Tabroom.com

49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Spencer Anderson McElligott Edina High School

Last changed on Wed March 8, 2023 at 11:27 AM CDT

Edina '21 & UMN '25, current Edina novice policy coach

he/him

Yes, please add me to the chain. umnakdebate [at] gmail (dot) com.

If you have questions about college debate (or college) or whatever else, please feel free to ask me or email me!

TL;DR - General

I have all the technical debate knowledge necessary to judge the arguments you read.

That said, I likely don't have the topic knowledge, so judge instruction and clarifying meaning of acronyms will go a long way. I will aim to give type of decision that I'd like to hear as a debater, win or lose.

If you are debating in front of me and feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or have another need, please let me know at some point and I will do my best to support you and meet your needs in that moment! Please feel free to email me, say something out loud, write something down and hand it to me, etc.

Exclusionary behavior, when purposeful, will get you an L, lowest possible speaks, and discussion with your coaches; situations are nuanced and impossible to predict, but my tolerance for things that make debate unsafe is low. This includes misgendering - it's not hard to simply not do it. Exclusionary behavior, when unintentional, warrants reasonable action based on the situation - baseline is probably a discussion about why it's harmful and what to do instead.

Sometimes I make faces when I judge debates; I think this is mostly because I have very little bodily awareness, though. If I look confused, it doesn't mean I don't like the argument - more that I don't understand it and I want you to explain it more. If I look dead inside, I promise I am not upset at you or disliking your debating - it's almost certainly me concentrating on flowing, or being tired! The exception to this is if I am obviously shaking my head - this is nearly always because I find an argument offensive or dangerous in some way and will do my best to educate about whatever the issue was after the round.

Policy:

I know that people read paradigms for bias, so here is my background: I am substantially less familiar with policy-style arguments because I have been a one-off K + K aff debater for around five years now, both in high school and college debate. I don't think that this is particularly obvious based on my judging record, though - I'll evaluate the technical level of the flow to the best of my ability and vote for the team who wins it.

That said, if you choose a policy-heavy strategy, judge instruction in the final rebuttals will go a long way. I will flow and follow uncontested judge instruction. This might also mean it could be helpful to keep track of and answer the judge instruction your opponents make if you think their instruction bodes poorly for you winning the debate.

This, along with my lack of indepth HS topic knowledge means that in plan aff v topicality debates I have literally no clue what the community consensus is on what the commonly-accepted "real" and "fake" T args are for the year. It would behoove both teams to tell me what the community norms are this year if you think someone is going for a particularly egregious T interp or if an aff is egregiously untopical.

I'd like to think that the Ks I am most well-read on tend to be material and have real-world applications and conclusions. Examples and counterexamples are helpful in these debates and often carry a lot of weight when done well - I will reward good examples with good speaks. I find that pomo-type lit bases are less intuitive for me to understand, which means that examples and thorough, logical explanations can be more important if that's your jam.

I will try my very best to vote on the arguments made on the flow, as all good judges do. Adapt at your own risk, which is to say, probably don't. I'd rather see you do what you do best than see you try to run a K without knowing how.

Update for TOC Online 3:

I've noticed a trend where debaters are worried to be straight-up because there is a competitive edge to being sneaky. So far this has looked like: reading a bunch of offcase that you can't explain in CX for timeskew, procrastinating on giving an order to not reveal your strategic choices for a few extra seconds, not opensourcing (when there isn't a good reason like personal content in a performance), or strategically... changing up how you disclose past 2NRs to trick the other team into thinking you'll read something that you have no intention of reading.

In all fairness, I probably used to do most of this stuff too, but it does not make for good and high quality debates. I also fear that some of these things - misdisclosure in particular - may unintentionally come across as kind of mean; it's hurtful to feel like another team is running circles around you and laughing at you while they do it!

Good disclosure practices and other things that lead to high-quality debates makes the community better and makes us all smarter! Truly! Please do what you can to make the community better.

Debaters and debates that are high quality are rewarded with high speaks, and not just by me - I suspect that the speaks boost over the course of a tournament will do much more in helping you clear than whatever tiny advantage you get from the other team being slightly more unprepared.

Other ways to boost speaks:

The best (and most fun) debates I've gotten to judge this year have been indepth K v K debates, and I'd be delighted to see more of these.
Bold strategic choices, executed well. This goes hand-in-hand with the sneakiness stuff from above; make final rebuttal choices that don't make things hard for yourself - don't panic and try to answer every piece of line by line if it's not necessary to win the debate.
Please don't read fully blocked-out rebuttals T-USFG. This is an issue on both sides, but the worst instances are when the 2NR or 2AR is fully blocked out. It's desperately unspecific, I've probably heard your blocks before which will make me grouchy, and nobody's learning anything. Furthermore, if one team reads a final rebuttal that relies on blocks, and the other team uses critical thinking to identify what they need to do to win, the team who didn't use blocks will win the flow almost every time, and consequently win the ballot.

