debates in academia, etc. I am easily depressed by debaters who's knowledge of these subject is superficial or who can not describe these things in a way that is easily digestible. The best way to prove to me your quality as a speaker is to debate an important area of study both in-depth and in a way that a non-expert could understand.

-Read re-highlightings.

-Have perm texts (it's ok to insert them).

-I generally flow in-person debates on paper. If you think you are going too fast you are. If you think you are unclear you are. Please slow down when you are making a lot of non-carded arguments in constructives, especially on T/Theory/K OVs.

-Generally, after the debate ends, I will create a list of the questions I need to resolve to determine which side won. If the answers to any of these questions can clearly be determined based on my flow I will resolve them in the appropriate way. Finally, I will read the evidence presented by both teams on the more ambiguous questions on my list, and incorporate evidence, spin, and analytical arguments into evaluating them. Therefore, while good evidence is always important, evidence quality begins to matter a lot more to me if you have done less work with spin/analytics/etc, which is something you should keep in mind in how you approach your 2nr/2ar.

-Online: I highly encourage you to turn on your video if you are able to do so. Debate is a communicative activity and seeing you speak significantly helps me understand you on a psychological level.

T

-If the most precise reading of the resolution results in a bad topic, that's a gripe for the topic comity, not a justification for trying to re-define the topic (on either the aff or the neg). Is it possible to win my ballot on debatability? Yes. Does it require a lot of impact work? Also yes.

-Instead of focusing on only winning I should look at debatiability, predictability, or any of their component parts, consider how I will evaluate the round after it ends. Often times both teams have offered multiple lenses that modify one or more of these categories and how they interact. The teams that win T debates in front of me are usually the ones who come closest to identifying all the impacts and framing devices in the debate and explaining how they resolve.

DAs

-I love the politics DA. However, politics DAs require a story. The words "strong-arming moderates" in your uq ev + an "aff requires PC" card do not a story make. I will give good points for (decent) innovative politics strategies because I think they get at the heart of what makes debate fun and the ambiguities that fiat creates.

-There is a direct, positive, linear relationship between the amount of impact calc you do and how likely I am to vote for you. I know that's a cliché and I'm still including it here which should clue you in to how important this is. This also means that I am not a fan of framing contentions, and I only think they are useful in so far as you impact out and do impact calc with the applicable arguments on the appropriate DA or counterplan page. This is not to say I will throw out framing contentions; I will still try to adjudicate the debate as fairly as possible, just know that all else being equal I lean negative on theses issues and if you are running a framing contention you are better off convincing me the neg's impacts are securitized and bad then you are convincing me that DAs are fake.

CPs

-I default to counterplans needing to be functionally and textually competitive. However, the way the affirmative determines if the CP meets that burden is the permutation. Therefore, when debated equally, a textually legitimate but functionally illegitimate perm is valid.

-I am sympathetic to being time pressed in the 2AC and think the threshold for a sufficient explanation for a perm or solvency deficit in the 2AC is that I am able to reasonably predict the subsequent 1AR explanation. However, I am a lot less sympathetic to perms and solvency deficits (especially impacts to solvency deficits) that sound substantially different in the 2AR then they do in the 1AR (or that barely feature in the 1AR but feature prominently in the 2AR). While this is opposite to your strategic incentives, the earlier you explain your arguments the better for me as a judge, and perms or solvency deficits that are explained thoroughly in the 2AC require less time investment to explain in the 1AR, so there is a cost/benefit calculus you have to take on.

-In my mind, perms are a yes/no question. My default way to evaluate perms is to look at each one, see if it clearly establishes that the counterplan is not an opportunity cost the the plan, and depending on if the answer is yes or no discard the counterplan or move on to other arguments respectively. One implication of this is that I am generally unsympathetic to "any risk of a link to the net benefit" answers to the perm. Nevertheless, my stance on perms as a yes/no question is somewhat malleable if debaters make explicit arguments for why I should understand the perm in a different way.

-I view CPs through the lens of negation theory. The negative is, first and foremost, responsible for giving me a reason the aff is bad (not just a reason the aff is less good than it could be). That means all counterplans must have offensive net benefits. I will never vote for a counterplan whose net benefit is better aff solvency. Even if the counterplan solves the aff better, and is mutually exclusive with the aff, it has not provided a reason the aff is bad.

