PF: I only think an email chain is necessary if audio is not the best or you plan on spreading. Email me if there is any way I can make the round more accessible.

email: noorabdallah101@gmail.com

I am a third-year student at the University of Georgia. I did four years of PF at Columbus High School, and one year of policy at UGA.

Policy: I am still learning policy myself, so please take that into account if I am your judge. I will always try my best to make the best decision and I am way more comfortable with DA's and CP's than K's. Just do not expect the same out of me as you would a regular policy judge :)

Speaks:

1. In terms of speed, I can comfortably handle around 250-270 wpm. Online debate might not allow that speed, keep that in mind. I don’t really see the need for spreading, but if you do, ask your opponents and send a speech doc. If you do this to confuse them and win, I will drop you.

2. No judge will get everything you say, so warrant.

3. I am a huge lover of puns. Wit and puns are appreciated in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low speaks and notify your coach immediately. Assertive and funny debaters are different from rude ones.

Argumentation:

In short, you do not want me to interfere as a judge. Do the work for me and that means to make clean extensions, frontline, and weigh. In detail, here are things that win my ballot:

1. I vote off the flow. I try to interfere as little as possible, which means you NEED TO WEIGH. If you don't, I will have to interfere and use my own weighing mechanism. In that case, you probably won't like my decision. I will do everything I can to ensure a fair round from my part but don't get mad at me if I don't flow a one-second extension that isn't flushed out.

2. Frontline!! You can't just extend your arguments through their responses without telling me why they don't matter and/or why your argument still stands. If they extend their warranted response(s) throughout round and you do not respond to it, you are in a bad position.

3. Signposting is extremely helpful and should be done :) I RARELY flow author names so do not just extend "Smith 19" and think that is you extending something. I should hear what Smith 19 said over and over.

4. I will vote tech over truth. If your opponents make an unwarranted assertion, refute it. Don’t rely on me to do the analysis for you.

5. Summaries - Line-by-line, voter, etc. I have no preference on format (though line-by-line is better to me). Create the narrative, defend, extend, weigh. New weighing in both summaries is fine.

6. NO new arguments in final focus (with the exception of extended weighing analysis in 1st FF). There really shouldn't be any new arguments in 2nd summary.

7. I am not your judge for theory, K's, topicality, etc. I have voted for these things before, and am understanding them as a policy debater. BUT reading theory against a team who doesn't know how to deal with it is abusive.

8. I use cross to write feedback, so anything said is not binding, just bring it up in a speech because I probably didn’t listen. Use cross strategically and for your own benefit.

First-Speaking Team:

1. I do not require defensive extensions in first summary if they have not been responded to. However, you must extend overviews/turns if you expect me to be voting off of them.

2. By final focus, you should know what your opponents are going for. Defensive extensions must be in final focus if you want them to factor into my decision. Defense not responded to by the second-speaking team by second-summary is dropped defense - bring it up!

Second-Speaking Team:

1. The rebuttal should respond to any overviews/turns/disads. The only other time second- speaking team has time to respond is second summary, and that is extremely abusive. You do not have to respond to terminal defense until summary, although it may be strategic to do so on the arguments you’re going for later in the round. To clarify - if the rebuttal does not have to answer all terminal defense, the summary obviously must, or I will consider it dropped.

2. No new weighing in second final focus. It’s unfair and gives your opponents no chance to respond. Also, this is not your chance just to extend through ink because no one will be able to call you out on it.

Evidence:

1. Every card you read within a debate should be cited and available almost immediately (30 seconds is reasonable time) within context for your opponent to read. I will drop your speaks if you are unable to find or provide your evidence to your opponents or me.

2. Any evidence misrepresentations will factor into my decision. If you are blatantly lying about your cards, I will most likely drop you and your speaks. I am very very okay with cards that are paraphrased as long as they are not misused (feel free to have this argument with me)

3. I like logical responses just as much as I like carded responses. But just like a carded response, logic should make sense and be warranted. The card does half the work, do the other half and apply it in round.

Otherwise, if you have any questions, please ask me or email me at noorabdallah101@gmail.com ! Debating is supposed to be an educational, motivational, and fun experience so make the most of it! I will always disclose and give feedback if the tournament allows me.

Good Luck :)

add me to the email chain: cythinabai123@gmail.com

Notes:

i live in my grandmother's basement. Watch out.

⁂((✪⥎✪))⁂

this is why u don't have a girlfriend.

Thaddeus Cross- 3rd year debater at Woodward Academy

I want to be on the email chain: thadcross25@gmail.com

Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Top 3 things about debate:

1. Be nice to people! - you can be persuasive and nice, there is no reason to be rude

2. Speak clearly! - if I can't flow what you're saying, there is no point in saying it

3. Clash! - if your arguments don't interact with the other team's and apply to the debate, they're bad arguments

My thoughts on arguments and performance:

Cross-Ex: do your own cross-ex, you should know what you are saying, tag teaming is fine, but lowers speaks

Disadvantages: I like good turns case arguments and timeframe comparison for impact calculus.