Policy Minnesota Locals:

I'm so glad you're reading my paradigm! Yay! If you let me know that you've read my paradigm at some point before the debate starts, I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

Disclosure things -

If you are from a school who does not currently have a wiki, and you want help setting one up, I will help you set it up after my RFD and give you a 30 for posting cites for the round on it. Now, I will default to coach vetos of this, but in general, I think that disclosure will help improve the quality of and continue to build the well-being of local debate!

Independently, if you are from a school who does currently have a wiki, I will give you +0.5 speaker points for posting cites - you should tell me this after the debate is done, because I will otherwise very likely forget.

Debate content things -

When you extend cards to respond to the other team's cards or analytics, you don't have to remember what the author's name is - "1AC 4" is sufficient to tell me which one it was - but you most certainly do have to... actually extend it, by explaining the arguments that it makes and the warrants. I have noticed a trend where debaters will say things like "they say no solvency, but we do solve - extend all of our solvency cards, moving on". Please don't do this, because I will not grant you work that you didn't do over work that the other team did.

If you are typically a national circuit debater, but you are using local circuit tournaments as a time to "meme" or mess around, this will make me very sad. I think that debate has huge potential and I want it to reach as many people as it can. I fundamentally believe that strengthening quality of debate on the local circuit can set the conditions for a better national circuit with lots of teams from MN competing at high levels. Please contribute to this if you can by respecting local debate. Happy to chat about my thoughts after rounds or at tournaments, because I think that I had a lack of understanding of this concept when I was debating in HS!

LD:

K - 1

LARP - 1

Phil/Tricks/Theory - pref me at your own risk, I guess?

I have very limited experience judging LD. That means that, while I'm confident in my ability to adjudicate anything that would appear in a policy debate according to community norms, I fear that my decisions in phil or tricks rounds may not follow convention simply because I have no understanding of what convention for those styles is. If I'm judging you and that's your jam - I mean, go for it, but heavy judge instruction and a bit more explanation than normal will go far in making sure that my decision lines up with your intentions on the flow.

I have heard that lack of clarify in spreading in LD is getting out of hand. I will clear you up to three times. Please listen and adapt if this happens. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth, I cannot flow them, and thus they will not make it into my decision, which nobody wants. I will not use the speech doc to flow, nor to make up for pieces of a speech that were too unclear to flow in the first place.

PF:

Like LD, I have very limited experience judging PF.

Because I come from a policy background, I will evaluate the debate on the flow, so dropped args = true. Like with LD, I have non-existent knowledge about community norms for judging events that aren't policy.

Send your cards.

I will boost speaks for teams who send their evidence to the email chain before giving your speech without the opponent asking.

For teams who do not send their evidence to the email chain before the speech starts, if the opponent points it out and also sends their own cards to the chain before giving their speeches, I will take speaks away from the non-card-sending team and give them to the card-sending team.

Independent from the above, I will not stand for educational dishonesty (blatant misrepresentation of evidence, et cetera). If this becomes an issue in the debate, the team who committed the violation will receive an L and lowest possible speaks - don't test me on this. If it doesn't come up in the debate, but I notice that it has happened on my own, I don't feel comfortable throwing away the flow of the round, but I will still give that team the lowest possible speaks and take any other action that I deem necessary given the context of the round.

Marcelo Andreu Muller Christopher Columbus High School

aden barton Hire

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 3:06 AM EDT

MBA '20

Harvard '24

Please put me on the chain and feel free to send any questions here: adenbarton@college.harvard.edu

TL:

Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks. That being said, I probably will come down on policy side against the K if the debate is exactly even.

Being nice in round, evidence quality, and efficient line-by-line are the most important things to me / will be rewarded the most with speaks.

Specifics:

K: I agree with Julian here:

“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.”

CP: Lean neg pretty heavily on most theory but could go either way on process cps, depending on the quality / specificity of the cp and in-round theory debating. I won't judge kick unless told to.

DA: Nothing new to say really. Think that generic DAs are probably underutilized, so no worries going for those in front of me.

K Affs / FW: I went for framework many times in high school, so I judge these rounds with the experience of having been on the neg vs k affs more so than being on the aff vs fw. For affs, I find straight up impact turns / k’s of fw more persuasive than c/i + defining words in the rez. For the neg, I’m more of a skills / education impact person, but still will listen to fairness / clash impacts.

T: Please please give me more background on the topic than you would normally. I have no idea what the core of the topic, community consensus, or what the best core generics are. The team that more specifically describes what their vision of the topic usually seems to win these debates.

Speaker Points: Mine are probably too inflated. Will reward kind debaters who are enjoying themselves in the activity.

Ian Bass Hire None

Silma Bathily Hire

Dana Bell Bronx Middle School

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 5:59 AM EDT

I coach policy debate at Success Academy Bronx Middle School. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level. I can speak directly to older teams.

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

dana.bell@saschools.org for the chain.

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

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

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

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

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

4. Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

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

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

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

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

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

Sohan Bellam Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Mon February 27, 2023 at 7:12 AM CDT

Sohan

Emory University '26

Glenbrook North '22

sohandebate2@gmail.com

My predispositions are irrelevant to most debates. Debate how you do best and avoid over-adapting.