-By default neg leaning on theory. The two most important things to my ballot on a theory argument: 1. Win topic side bias AND/OR how this theory argument implicates this topic specifically AND explain the implications of this. 2. Do impact calc. These debates often get messy, so being simple and formulaic is to your benefit.

-If judge kick is not brought up in the debate, I will kick the CP for you if it has been clearly designated as conditional/dispositional. Otherwise, I will evaluate the arguments for/against judge kick presented in the debate. If the counterplan has not been clearly designated as conditional I will not kick it.

Ks

-If neither team forwards a "middle ground" fw interpretation, like "weigh the advantage but also weigh reps links," I will not intervene and make one for you. I will only decide between the fw interpretations forwarded by either side, but a team can make arguments that modifying its fw interpretation in later speeches to attempt to take the "middle of the road" and capture the other team's offense.

-I am uncomfortable adjudicating anything other than the debating that took place within the round I am assigned. If there is harassment within the round, I hold the appropriate course of action to be stopping the debate and going to tab, where I am happy to argue that the team doing the harassment should be expelled from the tournament and talk to the team's coaches about the debaters facing repercussions. If there is harassment outside the round, talk to me and/or send me an email and we can go to tab and/or try to determine an appropriate course of action.

Final thoughts

-I think debate is no fun when everyone is up-tight and being a little fun and/or silly is a good thing. However, this should never come at the expense of debating well.

-I am probably a better judge for arguments like death good than the rest of this paradigm makes it seem.

-If you feel unsafe during a round for any reason, send me an email.

-I am still paying attention even I am staring off into the distance, especially if I am flowing on my computer.

Jared Shirts (he/him)

Gunn '22

Emory '25

Email Chain - Put me on the email chain. My email is jshirtsdebate@gmail.com.

Background - I did four years of policy at Gunn High School as a 1A/2N. I ran primarily policy strategies on both the aff and the neg during my time in high school. I now debate at Emory University.

Lay Debate Tourneys - I love lay debate. If this is a CFL League tourney or NSDA, I'm happy to judge as a parent judge. If there is a lay judge on the panel, adapt to them, not to me.

General Thoughts - I've been told I'm not very expressive during debates. This doesn't mean I think your arguments are bad---I just typically don't make facial expressions during speeches. Judge instruction is everything. Don't over-adapt to anything below, my preferences will always be overcome by effective debating. Just debate your strengths, and I'll try not to let my predispositions shape my view of your arguments.

T - A case list is necessary. I default to competing interpretations. Don't assume I know the topic intricacies.

DA - Like them. Impact calculus is critical.

CP - Don't speed through analytic blocks on competition debates - explanation is critical. I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Theory - Slow down on theory debating. I lean aff on international and multi-actor fiat. I lean neg on every other theory violation, and heavily neg when against new affs. Numerical interpretations for # of condo are arbitrary - condo is either good or bad.

Case - Love case strategies. DA Case 2NRs are severely underutilized, and strategies that rely on case pushes in the 2NR will be rewarded with speaks. Presumption exists, although it relies on either exceptional case debating or severe technical concessions.

K's - I have at least a basic understanding of most K literature. Historical examples and in-depth explanations are very valuable. Not a fan of giant overviews.

K Affs - Go for it. I typically went for FW against K affs. Fairness can be an impact if explained well, but it's a debate to be had.

Framing - I ran soft left affs most of high school, so I'm receptive to framing pages. Framing pages based on risk analysis and serial policy failure are significantly more persuasive to me than "structural violence first always" framing.

Speaks - Average debate will be around 28.8. Above 29.1 means I think you deserve to break, below 28 means there is something that needs to be improved upon.

Misc - Many of my thoughts on debate are influenced byWill Halverson and Evan Alexis. Natural Vikram Valame references will boost your speaks.

TOC Conflicts 2024: Anika Ganesh, Yesh Rao, Tanya Wei, David Xu, Mason Cheng, Spencer Swickle, Derek Han, Riley Ro

New Updates:

• Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about studying computer science or philosophy in college or if you're interested in computer science research, especially in artificial intelligence or natural language processing!