Counterplans: I like well thought out counterplans with solvency advocates, I dislike bad process CPs that don't have a topic area specific solvency advocate.

Impact Turns: I will not vote for non-unique impact turns, there needs to be a compelling argument why the affirmative is worse than the status quo. I think negative teams win too often on impact turns that are not unique.

Kritiks on the negative: prove to me why the aff is worse than the status quo and how the alternative resolves the links of the kritik. I lean aff on framework (weighing the aff is definitely best for education and clash), but that can be changed with good debating.

Kritiks on the affirmative: Nobody in the first year division should be reading a critical affirmative. You are not good enough to read one as a first year. It is not educational as first years are still learning the fundamentals of debate (learn the rules before you break them). Sadly, I believe in clash and cannot vote down first years immediately for reading a critical affirmative, but the threshold to vote negative on Topicality is very low. Please be topical so that everyone in the round can learn and become better debaters in order to generate the skills necessary to effectively debate a critical affirmative.

My thoughts about debate as a game and educational space:

The best way to learn is asking questions - if you have post round questions please ask.

Debate is about education and competition- reading arguments as a time skew or pulling tricks is not fun for anyone (that doesn't mean I won't vote for it, but those don't gain many speaks)

Having fun is important to debates - I will reward rounds where everyone tries their best and has fun with high speaks for everyone

email: sevendeng.wa@gmail.com

Hey guys, my name is Seven Deng, a JC varsity debater, 1N/2A in policy.

Some things to know

• tag teaming is okay during cross
• tech>truth
• please track your time.
• clarity>speed
• have fun! Do not be discouraged no matter what the result is.
• be nice to each other
• impact analysis!!!!

Anna Jane Harben - Third Year Debater for Woodward (AJ is also fine)

Pronouns - She/her

Please put me on the email chain 25aharben@woodward.edu

Main things to remember about debate:

1. Be nice — there is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive
2. Argument clash — it's important that your arguments interact with other arguments in the debate and that you support your claims with warrants
3. Line by line is essential — it makes it much easier to follow the debate when you have clear line by line
4. Be clear — speaking fast is great until no one can understand you. If you're not clear its better to slow down
5. Please ask me questions that's the only way to learn!

Use CX time to your advantage. It's extra speech time for you and a place to set up your strategy for the rest of the debate

Zaria Jarman — Woodward Academy ’23 and current debater at Michigan State ’27

Yes, please add me to the email chain: zariajarman@gmail.com

General Comments

1. Please be nice and respect your opponents.

2. Clarity >>>> Speed. If I don’t understand what you’re saying I can not flow it. If your opponents don't understand what is happening I probably don't either. I flow on paper if that makes a difference to you.

3. I will not evaluate out of round issues.
4. *Online debate* — If you feel comfortable, turn on your camera. (If you do not have a camera don’t worry about it)
5. please I have little econ topic knowledge, please do your best to explain to me things like specific taxes and why that matters.
6. My biggest influences in debate are Maggie Berthiaume , Bill Batterman , Sam Wombough feel free to look at their paradigms.

CX

I prefer that you lead/answer your own cross-ex questions, know that tag-teaming is alright but doing it a lot will affect your speaker points.

Topicality

Generally I love a good T debate.

The evidence you read should match the definition you have in the Tag.

Topicality is not a reverse voting issue.

Please don’t forget about the impact…

K-Affs and Kritiks

I am not an expert in Kritik literature, so chances are I have not read your main author or your main authors author. I am more convinced if Kritiks are debated as DAs to the affirmative, but as long as you explain your Kritik and impact it, you will be fine.

I am certainly willing to vote on a K-Aff. I was/am a more policy debater. I prefer K-Affs that are critiques of the resolution rather than "debate is bad". I am more convinced if the impact turn to fairness is coherent.

Counterplans

While I love a 12 plank advantage CP, I think that affirmatives should not be affaird to go for theory when the negative is reading an abusive counterplan. However if the advantages to the aff are not intrinsic the negative should capitalize off of this.

DAs

I love a really good CP/DA Debate. I will vote on absolute defense — sit down on the DA in the 2NR and tell me why the squo is better.

Theory

Affirmative theory is a lot more convincing than Negative theory.

I feel comfy voting for condo if there’s more than 2 conditional off.

For non condo theory arguments I will need slightly more explanation of why its a voting issue.

Biases

1. Racism/Homophobia/Sexism… Any form of discrimination is bad. If you say any of these are good it will be an auto L and auto zero speaks
2. War is probably bad
3. Death/suffering is bad

Random stuff

I am a 1A/2N

I really enjoy debate as an activity so I want everyone to have as much fun as I do

Feel free to email me if you have any questions!

Please have fun!!! Don’t waste your weekends :(

2A/1N - Alpharetta HS '23, UGA '27

***I have no topic knowledge***

Email: techieanishk@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---I am not ready when my camera is off.