Non-Negotiables:

1. Death is bad and so are suffering and violence.

2. I won't adjudicate issues that happened outside of the debate.

T debates are fantastic to judge when done well and difficult to judge when done poorly. Impact comparison is a prerequisite to winning a ballot. Reasonability is unpersuasive.

Violations with a balance of predictability and a limiting factor are best for debate. Going too far one way unbalances the topic. However, I can be convinced by technical debating on the flow; strong impact comparison will make it very easy to win my ballot regardless of my predispositions.

DAs:

Including second and third-level turns case arguments is a way to win the debate and gain speaker points.

I enjoy politics debates most.

CPs:

Counterplans must be competitive. I am persuaded by smart arguments as to why perm do the counterplan is legitimate. I, however, am less sympathetic to the intrinsic perm than other judges in high school.

Theory:

Conditionality and solvency advocate theory are reasons to reject the team because they both irrevocably skewed the debate. This does not mean you can not read counterplans without solvency advocates; it just means you must be prepared to theoretically defend them. You will not win a theory debate if you do not do line by line.

Kritiks:

I am comfortable with most of the kritiks being read on this topic. I have read and gone for the Cap K and Security K, and I have been in many debates about antiblackness and setcol--I am more than comfortable judging all of that. I know nothing about postmodernism/poststructuralism/high theory arguments and will be confused if you go for them.

Do line by line.

K Affs:

Affirmatives should defend topical action.

Do not care what impact you go for on T.

Fairness is an impact and procedural fairness is apriori to structural fairness.

If the aff's internal links to the case or framework are reliant on political change or winning some sort of out-of-round skills key warrant, I am very persuaded by the neg that the iterative process of debate is a better model.

K v K debates are 1. bad and 2. will confuse me.

Matthew Berhe Hire

Last changed on Wed October 27, 2021 at 12:47 PM EDT

Hello, I recently graduated from Lexington high school - add me to the email chain: chickenwrap4@gmail.com

The litmus test for judge intervention is obviously high. I doubt I’ll do it but in the instance of exclusionary slurs or blatant evidence ethics I won’t have a real problem.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth - everyone has personal conceptions of the quality of arguments but the decision a judge makes should reflect the debaters input and delivery of arguments rather than preconceived beliefs. If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc - my least favorite decisions include prioritizing new 2ar arguments or heavily leaned aff or neg because they believed they were on the “right” side of the issue.

LD:

I evaluate every round that lacks a theory or topicality argument through

What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize
Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

But obviously theory violations sideline my ability to evaluate such since they question the ethicality of engaging content in the first place.

Theory - I figured I'd put this first since it's considered one of the most judge dependent things. I'll vote on almost every theory violation, the almost exists as I wont vote on theory if it doesn't meet the standard of an "argument". A lot of people blip through incoherent statements that lack any form of development such as "vote aff cuz speech times favor an advantaged negative" this claim is terrible but even if the neg drops this it's not an argument as there's no explanation for why speech times favor the neg or how voting aff would solve such. However, if someone desires to pursue this incoherent argument they could say "a time pressed 1AR will inevitably get pummeled as it has to cover 7 minuets of content where the negative gets to develop any part of such - endlessly voting aff would force NDSA to change the structure of debate as it's functionally ending the activity" - that's an argument but a single blip answer from the neg will pretty much eliminate such. I will vote for any theory argument if it's substantiated in the original explanation not after it is "dropped".

Clarity and speed matter a lot in theory debates - often LD debaters can drop or lightly cover spikes when they are exempted or put inside large paragraphs because they're forced to flow when the aff can often be the combination of unclear and fast. While the aff may think this is a cheeky strategy absent immense clarity how does this prevent the judge from missing the argument as well. I'm not going to miss the argument on my original flow and look back and see it's in the middle of your 4th paragraph and expect the debater to catch it as well. This doesn't mean I'm against large walls of spikes but rather I only evaluate them when delivered coherently.

Theory arguments usually boil down to two main factors

1 - What impact does the affirmatives performance potentially cause relative to the benefits it potentially has

2 - How likely is it that the affirmatives performance causes or solves such problem in debate.

3 - If I should compare impacts or hold the affirmative to a standard where I let them pass if I believe they're reasonable.

What I mean by 1 - In a condo debate the aff can claim multiple conditional options skew 1AR strategy and the neg can claim it's absolutely necessary to ensure any educational value - however, as a judge adjuticating if the practice of conditionality is good I need to start with is preventing time skew more important than ensuring education. Winning this part of theory can lower the bar for how much of a link you need to win to your impact as you've already substantiated that it is much more important.

What I mean by 2 - In this very same condo debate even if the aff wins I should care about time skew way more than education if the negative proves it's very unlikely that conditional options uniquely skew the aff I should start to prioritize the negatives impact because it can be solved. However, this is all relative - how likely it is to be solved * how important is it to solve is the traditional frame used by an objective audience.