• Debate is an educational activity, and I feel completely comfortable ignoring arguments that add no value (or negative value) to the activity. Here is my brightline: if you would not feel comfortable extending an argument unless it were completely conceded, you should not read it.Arguments like evaluate the debate after X speech, Zeno's paradox, Meno's Paradox, etc. (at least the way they're read as one-liners) all fall into this category. You have been warned. On the other hand, I would certainly vote on other types of 'tricks' that are interesting and have good warrants (if your argument is carded from a philosophical journal, for instance, it is probably legitimate). If you can execute this kind of a strategy well, I will likely be impressed and reward your speaks.

• I strongly prefer the type of rounds where debaters extemp smart, intuitive arguments, and make high-level strategy decisions about what to do. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on reading mainly off the doc without any original thinking, I am not the judge for you and your speaks will almost certainly be capped. Essentially, your speaks are a function of how strategic your decisions were and how much original thinking you put into the round.

• Check out the Circuit Debater Library wiki for explanations on all of the most common LD arguments!

---

Hey, I'm Zach, and I debated for Scarsdale High School '21 in LD, where I broke at the TOC twice. I now coach LD at Scarsdale and attend Princeton '25, pursuing a major in computer science and minors in philosophy and mathematics.

Email: zachary@siegel.com

I have the most experience judging theory and philosophical framework debates. I have less experience judging policy and K debates, although I will do my best to evaluate all rounds in a non-interventionist manner. I feel fine judging clash debates (e.g. policy v K) but you DO NOT want me in the back of the room if the round comes down to a technical policy debate.

Some musings:

• Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact. If I do not understand the warrant of an argument or do not believe it to justify the claim, I will not vote on it. I won't vote on extended arguments if I don't catch them in previous speeches.

• I will attempt to default to the assumptions made by debaters in the round. However, if this seems unclear, on theory, I will default to fairness, education, competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater, and on substance, truth testing with presumption and permissibility negating.

• I will not vote on out of round violations that, if contested, provide no clear way to resolve who is correct. That means I will not check the wiki or any other source external to the debate round, and in many cases, I will drop the violation in question if I feel there is no objective way to determine who is correct.

• I will follow the NSDA guide when evaluating evidence ethics concerns. If you want to stake the round on an issue, you may, but know that A. I strongly prefer you debate the concern in round, and B. If you stake the round, win, but I feel the violation is frivolous (e.g. ellipses, brackets that don't change the meaning of the card, etc.), your speaks will be capped.

• I will not vote on argument extensions that logically prevent the opponent from responding by being reliant upon the truth value of the original argument (e.g. extending no neg arguments by saying the neg's responses don't apply because they are neg arguments) because the original argument could only be true if the original argument could take out responses to itself, which is circular.

• Try to have some fun! Debate can become monotonous, and I'm sure everyone would benefit from having a more entertaining round (including your speaks).

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

I like judging debates where students rise to the occasion. High level debates. Who doesn't? I also respect debaters that are polite but sure of their ability to win. You can press the other team but let's be mature about this.

The passive aggressive way that debaters hold their phone timer up or 'tell' me that your opponent went 3-4 seconds "over" time is something that I'm not a fan of. I'm also not a fan of the correction of prep time by 1-2 seconds "you actually used 25 not 23 seconds". The constant tension of "are they stealing prep?' in every interaction makes debate so awful. I promise that 2 seconds didn't lose you the debate. No judge has ever said 'jeez, i was gonna vote for you but that half sentence at the timer was just so well-developed I can't". Just win.

I understand that every debate is not going to be the TOC Finals. But rise. Act like you've here to get to finals. Give 100% every round. I've had dozens of long paradigms that students ignore. This is really my one, inflexible requirement across events. We spend too much time doing this to just participate. Compete.

Fewer arguments and 1 excellent card and a slow conversation is better than 50 bad cards. I won't re-construct debates to find answers. Prefer a structured NSDA 2AR to a blitz of random stuff.

You can ask questions after a debate. If you're asking why I didn't vote on the thing you spent 3 seconds of your speech on, you have answered your own question. My rfd will be less about the line by line and more about what you can do/know next time.

Policy, PF, LD thoughts below

Policy Nov 24

condo after 4 off

explaining the function of cards in the 2AC is the best way to get ahead of the block and to make your card dump seem responsive.

yes, process cp but need a lot of explanation.