---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.

Online Debate

---I would prefer if everyone had their webcams on (though I understand if you cannot).

---debates already move slow, let's pick up the pace with technology.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.

---condo is good

K

---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---have links to the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

T

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison will heavily shape my decision

CP

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---sufficiency framing seems intuitive based on cost-benefit analysis.

---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like texual legitamacy

---pretty NEG on most theory---competition probably decides if it's legit

DA

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Others

---not voting for death good

---stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L + speaks nuked

---anything very unethical = auto L + speaks nuked

Sophia Kaye - she/her

Woodward '24

add me to the email chain please - 24skaye@woodward.edu

my inspo comes from my coaches Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman (feel free to look at their paradigms as well :)

background

hey everyone!

i'm Sophia, i have been debating for 6 years and attended Georgetown debate camp my sophomore year and UMich debate camp my junior year and senior year.

because of my years of experience, i am pretty knowledgeable about debate. that being said, you still need to explain your arguments fully so i can evaluate them.

i might seem like I'm in a bad mood but it's either because i didn't get any sleep or i haven't eaten (it's not bc of yall)

remember that if you don't send your analytics not only will your opponents not see them I won't either

even though i go to Woodward i lowkey really like weird k's but ofc policy also slays

fav args : consult India cp, abolition k (from cjr year), condo, and i LOVE LOVE LOVE the set col k

speaking/performance

please do not say i am starting on my first word (what else would you start with?)

TECH >>>>> TRUTH. i think that true arguments are alot easier to debate and win tho. will i vote on the obscure theory you hid on case the other team dropped? maybe but i will be frowning heavily and your speaker points will probably be lowered. i like theory (like condo) debates but i love substantial debates.

clarity > speed (always, always, always) - DON'T CLIP!!

for cards go ahead and speak as fast as you want, but be clear!

i give pretty high speaker points. no 30's (future toc and ndt winner or you memorize the entire 1AC and look at me or ur opponents while spreading it and not clipping, i would probably cry)

extra/basic things

if you feel uncomfortable debating the team that is in front of you for any reason shoot me an email immediately. please tell me before the debate so i can work things out with tab and see what i can do to help.

ALWAYS respect your peers, i do not want to see any kind of hostility toward the opposing team. you need to be a team player and show good sportsmanship. no racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. will be tolerated. this will result in an auto L and a meeting with your coach.

don't steal prep because i will say something, you know better. tech issues always happen, don't stress about it :)

neg terror - i like it but as aff you should not let the neg get away w the stuff they get away with.

PLS PLS PLS PLS CALL ME SOPHIA NOT JUDGE

i often make faces during rounds (ignore them)

if i don't have my camera on (and we're not in prep time), you can assume i'm not there. always ask everyone including me if they are ready

ev comparison and quality ev is so important

if i can't flow u its not an argument.

no warrants = no argument

judge instruction has a HUGE impact on me (i want you to tell me how to write my ballot)

cx

please be respectful during cross

look at me during cross and not to your opponents

i like cx questions that will get straight to the point. i do allow tag-teaming to a certain extent, i still have to hear you speak so i can give you speaker points

no rants please

"what is fiat" gives me the shivers especially if it's a good team. you know what fiat is.

flowing/speech docs

always always give a road map before a speech

give answers in order and preferably number them

send out word docs if you can!

please organize your speech docs (example: if u say ur going on to the k only read cards/analytics for the k)

anything other then yellow, blue, or green highlighting upsets me extremely

rebuttals

i'm a 2a so ik the lying strats in rebuttals :) (basically if they didn't drop it don't say they did i flow!!!)

please go slower on analytics if you can, that way i can flow all the arguments and listen so it's easier for me to get all of your arguments in.

all args

HUGE FAN OF SMART NEG BLOCK SPLITS AND STRATS IN GENERAL (I LOVE ABSTRACT ONES)

case - i am a huge case debater so in-depth clash on case makes me happy

t - don't run unless it's an actual violation, provide a case list that meets ur interp. i'm big on t-usfg against k's i think it's the best strat.

cp - i love cps. smart adv cps have my heart. read the text slowly so i can fully understand the plan. explain why the cp solves the affs impacts better. i feel like i normally judge kick, but i will be even more inclined to do so if you tell me to or don't tell me to.

da - has to link to the aff. explain impacts, i love impact calc. i like politics a lot but (and ik this is hard) you have to have updated uq. if you don't, don't go for it in the block.

theory - i love theory so much (esp condo). if you're going for theory it has to be the ENTIRE 2NR/2AR. i'm more neg leaning on everything but condo.

k - i love k's. explain how it operates practically. i'll weigh the aff unless u tell me not to (u gotta win that tho). explain the alt really well. i LOVE when the k specifically links to the aff. explanation > evidence

k aff's - i don't want to wait until the 2AR for the k to suddenly make sense. i rlly like k aff debates but i'm honestly not the best w performance and abstract k aff's but ik "basic" k's (fem ir, cap, set col etc.)

impact turns - i love a good impact turn. i'm down for any args (i'll listen to the abstract ones like wipeout and spark won't guarantee i will vote for them tho). i believe that war is bad, all forms of discrimination is bad, and all form of suffering is bad so don't try to tell me they are good.