What I mean by 3 - This is the classic competing interpretations vs reasonability - without any debating I lean towards competing interpretations as it seems a bit arbitrary to randomly say I don't think the aff commited too much of a crime and leave it at that. However, if the aff sets up a persuasive argument for why anything but a model of reasonable doubt causes an endless proliferation of nonsense which is a) unfair or b) kills the value in debate I can be persuaded. Again, these often lose to arbitrariness or judge intervention claims in my experience.

Theory can also be an avenue for complete BS - I read robo spec, no prep, and grammarly spec as a debater for fun sometimes. However, I felt no sympathy going for these arguments as they're so trash if the aff can't generate responses of the top of their head they shouldn't win the round anyways. I'm the same as a judge I'm not going to strike a trash theory argument off the flow because it is utterly trash because it should be the aff's burden to disprove the utter trash.

This is the same for tricks, clarity and forming complete arguments are NECESSARY but otherwise it comes down to technical debating - I don't care how many you read if I can flow all of them.

CPs - this is pretty simple.

1 - Is the CP competitive

2 - Does the net benefit outweigh the risk of a solvency deficit

Some low level debates can justify competition by difference which never made any sense - it's the negatives burden to prove absolute exclusivity either based on text function or both. Usually for PICs this is pretty self explanatory.

Does the NB outweigh - for some reason some people think under the frame I've got to beat the CP then I've got to beat the DA. Usually there's no "beating" the CP or "DA" there's minimizing the risk (unless the debating from one side is absolutely terrible). One can lower the risk of the CP solving the aff and prove to me the case outweighs the DA but if I conclude the net benefit outweighs the risk that the CP doesn't solve I'm still forced to vote negative.

Judge kick - I'll presume towards it if no debating occurs.

DAs - this is a scenario where evidence matters a good amount to me, it seems kinda weird if people talk about the current state of politics or large economic factors based on arbitrary claims when the other team has cards supporting different from qualified specialists. However, this doesn't mean the neg should have a card that answers every aff argument but should be able to connect the dots between the thesis their authors support to disprove any rebuttal supported by the aff. For example, not having evidence to answer impact D in the 2NR usually doesn't matter a whole lot in LD if the original card you had in the 1NC was any good. However, if the 1NC has a barely highlighted impact card and the 1AR reads a bunch of reasons why warming doesn't cause extinction it's likely that the 2NR is going to need evidence to rebut such.

Phil - I don't have the most experience on smaller philosophies but I've gotten to understand things like Hobbes, Kant, Util, Forms of skepticism, and honestly most things read in LD. It's important for me to understand what your philosophy values in morality and how that connects to whatever the negatives philosophy is. For example, saying KANT=TRUE then Kant supports X is an argument but when the neg says X causes extinction or something it's on the aff to explain why such impact matters less than following a certain ethical criteria.

I am very low on TJFs most people have them, they make me cringe read them if you want but to me they're basically at the same standard of argument as you're a robot theory.

Ks - I spend a decent amount of time debating about whether I should evaluate the consequences of the plan against the alternative or some other framework based on education, reps, or any alternative metric. Oftentimes when the neg loses this debate their strategy starts to fall apart. However, some great Ks have backup plans built into their thesis. From my experience technical blocks resulted in a complete 1AR collapse - I don’t like it when the AFF just reiterates a generic defense of scenario planning and fails to connect it or answer the negative articulation of why such is bad.

If one does decide to go for a K against a Kaff make sure to

1 - Have a good defense of whatever your theory of how power/whatever you're questioning operates.

2 - Spend a lot of time proving exclusivity when it is hard to pin the affirmative to a specific method

3 - Explain why what the ALT solves is a lot more important than what the aff solves OR if it actually solves the case.

KAFFs - I used to read them a lot and logically I'm fine adjudicating these but I often hold the aff to a relatively high bar when answering framework. Having sweeping critiques of debate as a whole or the logic of "fairness" are bold claims but if the negative fails to dispute them it's fair game. In framework debates the neg should respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

My policy paradigm:

I evaluate every round simply through two frames absent a theoretical violation (theory or topicality)

What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize
Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

New Trier is my first time judging the topic, but I’m decently informed on most affs, CPs, DAs, and Ks. My background in debate was almost entirely centered around Ks, T, and interesting kritikal versions of CPs and theoretical arguments. That being said I never had a strong ideological belief of the arguments I delivered but tried to perform it in the most technical venue to get the ballot, which is generally how I viewed most critical arguments. I don’t have any essentialist strong beliefs such as “Ks are bad” but I won’t let teams get away with minimal proof for broad sweeping claims about how the entirety of the world operates given decent aff contestation.

CPs - neg must prove opportunity cost with a net benefit Germaine to the plan outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit - against most CPs I prefer when the 2AR paints a consistent picture that connects deficits to certain 1AC Cards rather than blips that force the judge to infer, this also includes impacting out each solvency deficit.

T - I went for weird T arguments a lot such as “substantial” but also pretty decent T arguments for the majority of my junior year and some of my senior year. Most of the time I’m a big fan of precise definitions, anything else seems to be pretty arbitrary and makes any limits set unpredictable. However, I can be convinced that some definitions are so unbearable for the negative that research becomes closer and closer to impossibility. A large part of the time T debates bottle down to what impact matters the most as it’s hard to completely mitigate small theoretical impacts.