K 2NC- don't rant. Structure, warrants for turns case, line by line.

education>fair but i've voted on both.

reasons and warrants.

LD- October 24

I don't know any topic acronyms, what card is 'supposed' to win a given debate, or who is 'good'.

-No tricks/friv theory/ nonsense
-no racism/etc
-complete arguments.
-will give a 27 for being unclear. do speaking drills before the round. slow down.
-condo can be bad after the 3rd off.
good policy + K is great
traditional is great

basic phil is fine.
if you call your argument a trick it is nonsense. 20 speaks

education > fairness

PF debate:

Any evidence you plan to read in a debate I'm judging should be sent before the speech. If I want to verify that your evidence exists, I will look at it. I will reduce your speaker points if you don't do this.

Treat me like someone who doesn't know anything about debate. This is a speaking activity. Speak well, be persuasive, and convince me you are correct.

I don't want to hear any technical debates, theory, or anything that is not about the topic.

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I currently coach LD for Harker.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

JKS

I coach full-time at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

High school policy debate 2024-25

I am not actively coaching a high school policy team this year. This means you can truly treat me as a blank slate when it comes to IPR. I have zero predispositions or biases. I don't know your acronyms or the community consensus on certain issues. I did coach at Dartmouth on the college antitrust topic, so I am somewhat familiar with that topic area.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me. Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Specific

Updated November 2024 before GBX to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I am a hired gun for Strake Jesuit.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying. I've gotten a lot more fluent in phil recently and truly don't have anything against it.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

I have been speaking professionally in the corporate and academic spaces for 15 years, and I've taught rhetoric and argument for over a decade at both the university and high school level.

With that background, my focus is on actual debate of ideas through well-formed, well-delivered arguments. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and I expect to be persuaded, not bombarded with as much information as possible.

I do not want to hear spreading. I will drop you for attempting it, or simply attempting to speak as fast as possible. Having more arguments does not equate to having a better argument. You don't have to speak slowly--I can keep up--but there should be no speed talking.

Similarly, I have no patience for debating about debating. We participate in Speech and Debate because we believe people can arrive at consensus and solutions through expressing and debating ideas in the real world. We should, therefore, debate about the real issues. I will easily recognize and drop you for debate tricks or arguing the theory of debate/theory shells.

I want to hear clear warranting and impacting from evidence that establishes a logical progression, logic which avoids tautological traps, reductive debater math, and slippery slope/post hoc/complex cause fallacies (PFers, enough nuclear holocaust). I weigh on soundness of cause and effect, not the effects themselves.

I can judge off flow and of course expect weighing, but I'm much more focused on you proving your argument is stronger, not proving to me that your opponent didn't respond correctly, or why it is that I shouldn't choose their argument, so avoid focusing solely on the flow.

Feel free to run k and bring in critical theory, but please know that I have a PhD in critical theory, so if you run it you better be able to prove you know the theory itself and not just some reductive version of it. Proof that you're running a frame you don't understand will get you dropped.

Finally, I expect each competitor to treat their opponent with respect and decency. Any aggressive tactics or bullying (cutting off, talking over in cross, verbal reactions during opponent's speech, etc.) are frowned upon and can lose you the round.

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like sticker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters (graduated 2021) and was acting Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me by email at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team - Coach World Champions 2023

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

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.

Current Emory University (Barkley Forum) Policy debater, qualified to nats in BQ, HS Manatee District debater.

Please add me to the email chain: logan.viera@gmail.com, I expect all speech docs to be sent promptly otherwise I will take off points.

TLDR: I am open to adapting to whatever arguments you go for, but a general rule of thumb is if I can't explain the argument back to you then I won't vote for it. Promote good debate and collaboration.

A friend of mine says it best, "Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings."

I am firm believer that ADVs, DAs, and CPs don't have to be overcomplicated. Make my job easy please. However, I usually address most of these issues on a round-to-round basis rather than a flat expectation. I always encourage debaters to make the arguments they enjoy, then instruct me on how to weigh them from there.

K & T debates are all about quality. If reading T, I don't want a laundry list of voters. Paint me a picture of what your vision of debate looks like with the T. Likewise with Ks, I believe that these debates are all about more strict line-by-line and clash. If you read a K on either side and want to go for it, make sure that we're not reading blanket responses or files using K lit. My burden for judge instruction is also a little higher in these rounds and often affects my decision.