THANKS FOR READING YALL!

p.s. if you say ggs i will laugh

Hi, I'm Lilly Martin. Email: lillymar0427@gmail.com

I'm a senior at Johns Creek and have been debating for one whole year! Woo! I'm a 2A/1N in policy so I'm familiar with that. I love DAs. :)

Overall I think I'm pretty friendly and if this is your first year don't sweat it.

My rules:

time your own debates! (I don't want y'all to go over, although I'll keep time too)

Please don't steal prep, don't talk in between rounds(unless using prep), and try to email in the thread on time

DON'T SEND GOOGLE DOCS. It's a bad move to send anything other than word docs. Google docs take forever and it sucks. Word helps to make sure everyone's on the same page.

Please talk loud enough for me to hear. I don't care if you stand or anything(some judges do) but please talk in a way that your opponent and I can hear you. But also DON'T SHOUT. It's rude and I'll cry probably.

Suggestions:

If I give you notes write them down so your coach can help and so you remember!

FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW

Don't do stupid cross-x questions, if you don't have anything to say- it's ok, just stop and we can get out of here faster.

No one likes a bully. No one.

You get 8 min prep. Use it. Please don't abuse it.

Also, try to read paradigms, not all of them are completely useless like mine is

Good luck and remember it's never really that serious.

John Masterson — Third-Year Debater for Woodward

25jmasterson@woodward.edu

Fiscal Redistribution Topic Experience: Attended Umich 7 Weeks and plenty of tournaments first semester (Woodward NM, HM, and CM)

Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman are my greatest influences in debate, I will probably agree with most things they agree on, here are their paradigms
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=maggie&search_last=berthiaume

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman

General

Clarity, Clash with Opponents, and Respecting the Opponent should be essential

Tech > Truth. This reaches an extent but will vote on dropped arguments if I'm given a reason why to. Truthful arguments are easier to prove.

Don't clip cards

Trick debating < Clash (However depending on the arg I will vote for it but may be more lenient towards the other team) well researched args are best

I respect good research and high-quality cards. My favorite debates to judge are well-prepped and explained specific strategies to an aff or a team that can line by line and number their arguments (Take this opinion with a grain of salt)

I’d say I’m more neg leaning on theory in general and think most theory is resolved by rejecting the argument (except Condo) but I could be convinced otherwise. I’m pretty persuaded by comparing to past topics (I would prob get references to water and NATO best but references to prior topics may require simplicity or more explanation) or justifications under interps. I think under the Fiscal Redistribution topic there are probably better arguments to go for besides generic process cps.

Funny jokes will get higher speaks, unfunny jokes will lower speaks, Jokes about friends or coaches I know will get higher speaks depending on how good they are.

Feel free to ask any questions pre-round

Hi, I'm Vida, JC '23. she/her

I enjoy judging a lot, and I'd appreciate if you had fun with it. Do your best to be friendly. Volume ≠ Quality. Shouting at your opponent does not mean you are right - control your volume. Also, don't feel bad about mistakes! Everyone is growing in debate, don't stress about it. Deep down I'm a 2A.

Please do not use Google Docs. I'm asking nicely.

Email for the chain:mixedmisclif@gmail.com

Track your own time. Do not try to suck up. Keep good flows because that will always get you in the end.

NO ONE LIKES TRICK QUESTIONS.

Try to amuse with cross-x questions when you're out of time. Keep it interesting.

You have 8 minutes for prep for the entire round. Use that time wisely, and do not try to steal. Your documents should be together before you come to the round.

There is no luck in debate.

Alizah Mudaliar (pronounced Aleeza)

Woodward Academy '24 --- this is my fourth year in high school debate

Please add me to the email chain: 24amudaliar@woodward.edu

I attended Michigan 7-week this past summer so I have general topic knowledge

My greatest influences in debate are Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman.

Top-level:

- clarity > speed (especially true in online debates)

- please clash! --- it provides the most educational debates

- I like to see people so please keep your cameras on if possible. If that's not an option then I understand. Along the same lines, don't get stressed over tech issues, they always happen

- don't clip

- no sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. comments. This behavior is completely unacceptable and will be an automatic loss with 0 speaks

- be organized during the debate (roadmaps, clear line-by-line, etc) --- this means you need to be direct when answering opponents as well as giving answers that make sense and don't require to much implying (I am open to vote on presumption)

- please give answers in order (clear line-by-line), it makes it easier for me to flow and understand arguments

- be respectful

- (most important) have fun :)

CX:

- it's important so please don't waste it

Case:

- must prove that you solve for even the smallest risk of the impacts occurring

- I am open to almost all arguments as long as they are explained well and impacted out

- make sure to be clear with answering all arguments especially turns case/squo solves/alt causes/etc...