Framework - respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

Julien Berman Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sun July 31, 2022 at 2:13 PM EDT

For the email chain, add julienberman@college.harvard.edu

Qualifications

2N from Georgetown Day. Went to the TOC my junior and senior years. Learned debate primarily from jon sharp, Gabe Koo, John Turner, and Shree Awsare.

Overview

I am probably as flex as you can get. Junior and senior years I read an aff about gender with no plan. I have gone for everything from high theory kritiks to process counterplans. I'll be cool with your style no matter what.
However, I do have opinions on the most persuasive ways to articulate each argument. Don't change your strategy if I'm in the back, but this paradigm should give you a sense of how best to get my ballot with the strategy you have selected.
Don't cheat. You'll get an auto-L and the lowest speaker points possible.
Assume I have very little topic knowledge.

Ideological Preferences

Non-traditional / Planless Affs

I love seeing different and creative ways to affirm the resolution in some way.
For the aff against framework, I am more persuaded by a strategy centered around a non-arbitrary counterinterpretation than one that impact turns fairness.
The aff has to solve something. You do not have to fiat in the traditional policy sense, but solvency explanation needs to go beyond "this is a good epistemological shift" or "we read the aff into debate"
The neg should go for presumption and give aff specific reasons why the aff does nothing. This will almost certainly cause me to give your off-case positions more weight. If you spend more than 4 minutes of your 2NR on presumption I will give you ridiculously high speaker points.

Framework vs Planless Affs

Stop reading pre-written overviews and blocks. It doesn't help. Trust me. Especially when you don't engage the aff's critiques of your model.
Impact calculus is great. For instance, instead of just saying that fairness is intrinsic to the game of debate, explain why preserving that game is more important than a mitigate risk of affirmative DAs to your interpretation.
More persuaded by fairness impacts than education / policymaking good / deliberation ones.
I have yet to see someone read a card on a standard in the 1NC and then coherently extrapolate an external piece of offense later in the debate. If you do this, I will be impressed.
TVA > switch side. But it actually has to be topical, and also a version of the aff. It's not a counterplan, but explain the inroads into the aff's scholarship.

Policy Affs

I have a very low tolerance for affs that string together a bunch of internal link cards and call it an advantage. You know who you are. Neg teams can easily defeat these arguments by rehighlighting a couple cards and making a few smart analytical arguments. Sometimes the aff is so absurd that it doesn't deserve a case neg.
If you have a giant framing contention, you better know how to use it. I'd rather not see you defending deontology if none of your cards support that ethical position.

T vs Policy Affs

I love this argument.
Limits > ground. Please have a caselist. Preferably two - one for the set of "good" affs your interpretation includes, and one for the set of "bad" affs the counterinterpretation includes but your interpretation excludes.
For the aff, predictability and arbitrariness is more persuasive offense to me than overlimiting and aff ground.
Please do impact calculus. On the neg, explain why strict limits are more important that a slightly more predictable definition. On the aff, explain why a more predictable gold standard is more important than an artificial limit.
Reasonability makes very little sense to me as currently explained in the debate community. Simply saying "good is good enough, T is substance crowd out, race to the bottom is bad" is a waste of time.

Counterplans

The more creative the better. Aff specific is a plus.
Process counterplans are fine if you know what's up. If you read one in front of me, don't waste your time reading a bunch of giant net benefits. If it solves the aff it solves the aff. Aff teams should not go for the intrinsic permutation without making a theory argument.
Permutation texts must be read, not inserted.
Advantage counterplans with a million planks aren't persuasive without extensive evidence and rehighlighting of aff evidence.

Kritiks

Go for it. I am familiar with neoliberalism, settler colonialism, Foucault, Heidegger, Bataille, Racial Capitalism, Baudrillard, and Afropessimism. That being said, please explain as if I know nothing about your theory.
Get rid of your overview and just do line by line. Or keep the overview to under a minute if you have to.
The links are the best parts of the kritik; they better be contextualized to the aff. Good links beat generic aff cards ten times out of ten.
Kritiks are more persuasive with a robust framework push. Framework is not a theory argument, it's about how I should weigh the ethical problems with the aff.
PiKs are fine as long as you spend a good chunk of time on framework.

Disadvantages

Please make your links aff specific.
The politics DA is a made up argument for the debate world. This means there are many absurd elements that the aff team should point out.
Zero risk is a thing. Some disads just don't exist.

Theory

Conditionality is either good or bad. There is no interpretation or violation, so stop pretending there is. It does not depend on the number or type of different counterplans either. Don't skew your time making arguments about time skew.