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

I coach on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.

I debated for Walt Whitman for 5 years. I accumulated 10 career bids in LD and 1 in PF and qualified to the TOC in '19, '20 and '21. I currently attend the University of Chicago. I am most familiar with framework and theory positions. My pronouns are he/him.

I prefer speechdrop over email chains, but if there is an email chain please send to bmwaldman0918@gmail.com

Note for Harvard: I have not attempted to flow a real debate round in over a year. I still coach, so I shouldn't be totally lost when judging, but I would not pref myself very highly! If you do get me in the back, please do not go top speed, please enunciate, and please do not read one sentence analytic tricks that I will be unable to flow. Best of luck!

Note for Yale: if you hear a lay aff, please do not read stuff they will have no idea how to respond to (e.g. disclosure).

Unconditional Rules

Speech times are absolute. If you clip, you lose. I will evaluate every speech. Arguments need warrants and implications in the speech they're read, or I won't evaluate them. I won't evaluate out of round arguments except for disclosure. The more unintuitive your argument is, the higher bar for explanation it has. I will drop you for evidence ethics violations if the round is stopped or if I notice it on my own.

General preferences

I like strategies that contain fewer, well-developed positions. I dislike strategies that are designed to avoid clash, whether that is due to intentional obfuscation about the content of a position or due to spamming of many underdeveloped positions in the hope one is dropped. I tend to dislike theory and tricks debates but am willing to listen to them. I think 1NCs should rarely contain more than 3 off, and I think they should devote a substantial portion of the 1N to answering the case.

I do not judge or think about debate very much now. This means that you should slow down in hyper technical debates and do more impact calc and overview work. If you do not do these things, I will still try my best but the odds you will be frustrated with my decision increase substantially.

Philosophy

Framework positions should be comprehensible in the speech in which they're introduced. I think many frameworks are consequentialist (and thus turned by extinction impacts) or are absolute nonsense or both. I've probably read some of your literature but that doesn't make explanation less important. I think I am best at judging framework debates and also enjoy them most.

Tricks

I'm not good for any argument that you wouldn't feel comfortable going for if it was competently contested. I'm not great at flowing (especially now), and I don't flow off the doc. I'm happy to judge creative philosophical or logical positions as long as they're meant to be defended against meaningful contestation. I think triggering skep can be fun if done well. I have no problem refusing to vote on theory spikes/tricks because they lack a warrant and have done so on many occasions.

Theory

I'm good for reasonability (without a bright line), drop the argument, and the RVI (though probably not in conjunction). I'm bad for any theory argument concerning a debaters clothing or appearance. Paragraph theory is fine. I wish people would read less spec but I'm willing to vote on it. 1AR theory is usually strategic even if it makes me sad to judge.

I have noticed that I seem to be worse for frivolous theory positions than many people expect when they pref me. I have also noticed people seem to get the most annoyed with my decisions in theory debates.

Policy

I have no ideological bias against policy debates, but I didn't have them particularly frequently and I don't usually coach them. I'm pretty sympathetic to many policy pushes against other styles of debate. I won't judge kick unless I'm told to. I'm sympathetic to the aff in most CP competition debates. I like impact turns (including death good).

K

I'm good for Ks that are well-explained and implicated clearly. Good K debate is techy K debate. Being sketchy in the 1NC is bad and will make new 2NR spin less viable. I think T-Framework is probably true, but I won't hack for it. I'm bad for poorly developed independent voter arguments that become entire rebuttals.

Tell me what your framework interpretation means and how I should evaluate offense under it. If you don't say that your framework interpretation is "you link you lose," I probably won't evaluate it that way (so tell me if it is)!

Miscellaneous

I tend not to give very high speaker points (and speaker point related theory will probably cause me to lower your speaks).

I will pay up to 500 dogecoin for information leading to the arrest of Zara Chapple.

Emory Debate. wallenkrisedu@gmail.com

Hey debate person, it's Kris [he/him]. My sparknote thoughts are below. If you have questions or want a longer version feel free to reach out. Good luck, have fun, and I hope you're having a great day [and/or a great tournament]!