CPs:

- CP must be competitive

- will only vote on it if there is a solvency advocate in the 1NC

- needs to be run with a net benefit (external or internal)

- I LOVE advantage CPs

DAs:

- will only vote on a DA if there is a complete shell in the 1NC (UQ, L, Int-L, Impact) -- aff needs to point this out if there is not a complete shell

- how does the aff link? If there is no well-explained reason, I won't buy that the aff links and can't solve the impacts

Ks:

- most familiar with Abolition, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and Security --- I am not very familiar with high theory so I'm probably not the best judge for this

- you should be able to explain the world of the alternative well

- have a good, competitive framework

- the best way that I have found to debate a kritik is by providing several specific links to the aff you are debating. Make these links diverse so you can extend any of them in the block depending on the way the debate is playing out

T:

- not a huge fan --- love it if the aff is very untopical

- needs specific warrants as to why your interp is better

- don't drop this in the 1AR if extended in the block - you will regret it

Theory:

- PLEASE do not drop theory

- not a huge fan of going for it in the 2AR unless it is the only viable option

Extra:

- don't hide aspec :)

- love judge connections! --- eye contact, talking directly to me, why I should vote for you (+0.2)

- please feel free to be funny and incorporate jokes - I like to laugh :) (+0.1 speaks)

- have fun!

she/her/hers

add me to the chain: 24amurthy@woodward.edu

Woodward '24

General:

- Be respectful to your opponents throughout the entire round

- Racism/homophobia/sexism/etc intolerable. Auto-loss

- Clarity>Speed online.

- ROADMAPS.

- slow down on analytics

- cameras on is preferred, however, if you are unable to I understand.

- down for any argument as long as it's not offensive.

Case:

- IMPACT ANALYSIS in last speeches!! Why should I weigh the aff first?

- remember to answer all turns/squo-solves on case

- open to voting on presumption so defend the case well

DAs:

- must have a complete shell read in order for me to weigh

- not super keen on reading new DAs in the block

- explain how the aff specifically links

- impact calc is always good

CPs:

- must have a solvency advocate in the 1NC

- run w/ a net benefit always (internal net benefits also works)

Ks:

- SPECIFIC LINKS

- be able to explain the thesis of the K in simple terms

• be able to explain in cx

T:

- if you are going for T - evidence comparison is a must.

- Impact out the violation

Theory:

If you're going for theory it needs to be almost the entire 2NR/2AR with nuanced impacts/etc

Extra:

• be funny and I'll give you high speaks

- be patient with tech issues - they're inevitable

- most importantly have fun

Alpharetta '25

Alpharetta NM --- 2N/1A

Email

---aishnikkumbh@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---I will not intervene unless my role of judge has been changed, or the round needs to be stopped due to (violence, threats, "cheating" or mass psychological violence being committed to the point the round can't end).

---debating and judging instruction matter far more than my personal preferences.---Every preference except the section under ethics can be changed by good debating.

---adopted from Eshan Momin, Anthony Trufanov, but NOT Lauren Ivey or Adam Smiley---[This just means my judging ideology/process is different from theirs]

---I am not ready when my camera is off.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Online Debate

---I prefer if everyone had their webcams on [though I understand if you cannot].

---debates already move slow, let's pick up the pace with technology.

---If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

---Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in the frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, and make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---Unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide on them first based on the debate, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene only if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide on fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue. Example: a DA is heavily and messily contested, and may be straight turned, but the case would outweigh the DA even if the DA was 100% NEG. I will likely not attempt to resolve the straight turn as the ballot would go aff regardless. In complex debates, it would help you to instruct me on how I should do this, or instruct me not to do this if you would prefer that I resolve the debate a different way. You can also stop this from happening by debating in ways that don't require intervention to evaluate.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would not do this. However, decision times are shrinking. Post-round time is limited; minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade-off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good

K

---don't say buzzwords you can't explain logically---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---Long scripted overviews in the 2NC, 2NR then proceeding to do line by line by saying "That was in the overview" is horrendous. The standard for line-by-line doesn't decrease just because you are reading a K

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan/material consequences of the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

T

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

---predictability > debateability

---vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison and evidence will heavily shape my decision.