My Favorite Arguments

The Capitalism kritik against planless affs. I went for it about 80% of the time.
T (not framework)
Dedev
Heg good / bad

Daniel Block Little Rock Central

Last changed on Wed February 22, 2023 at 3:26 PM CDT

Daniel (he/him)

put both danielblock@brandeis.edu and ddblock1231@gmail.com on email chains

I. The Holy Trinity

1. Don't be problematic

2. Keep your own time and be honest about it

3. If you don't take notes during RFD, I will leave

II. TLDR

i have zero familiarity with anything and everything. please explain acronyms and assume I have zero topicality knowledge (no idea what qualifies as topical, aff/neg bias, etc.) Debate takes two sides engaging critically with one another. If neither party engages with the other, I'm stuck watching a couple of high schoolers yelling to themselves for two hours. Do not simply read whatever you've been preparing save for a few "whereas they say this, we say that" statements. Give me something to really consider. Why should I give you the ballot instead of them, or no one at all for that matter? Not that I would do that, but if I feel like this is where the debate goes I'll just give both sides low speaks.

Clear judge instructions, contextualization, and impact calc will win my ballot.

III. Miscellaneous

If you are problematic, I will do some combination of the following: leave, kill your speaks, hand you an L, and/or contact your coaches.

Show common decency and respect to your opponent, myself, and yourself. Finesse/confidence is distinct from disrespect/degradation. The former is often the more persuasive and will usually win my ballot.

I try to take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often, teams will spend 2 minutes in rebuttals screaming about a dropped argument that the other team answered with analytics not flown. This not only confuses me and makes my job difficult, but when I go back to see whether you were actually right, I realize that you were not paying attention to the very round you are in.

Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

IV. Topicality, Fairness, K

If you want to read a kritik of debate, I support 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.

Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates. If you want to go for fairness, use it as a link to a more concrete impact (e.g truth testing, argument impact), rather than an impact on its own.

V. Framework

I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis.

For varsity/jv I default to viewing myself as a policy maker unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot."

VI. CX

For me, this is the most important part of the entire debate. I get to see how you understand your opponent's argument and how you think it plays into your own. Flex your intellectual muscles during CX. Tear them apart but keep it relevant to both yours and their argument.

Brandy Carbone The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 1:07 PM EDT

Hi! I am your judge :)

I would like to be on the email chain at BrandyCarboneDebate@gmail.com

I was a pretty successful high school policy debater (carried my banker boxes to Nationals at Stanford in 1990 (a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away ...) followed by a stint of college public forum debate. I stepped away from debate until my child participated in middle school parli which returned me to judging. This year is my return to policy and/or public forum as a judge. NOTE: I am more familiar with policy over pubic forum but have judged all type of debate. I am the worst at timing.

I'm a big fan of debate both as an activity through which students express themselves and acquire knowledge and skills and as a competition. Clearly things have changed over the last 30 years. The introduction of email chains is cool, but I think it allows people to forget how to clearly speak since every word you care about can be read. We spread in the old timey time (of course) but we also had to compete in Extemp because we were not allowed to lose our ability to communicate in our policy fervor. Clue: I still consider this a speech competition.

This paradigm thing is curious. I am tabula rasa. I will take whatever argument you want to throw at me, but you have to be able to explain it, defend it and weigh it. If you want it to be important to me, you have to tell me. A sure way to lose a round with me is to leave the round to my opinion. Clue: I will vote for the team that can convince me their arguments are the best with evidence, logic and (ideally) a little reason.

I flow on paper, and organization and structure in speeches are important for me. I really appreciate it when teams identify their arguments when giving them.

There are probably some current theory issues that will be new to me. I do think there is, and should be, room in debate for issues that affect the broader frameworks and circumstances within which policy is created. I am not absolute about it and will listen to arguments on both sides. I'm more current on policy and current events than I am on theory. Clue: I will listen to the arguments and pick the one argued best. I want to hear your understanding of the argument, and a demonstration of why it matters.

Final speech summaries are probably the quickest way to get my ballot, telling me how you see the round, and identifying the key few issues and assessments I should be making and how they should be made. Clue: Weigh! Weigh! Weigh!

Good luck!

(you can email me if you want extra feedback. but i am a bit blunt at times)

Gabriel Chang-Deutsch Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Mon February 27, 2023 at 1:22 PM CDT

MPLS South '21

Dartmouth '25 (If you are considering Dartmouth, please talk to me in person or send an email. I would love to talk to you. Go Trees!!)

- If there is an email chain, please add gabemkc@gmail.com and s outhdebatecoaches@gmail.com (policy only)

Stanford 23 Update: Assume no familiarity with the LD topic. I will judge this like 1 person policy except with LD resolutions I don't think a lot of arguments from policy make sense i.e if the resolution doesn't require a plan I don't get why there should be one.

Answer arguments in the order presented. This is not a suggestion nor a recommendation. It is a rule and if you refuse to follow it, I will be looking for reasons to vote against you.

I have many preferences about debate, but I will try very hard for them not to influence my adjudication of the round. There are a few that I find true:

1. Students spend incredible amounts of time preparing for debate tournaments and I have an obligation to put just as much effort into the round - this means I will try to fairly evaluate each argument as presented and seek to limit my biases.