General. I liked the K as a debater but also went for policy arguments. That's irrelevant though, as I will vote on nearly any position if executed well, regardless of my personal opinion. Limit time-wasting, I'm a feedback chatterbox. I enjoy seeing debaters express their personalities in round, whether humor or intensity. Kindness is cool. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Don't clip. Don't cheat. I don't evaluate out-of-round occurrences. Give me a music rec!

K (on the Aff). Have an explicit defense of what is being endorsed and ideally take a stance on the resolution. Be clear and consistent about how your method/performance is solvent. Presumption is a thing, don't blow it off. Framework debates are always better with contextualization over generic blocks. If Negative, always consider the viability of non-T positions before the 2NR. It's frustrating to vote down a team massively ahead on another position because they chose to go for T. For KvK debates, the Negative should establish what aspect of the 1AC is mutually exclusive with the K, and the harms to that aspect. I am highly receptive to rejecting the perm and PIKs. Pointing out Affirmative shiftiness or academic inconsistency raises my receptiveness.

K (on the Neg). Specificity is key, either with evidence (ideally) or contextualization. I do not arbitrarily generate middle-ground framework interpretations. 2NRs should collapse around one or two of the K's tricks/win conditions. 1ARs/2ARs should impact turn or go for the perm, and leverage 1AC specificity. Performative contradictions as a reason to sever reps confuse me if the Negative agrees the debate is a referendum on the 1AC's desirability.

CP. Establish competition clearly for process CPs. Default to conditionality good. Tell me to judge kick (or if I shouldn't).

DA. Logical take-outs to more frivolous DAs are underutilized. More evidence indicts.

T. Limited topic knowledge. Default to competing interpretations.

For LD: Not the best for tricks. LD can suffer from block speedreading and blippy analytics. I prefer in-depth engagement.

Note: Made some edits to my paradigm since I'm a 3rd year out now...

Hi! I debated LD for Bronx Science (NY) for 4 years, qualled to TOC senior year. I'm studying Philosophy right now at Johns Hopkins.

Email chain: anniewang9422@gmail.com

Quick Prefs

Pomo or High Theory Ks/Performance Ks/Phil: 1/2

FW/T: 3

Tricks/Theory: 4

Policy/LARP: 5

IR/Security Ks: 6/STRIKE

Overview

1. You can read whatever you want and I'll do my best to adapt. I would rather there be a good round than you trying to adapt by reading something you've never done before.
2. I really, really, like phil or k substantive debate (does not have to be topical but one-off NC then AC top-down strats would make me happy). Will boost speaks for a good clash.
3. Don't be mean in CX, especially if someone you're debating is clearly a novice/someone less experienced than you.

Ks

1. I read a lot of pomo Ks my senior year, the ones I'm most familiar with are Deleuze, Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Warren, Nietzsche, Marx, Edelman, and Wilderson. I don't think this list matters though I'm sure there are many books/articles written by these authors I haven't read.
2. I tend to err truth>tech in rep K situations where the card is miscut/misrepresented.
3. I don't really understand IR or Security Ks... Please over-explain.
4. Default Tech>>>>>>Truth unless you make arguments for otherwise.

T/Theory

1. I'm more familiar with T than Theory, but I guess they are structurally similar.
2. Case-specific standards are really cool.

Phil

1. Familiar with a lot of philosophy, please explain things regardless.
2. Slow down (please) on fully analytic phil cases. Examples are cool.

Tricks

1. I'm not amazing at flowing, especially blippy exempted 10 point underviews so if I miss something rip
2. Technicality and flowing aside. I find induction/deduction/skep debates interesting if done properly.

Policy/LARP

1. I'll try my best :(

Miscellaneous

1. Will yell 'clear' as many times as needed, and will probably not dock speaks but if I miss an arg it's on you. My face is pretty expressive, maybe explain more if I look confused...

2. Compiling doc is prep, sending is not, pls don't steal prep.

3. +.2 speaks if you show me your wiki BEFORE I submit the decision (osource, first 3 last 3 in the textbox, and round reports - you can attach a screenshot when sending out the speech doc)

4. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc... and don't plagiarize from people's wiki without giving credit

5. Not sure how judge kick works, be clear if that's something you are going for.

Email: lemuel30034@gmail.com

I will listen to most arguments. I have problems with most theory arguments in LD. Topicality is like the death penalty so I proceed with care. I understand policy arguments and kritiks. I flow most of the time. If you have questions about what I think about your arguments you should ask.