CP

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates [even the cheaty process cps]

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---pretty NEG on most theory

DA

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Ethics

---clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

• The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
• If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
• Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
• In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
• If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
• Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
• Speak as clearly as possible for you.
• Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

• DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
• CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
• K: I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer EVERYTHING, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.
• T: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
• Affs: Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
• Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

• If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
• I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
• I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
• Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
• I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
• If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
• You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
• Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

• Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
• 27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
• 28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
• 29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
• 29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
• 30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

2nd year debater at Woodward

I want to be on the email chain: 25lpaladugu@woodward.edu

If your a rookie reading this ignore everything below just try to clash with your opponents and do impact calc (I promise you'll get super high speaks if you do both!)

tech >>> truth

If an arg is dropped, the opposing team still has to extend it with warrants

clash >>> tricks

I get it tricks r a part of debate, but even if you win cause of a trick, your speaks will be alright at best

clarity >> speed

If I can't understand you; I can't flow

I'll only shout "clear" if I cannot understand you for a long period of time

No hiding ASPEC (like you'll at least get -3 speaks)

Overviews should have a point so don't re-explain things that don't need to be explained (confusing Ks NEED overviews tho)

I'm a WA debater so I am heavily influenced by Ms. B and Coach B

There paradigms are below:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=maggie&search_last=berthiaume

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman

I have debated throughout the state and am pretty simple with my preferences. Speak at a decent pace, I can do speed just don’t spread or I won’t flow. I’m comfortable with lay or tech styles. Final focus should include what was in summary, don’t ever bring up new arguments because I won’t flow them.

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

5

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

Chain: shenjeffery113@gmail.com

Debated at JCHS for 3 yrs, was not able to compete the 4th.

Stanford 24'

---

pls camera on if you can, it makes debating less of a bore

Stolen from my friend, Mr. Blake Deng:

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

my brain is not that big. I have experience with PTX DAs, Generic Ks, Generic CPs. If your aff is to regulate some small agency with an obscure acronym, please explain. Debate is about convincing the judge, not who can throw out the most off-case in 8 minutes.

---

General thoughts on debate:

- Tag teaming is fine; too much = slight speaks dock maybe

- Be nice, don't flex, be courteous; CX is already toxic enough.

- Please do not steal prep with virtual debate, do not clip cards, do not cheat in any way. It will be a quick decision.

- I was a 2A/1N years ago, so I do lean aff on some common topics: >3 conditional, and condo bad is lookin pretty good; if the 1NC is under highlighted 10 off, the 2A gets more leeway, as long as the 2A says something (can be one sentence, oh well) about it, an argument is not "conceded," but it makes the 2A's job much harder to defend. Given that, the 1NR should be the best speech in the round - I loved doing it because it was blocked out, and had copious amounts of prep for it.

- Send analytics if you want - I'd recommend it because then I definitely won't miss any arguments and it generally just makes the debate easier to follow for everyone, but I know some people are stingy about this. No speaker pts diff if you do either or, just know I will probably miss some of your arguments.

- Tech > Truth within reason. This means, yes, if you drop 50 State Fiat is a voter, you will lose. No, this does not mean if the other team drops Covid isn't real/some other just false statement that you will win.

---

Argument list ---

DAs:

Always good, basically the base of any neg strat. I don't know if 0 risk exists, but "so low where it's negligible" risk 100% exists. PTX DAs need to have updated ev (no-brainer). Straight-turning DAs is underused but is a good way to stop the neg from reading 4 crappy DAs and kicking them all in the block.

Ks:

I have a basic foundation in the more common ones (Cap, Neolib, Security, Afropess/Antiblackness EMPHASIS ON BASIC). I was more of a policy person, but I honestly think the topic are quite interesting and put spice into the bore of regular policy. Explain your args, and the name of an argument will never sway me away.

The alternative is critical. If the negative cannot explain how it works, solves, or even just makes sense, it doesn't matter if the aff is straight dropped all other points: you have no alternative. I think of it like a net benefit without a counterplan. The K becomes a linear DA at that point.

T:

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I strongly dislike T unless the aff is clearly untopical/is obviously unfair. Reasonability is valid, the neg gets a litany of random off case to check the aff, and most teams that say the aff spikes out of links have 10 off-case in the 1NC. Don't mind my flashy school name: my brain is not that big, and debates over minute details in interpretations/counter-interps make me sad. If you go for T, please have specifics on why the aff is bad, case list (very underutilized), and not just "the aff does not line up with our merrian-webster 1996 definition."

CPs:

Yes, good as well. They must be competitive, both textually and functionally. It cannot just do the same thing as the aff, P do the CP will suffice. You need a net benefit. Saying "it solves 100% of the aff" is a buzz-phrase, but I can believe it if given enough ev. The CP does not need to solve 100% of the aff given the NB is extraordinarily large - debate it out in round.

CPs should have solvency advocates in the 1nc!!!! Why should they not? The 2ac needs to know what is going on there so they can hedge against it; it's like if the neg chose to just read all their links and uniqueness cards for the DAs in the block. What is a solvency advocate? A carded piece of evidence that proves why your CP solves the harms of the aff. Keep it simple; not having an advocate gives me a pretty good reason to reject the argument (maybe not the team, depends on abuse).

Non-Traditional Affs:

I will be extremely confused, and unsure how to vote. If you want to try, go ahead; I think I will find it very interesting to listen to, but I caution you that there are many more well-qualified people than me to judge you. I do not have much experience at all in this field.

Theory:

If it's not either straight dropped or close to it, it's probably not a good idea to go for it unless you really know what's going on. The two args I have a soft spot for are "condo bad" and "absolutely terrible CPs bad" (no solvency advocate, textually uncompetitive, PICS bad, etc). Other than that, I'd say theory is not very viable.