2. Debate is a research based communicative activity - this means that both how you prepared to speak and what you say matter. I care about evidence quality and correct evidence practices. This means I find arguments that are divorced from external scholarship (academia, pundits, public intellectuals) less convincing. I will be impressed by innovative research, which will make me more likely to err for the well-evidenced team on close questions.

3. My favorite debates are small, evidence heavy and specific to the resolutional controversy - they are intellectually exciting and bring me great joy. The policy or K binary does not determine this - rather, teams that are able to choose points of disagreement early in the debate, go deep on those and outframe their opponent will be more successful in front of me than teams that win by brute force of speed. This is not based on any conviction about the value of arguments - rather, I am not good at adjudicating large debates and am likely to think about what Edmund Zagorin taught me are the "meta questions" in close debates.

4. Debate is good because we get to try new things and change our minds - dogmatic 1ACs/1NCs that don't change from topic to topic are terminally unpersuasive. Arguments based on past ethical failure will not be considered. Behavior that causes immediate harm to other debaters will culminate in an L and a 26.

5. Speaker points should be given based on the judges' discretion - I will intervene against people who ask me to give 30s. I will give you speaker points based on my regular discretion minus 2. I find the modern 29-30 speaker point scale hard to use and expect to give around a 28.7 if you have debated as if you are a member of the top 32 teams in a given pool.

Specific Arguments:

Most arguments are very similar and will be filtered through the above biases. Some are hard to understand from above so I will explain below.

I find well articulated theory arguments about the detrimental effects of specific practices more persuasive than most - articulating the importance of unconditional counterplans, solvency advocates and affirmative specification may be more persuasive to me than most.

Topicality arguments about the most desirable construction of the resolution for debating rather than a single side are most persuasive to me - articulating your impacts in the language of iteration, the game structure of debate and testing rather than AFF/NEG ground has always made the most sense to me.

The K v Policy divide is detrimental to debate - read the arguments you think are best supported and respond to your opponents position. I have no major preference if that results in a Afropessimist critique of democratic theory or a defense of the liberal international order, but I would prefer a planless affirmative that discusses water politics to a plan based affirmative that has more terminal impacts than topic specific cards.

I have been heavily influenced by Oskar Tauring-Traxler, Izak Gallini-Matyas, John Turner, Brett Bricker, Raam Tambe, Holland Bald.

Some judges who I aspire to judge similar to: Anirudh Prabhu, Shunta Jordan, Sean Kennedy, Shree Awsare, Chris Callahan, Brianna Aaron, Ansh Khullar, Kevin McCaffery, Yao Yao Chen and Kevin Hirn.

Ethics

- I will follow docs for evidence of clipping. If I see it, the round will end and the offending team will get L 25. Evidence of clipping or cross reading, along with an accusation, will be evaluated. If correct, L 25 for offender. If incorrect, L for the accusing team.

- agree with Truf -- 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 is entirely up to me.

Joseph Chicvak Berkeley Preparatory School

Christina Choi Stuyvesant High School

Akif Choudhury Hire

Luisa Cusick Walter Payton College Prep

Anna Dean Hire

Last changed on Mon March 20, 2023 at 9:33 AM CDT

Debate success doesn't matter! Have fun and do what you love! Be a good person!

Hello! My name is Anna Dean (she/her). I will default to (they/them) if I don't know you.

Bentonville West High School '21 (AR) | Harvard '25

I've been in the Speech & Debate world for 8 years. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.

TL;DR

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

Time yourself.

Do what you do & do it well.

Speed is fine (in CX/LD) (slow down a bit online & emphasize clarity)

Truth over Tech

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism

I love a good cross-ex :)

Win an impact.

Number your args... please.

You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact.

DO NOT CLIP CARDS.

Updated 2023: DO NOT GO FOR THEORY. Don't read tricks. I don't buy the bs. Win your arguments without tricking your opponents.

I do not like disclosure. I won't vote for it. You should be able to win without knowing exactly what your opponents are going to say(can't believe I have to even write this)

Policy:

KvK:

I like them if they're well done. I should say, I don't have immense knowledge of theory. I ran Fem, Fem Killjoy<3, Queer, Set Col, Cap in high school. I evaluate method v. method.

*I study Women and Gender Studies. I have knowledge about gender/ feminism critical theory and loveeeeee these arguments!

Plans:

Yes! I love a soft left AFF. My ideal round is a soft left aff and 3-6 off.

I love T. Go for it. I think it's underutilized. I like procedural fairness impacts (when it's clearly an impact). If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceded generic blips and buzzwords.

Framework:

I lean more neg (60/40). IMPACTS.

DAs:

Yes, but they can get boring and overdone. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's cloooooseeee!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link.

CPs:

I tend to think condo bad (55/45). Some teams try to get away with murder. Yes, I will vote on 'condo bad'. I lean neg when the CP is based in the literature and there's a reasonable solvency advocate. I lean aff when the CP meets neither of those conditions.

Ks:

Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.

If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course, you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate policies & practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated 6+ years of her life to it and tries to make it better.

Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.

LD:

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate.