I believe debaters should be civil to each other. I would prefer that high school students not use foul language in debates.

I am ok with performance debates. I do believe the teams should engage the topic. If a team chooses not to engage the topic, then I will give the other team leeway to deal with the lack of engagement.

Reverse voting issues do not make sense in most instances.

I am ok with counterplans and disadvantages.

I will vote for the team that makes the most sense at the end of the debate.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'

Mark Winokur (he/him/his)

For the email chain: mark.s.winokur@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL THOUGHTS

Hey there thank you for reading my paradigm! First off a brief blurb about me for some context -- I competed in LD for Midtown High School for four years from 2014- 2017 and graduated college in 2021. As a debater, I competed mostly on the traditional GA circuit but also attended camp and competed in several national tournaments. After taking a 6 year hiatus (more or less) from the debate community, I have more recently judged at two tournaments this year (Midtown High and Emory Barkley Forum).

Above all, I encourage you to defend the arguments that speak to you and in the style that suits your strengths. I assure you this approach will be the most rewarding to you as a debater, and will make a much stronger impression than appeasing to the arguments and debate styles you think I will like based on my perceived preferences. I am most impressed by debaters who give a glimpse into what fuels their fire- so defend the arguments you would stand behind outside of the round, that you have passion for beyond their instrumental value as a route to the ballot. Put away your Pessimism K if you're thinking about running it merely to evade the 1AC impacts, without having given that perspective serious consideration in your day-to-day life outside of the debate space.

Further, do not underestimate the human element that plays into the art of persuasion! Despite my endeavor to be a "tabula rasa" judge, by virtue of being human not a robot, it is inevitable that the presentation of your arguments- i.e. word choice, concision, organization of ideas, extent of filler words, and even stylistic elements such as eye contact, gestures, and inflections of tone -will exert some influence over my evaluation of the round, even if they do not surface as tangible factors guiding my decision on the flow. The more you enable me to feel the full force of the position you stand for, the more likely I will be to resolve the round in your favor, so use that to your advantage! By the same token, I am much more receptive to developing a cohesive, fleshed-out position to paint a compelling picture of the round, rather than going 6-off guns blazing while hiding behind underdeveloped arguments that lack internal consistency.

And finally, although debate is an inherently competitive activity, please be kind and compassionate toward your opponent. I value debaters who foster a collaborative environment by stimulating meaningful engagement of the topic- not debaters who deliberately confuse their opponent or bait them into conceding a hidden argument that supersedes everything else in the round.

PRESENTATION & PROCEDURAL ISSUES

-Keep your speed to 300 wpm tops. I would strongly advise against 100% spreading (350+ wpm). I would also recommend that your speed be inversely proportionate to the complexity of arguments you are making. Additionally, please do not spread if you cannot articulate clearly. I have a high threshold for clarity and will say clear if I cannot understand what you are saying.

-In any regard, I would prefer for you to email me your case and any other pre-written arguments on an email chain. If you are spreading, this is mandatory, and you must also share what you are reading to your opponent. I will not evaluate any arguments you spread if your opponent does not have access to them (including cards read in rebuttals).

-Sign posting is very important for me. I need to know where to write your arguments on the flow.

-I will let you time yourself on phone, however I can keep time if you would prefer.

-Flex prep is okay with me.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT

-In general, I prefer truth testing as the role of the ballot, but if you run a plan with a stable advocacy, then no need to argue comparative worlds- I will assume as much. Of course, you're always welcome to explicitly defend comparative worlds knowing that I may be relatively quick to pull the trigger on arguments in favor of truth testing, but this is not mandatory by any means.

-If your case does not lend itself to truth testing or comparative worlds (i.e. a K aff that does not defend the resolution) then you will need to explicitly defend a ROB, otherwise I'll just assume truth testing and exclude anything that doesn't link to that. In other words, the only ROBs I am willing to infer are truth testing and comparative worlds- if it's anything else you will need to clearly delineate your ROB so I know how to evaluate your offense.

FRAMEWORK DEBATE

-Love it! Did a lot of this in high school so I feel decently comfortable about this area of debate.