---

Extra stuff:

- Mandatory "if you make me laugh, you'll get bonus speaks"

- Be clear, speaks go down if you are a bad speaker.

- Be nice. I know firsthand how CX can have a toxic culture, and if I see it in round (to your partner, to others, etc) you are losing entire digits of speaks.

- I'm a nice person I swear, ask questions after the round if you want. No judgement.

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Coach at Alpharetta High School 2006-Present
Coach at Chattahoochee High School 1999-2005
Did not debate in High School or College.

E-mail: asmiley27@gmail.com

General thoughts- I expect debaters to recognize debate as a civil, enjoyable, and educational activity. Anything that debaters do to take away from this in the round could be penalized with lower speaker points. I tend to prefer debates that more accurately take into account the types of considerations that would play into real policymakers' decision making. On all arguments, I prefer more specifics and less generics in terms of argument choice and link arguments.

The resolution has an educational purpose. I prefer debates that take this into account and find ways to interact with the topic in a reasonable way. Everything in this philosophy represents my observations and preferences, but I can be convinced otherwise in the round and will judge the arguments made in the round. I will vote on most arguments, but I am going to be very unlikely to vote on arguments that I consider morally repugnant (spark, wipeout, malthus, cancer good, etc). You should avoid these arguments in front of me.

Identity arguments- I do not generally judge these rounds and was traditionally less open to them. However, the methods and messages of these rounds can provide important skills for questioning norms in society and helping all of us improve in how we interact with society and promote justice. For that reason, I am going to work hard to be far more open to these arguments and their educational benefits. There are two caveats to this that I want you to be aware of. First, I am not prima facie rejecting framework arguments. I will still be willing to vote on framework if I think the other side is winning that their model of debate is overall better. Second, I have not read the amount of literature on this topic that most of you have and I have not traditionally judged these rounds. This means that you should not assume that I know all of the terms of art used in this literature or the acronyms. Please understand that you will need to assist in my in-round education.

K- I have not traditionally been a big fan of kritiks. This does not mean that I will not vote for kritiks, and I have become much more receptive to them over the years. However, this does mean a couple of things for the debaters. First, I do not judge as many critical rounds as other judges. This means that I am less likely to be familiar with the literature, and the debaters need to do a little more work explaining the argument. Second, I may have a little higher threshold on certain arguments. I tend to think that teams do not do a good enough job of explaining how their alternatives solve their kritiks or answering the perms. Generally, I leave too many rounds feeling like neither team had a real discussion or understanding of how the alternative functions in the round or in the real world. I also tend towards a policy framework and allowing the aff to weigh their advantages against the K. However, I will look to the flow to determine these questions. Finally, I do feel that my post-round advice is less useful and educational in K rounds in comparison to other rounds.

T- I generally enjoy good T debates. Be sure to really impact your standards on the T debate. Also, do not confuse most limiting with fair limits. Finally, be sure to explain which standards you think I as the judge should default to and impact your standards.

Theory-I am willing to pull the trigger on theory arguments as a reason to reject the argument. However, outside of conditionality, I rarely vote on theory as a reason to reject the team. If you are going for a theory arg as a reason to reject the team, make sure that you are impacting the argument with reasons that I should reject the team. Too many debaters argue to reject the team without any impact beyond the argument being unfair. Instead, you need to win that it either changed the round in an unacceptable way or allowing it changes all future rounds/research in some unacceptable way. I will also tend to look at theory as a question of competing interpretations. I feel that too many teams only argue why their interpretation is good and fail to argue why the other team’s interpretation is bad. Also, be sure to impact your arguments. I tend towards thinking that topic specific education is often the most important impact in a theory debate. I am unlikely to do that work for you. Given my preference for topic specific education, I do have some bias against generic counterplans such as states and international actor counterplans that I do not think would be considered as options by real policymakers. Finally, I do think that the use of multiple, contradictory neg advocacies has gotten out of hand in a way that makes the round less educational. I generally believe that the neg should be able to run 1 conditional CP and 1 conditional K. I will also treat the CP and the K as operating on different levels in terms of competition. Beyond that, I think that extra conditional and contradictory advocacies put too much of a burden on the aff and limit a more educational discussion on the merits of the arguments.

Disads- I generally tend towards evaluating uniqueness as the most important part of the disad debate. If there are a number of links and link turns read on a disad debate, I will generally default towards the team that is controlling uniqueness unless instructed by the debaters why I should look to the link level first. I also tend towards an offense defense paradigm when considering disads as net benefits to counterplans. I think that the politics disad is a very educational part of debate that has traditionally been my favorite argument to both coach and judge. I will have a very high threshold for voting on politics theory. Finally, teams should make sure that they give impact analysis that accounts for the strong possibility that the risk of the disad has been mitigated and tells me how to evaluate that mitigation in the context of the impacts in round.

Counterplans-I enjoy a good counterplan debate. However, I tend to give the aff a little more leeway against artificially competitive counterplans, such as consult counterplans. I also feel that a number of aff teams need to do more work on impacting their solvency deficits against counterplans. While I think that many popular counterplans (especially states) are uniquely bad for debate, I have not seen teams willing to invest the time into theory to help defeat these counterplans.

Reading cards after the round- I prefer to read as few cards post round as possible. I think that it is up to the debaters to give clear analysis of why to prefer one card over another and to bring up the key warrants in their speeches.

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

Assistant Coach and Researcher for Banneker/Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

American University '27 (Public Health)

Woodward Academy '23

Email Chain: jayyoon35@gmail.com

Jay, not judge.

Topic knowledge: I am familiar with basic economic concepts, have done limited research and file production on the topic. Judged at GDS, and the Gonzaga and Michigan camp tournaments. Explain in-depth economic concepts as well as acronyms and nuances present within arguments intrinsic to the topic.

Individuals who have influenced parts of my paradigm:

Maggie Berthiaume

Bill Batterman

Sam Wombough

Zaria Jarman

Jack Hightower

David Trigaux

Liv Birnstad

Top Level

Good luck!

Be nice, have fun, don't clip, and learn something from the round.

Extinction first/extinction good is unethical and never prioritized.

Send analytics.

If I cannot flow an argument, it does not count as one.

If an argument does not have a warrant, it is not an argument.

Clash > Tricks

Truth = Tech

Accessibility

Have a way to share ev if one team is using paper.

Don't read args with graphic descriptions unless everyone in the round is fine with it.

Don't spread if speed is not accessible to your opponents.

Biases

As debate is a persuasive activity, confidence and intelligent arguments are important. While every judge has their own biases, which are subject to change over time, here are some of mine:

Death/suffering is bad

War is bad

Climate change is real and exacerbated daily

Discrimination and violence in any form is bad.

1NC

Hiding ASPEC is bad; therefore the aff is permitted to briefly address it and move on. not auto-neg even if dropped.

Case

I will consider voting on complete defense if there is minimal/no risk of aff solvency.

Case turns are good.

Don't forget about impact framing.

Disadvantages

If the DA is incomplete, it is not an argument. The 1AR gets new answers when the missing part/s are added.

The link is the most important part of the DA. I will not disregard the importance of the UQ and impact despite that.

Politics DAs are structurally flawed and rely upon a flawed model of politics. The aff can easily mitigate the risk by pointing out and emphasizing these flaws. Intrinsic DAs are better for neg ground and clash throughout the round so I might not be the best judge if your 2NRs are mostly politics.

Turns case is useful but it needs to be developed further in the overview/line-by-line.

Impact/Case Turns

I enjoy them, assuming they aren't offensive/morally objectionable. Winning an impact turn will require some defense to mitigate the risk of the case.

Counterplans

States: Don't leave D.C. out of texts or advocacy statements. Uniformity is unrealistic

Have a relevant solvency advocate in the 1NC; if the neg reads a specific solvency advocate in the block (as opposed to the 1NC), the aff gets new answers.

CPs should fiat a specific policy, not an outcome.

Process and Agent CPs: Arguments on the competition flow are likely more persuasive than theory but theory args can complement competition args if warranted out properly.

Critiques

Ks are particularly significant for this year's topic. The Ks I'm most familiar with include degrowth/growth bad (both as a K and DA/impact turn), settler colonialism, capitalism/neoliberalism, and security. Moving toward higher theory literature such as Psychoanalysis or Baudrillard is where I might start to get lost.

I will default to weighing the aff/perm against the alt. Neg teams can read links stemming from the aff's actions , defense of impacts, as well as the mechanism/ representations (without becoming a PIK). I think that PIKs out of the aff’s reps are only competitive if the neg proves that the aff’s reps are bad. If the aff wins their reps are good, I’m much more like to vote aff on a perm.

Explain the links and alt level and distinguish them from a vague and potentially utopian outcome.

K Affs

I have only been negative against critical affs.

Defend the entirety of your 1AC, including your authors and concepts forwarded.

There is a higher threshold for perms when the neg has specific links/the aff has a vaguer advocacy.

Fairness can be an impact depending on how it's argued. Even if not, it is a large internal link to other impacts.

Topicality

Not the best judge for T vs policy affs.

Plan text in a vacuum is a bad argument.

T is not a reverse voting issue.

Procedurals

Likely not a voting issue unless dropped and warranted.

Disclosure is good.

Plans should not be vague to the point where it is undebatable.

Hiding APSEC/theory is a good way to lose speaker points.

Theory

Condo: I'm comfortable voting aff if there are at least two conditional advocacies. It's also the only reason to reject the team unless warranted out in explicit detail. Condo also becomes more persuasive when combined with args like perf con. Make sure to distinguish between conditional (judge kick is not permitted) and the status quo is a logical option (judge kick is permitted) when stating the interp.

Good theory debating requires good line-by-line.

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