-I will default to epistemic confidence, unless I deem the framework debate to be either extremely close or a wash in which case I will switch to epistemic modesty (but epistemic confidence over modesty).

-I enjoy comparative interaction between frameworks. I'm not a fan of reading generic cards from backfiles or generic "x theory bad" arguments. I like analytic responses that engage with the logical reasoning behind the opponent's syllogism (i.e. exposing fallacies, disproving assumptions or showing that the framework's conclusion does not follow from the premises).

KRITIKS

-This is another area of debate I really enjoy! Especially because Kritiks encourage debaters to challenge their assumptions, a valuable skill which enables us to re-evaluate our perspective in our everyday lives and engage with the world in new ways. However, I do not have a strong background in K philosophy so I recommend that you present your arguments in a way that would resonate with someone who is learning about the subject area for the first time. Don't throw a bunch of buzzwords around and expect I will understand what you are talking about (and even if I do I won't connect the dots for you if you can't clearly articulate the substance of the arguments on your own).

-The ROB in your K does not serve as a replacement for framework. You don't need to explicitly state "my standard is x" in your K but you need to provide some philosophical analysis that speaks to what impacts I should deem as relevant just like any other type of case. Reading a cap K arguing cap bad because it causes poverty without any theoretical backing to justify why that matters is impact justified and does not help me understand why I should reject the logic of capitalism.

-Kritikal affirmatives are fine. Just be clear to articulate the different layers of the case and what offense is pre-fiat/performative vs. post-fiat, whether you defend the resolution etc.

LARP DEBATE IN GENERAL

-I was not great at LARP debate in high school to begin with, and 6 years later I will struggle even more with resolving these types of rounds. Also, I'm generally not a fan of these cases because 1) I find that aggregative util/cost benefit frameworks tend to be poorly justified and 2) advantages/disads tend to be lacking in link threshold analysis. A good advantage or DA should show that we are at the tipping point such that the impact of A is sufficient to trigger B, which would move the needle to the tipping point such that the effect of B would bring about C, and so on throughout the chain leading up to the terminal impact. By contrast, amalgamating evidence to show A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and D causes [really bad thing] doesn't persuade me that A will lead to [really bad thing]. I will certainly make my best effort to resolve these kinds of rounds without intervention, but will be quick to pull the trigger on arguments that poke holes at either the framework or link threshold analysis especially given my lack of propensity for this style of debate in the first place.

COUNTERPLANS

-Running a CP does not get you out of responding on the line by line against the AC. I find that when many debaters run a counterplan, they will simply respond to the AC by cross-applying their own case and saying that it solves better. While this may be true, it is preferable to make specific solvency takeouts to the aff and engage with their arguments directly to disprove their case.

-If you are arguing against a counterplan, don't just say "perm do both." Please show a clear net benefit to the perm. Demonstrating that the neg isn’t mutually exclusive is not sufficient as there may be a disadvantage to doing both.

DISADVANTAGES

-Stock DAs grounded directly in the topic literature are ok, I'm less of a fan of politics DAs and other types of DAs that are not relevant to the core issues of the resolution (i.e. the aff prevents a bill from being passed through Congress which causes extinction, etc.).

-I prefer impacts with higher probability over magnitude. I do not enjoy hearing DAs with long link chains where the probability of the terminal impact is minuscule.

THEORY

-To vote on theory, I need to be convinced that there is an actual in-round abuse. Theory should not be used as a strategic tool; please reserve theory for arguments that you genuinely cannot engage with on substance.

-I am not great at resolving theory, so if you do find that you are forced to engage in a theory debate, then please present your arguments in the simplest way possible to help me understand how your opponent's strategy is problematic and why it is a voting issue. While I understand the basic structure of a theory shell, if you bombard me with blippy or highly technical arguments then I probably struggle to follow along.

TRICKS DEBATE

-Consider striking me if this is your thing. This is probably the only style of debate I would say to avoid outright - I am not experienced at all in these kinds of arguments so I will be lost if you do this in front of me.

email: qian.xia.nj@gmail.com

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas parent judge, preferring it over the circuit debate. Please do weighing and clear signposts. Please present arguments at reasonable speed. I evaluate all arguments extended through to rebuttals. I do not understand tricks, ks, non-topicals.