I don't love theory/meta-theory/tricks. I find a lot of Philo debates have tricks. Please just win your arguments and do not trick your opponents. It is extremely rare I vote on it.

I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

See above for more specifics.

Congress:

Speak well. You are role-playing a policymaker... act like it.

Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.

I value evidence and credible sources.

DO NOT re-hash args.

Extemp:

I love good intros and transitions! I love to laugh a lil in an extemp round!

Organization is key!

I value evidence and credible sources.

I stay very up to date on current events... I will know what you're talking about... take that as you wish:)

Best of luck to you! If you have questions feel free to ask me before a round or email me!

Jakhi Dean Fenway High School

Anton DeLuca Long Branch High School

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 8:42 AM EDT

To begin with: please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. This is of paramount importance. While we understand that this is a competition and situations, especially during cross examination, can reach high levels of intensity, that is no excuse for showing disrespect to any party involved.

ANY reference to an opponent with the use of a derogatory or racist term (even under the guise of a performance piece or simulation in the debate space) will NOT be tolerated.

As a general note, I greatly prefer topicality in the debate round. If you are running an AFF that is far away from the topic of the year (i.e. performance pieces, poetry, voluntary silence), you will have to work very hard in the round to show relation to the resolution. If either team is running a KRITIK, you will have a high threshold for proving that the topic as given by the NSDA is not worthy of being debated.

As for Topicality arguments, I believe that they usually do not hold up over the long haul of a round. After a certain point, they just become, for lack of a better term, a time waste. As long as the AFF team can prove that they are topical if the NEG team calls it into question, it will leave my flow sheet after the 2AC.

Speed reading DOES NOT impress me. If anything, I find it to be distracting from the debate. If you want me to have a clean flow, make sure that I can understand that information that you are trying to relay. I much prefer being "explained to" vs. "read at". There is a difference. If I can't make sense of your arguments, it will be hard to pick a side.

During the final two speeches (2NR & 2AR) I will be listening for you to tell me why YOU should win the round.

For the most part, we are all here as a learning experience, and to enjoy the clash of policy debate
During your speeches, I will greatly appreciate clarity and slow-speaking, especially when reciting taglines and making important points. This will make it easier for me to analyze and flow what you are saying instead of struggling to keep up with what you are saying.

Please include me on all e-mail chain: adeluca@longbranch.k12.nj.us

Blake Deng Johns Creek High School

Last changed on Sat March 18, 2023 at 2:13 PM EDT

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn not just in the broad sense of “should I go K or policy this round” but even in your preferred method of debate like “should I go for the impact turn on FW against model vs model debates even though the judge says they are more convinced by a C/I resolves their offense arg” or “should I go for the process CP + net benefit even though the judge indicates they have a low threshold for what constitutes a cheating CP for the trigger pull on theory?”

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. I feel that huge problems with evidence or reasons why they are “fire” should be conveyed to me in a speech, and usually as some kind of terminal defense or offensive "why we win the round" argument. For example, if you think your piece of evidence is just so good that it’s going to turn the tide on the “Will China invade Taiwan” question, then you in the 2NR/2AR should direct me to look at X piece of evidence (after actually extending the warrants of said evidence).

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. There is a often a saying that "a good debater is a good case debater". Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Kyujin Derradji Cai Zhao Independent

Last changed on Fri March 24, 2023 at 2:18 PM CDT

email chain: kyujinderradji@gmail.com & interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

pronouns: he/they

qualifications: qualified to the toc my senior year & bid with >1 partner, cleared to toc octas, illinois varsity state champion

affiliations: debated @ northside college prep (2017-2021), assistant coach @ interlake hs (2021-)

note - harvard:

barring the aff is new or you are mav, you must either do cross ex for all 3 minutes or end early. you cannot use cross ex for prep.

obviously rehighlighting cards is fine, but my new pet peeve is when teams rehighlight cards and the rehighlighting is blatantly false. please don't do that and pay attention to what you are rehighlighting!

natotopic:

i have a relatively good understanding of this topic as it has developed so far - did relatively in-depth research at camp this summer and during the preseason. i will probably understand your terminology.

will not vote for t article v. i will dock your speaks by .1 for every speech in which it is extended. it is not an argument.

plans' vagueness on this topic are quickly becoming time-cube level stupid. i don't think i would vote on vagueness itself but i will give lots of leeway to teams that exploit it.

tl;dr: do what you do best, unless what you do best involves not doing line by line or offensive arguments (including death good).

debate is an educational game that requires disagreement. i will always attempt to exclusively evaluate who did the better debating according to the flow and exclude personal biases or opinions i might have about debate. the most egregious scenario in which i evaluate things according to my personal beliefs or external factors is either near-perfect debating or abysmal debating by both sides.

don't change your arguments to adapt unless your arguments involve being offensive, ad hominems, or death good. certain arguments (bees counterplan) are so absurd my threshold for voting against them will be extremely low.

online: wait for me to turn my camera on.

speaker points will be rewarded by knowing what you are talking about, doing research, clarity, strategic vision, and being funny. speaker points will be docked by rudeness/undue assertiveness, lack of clarity, and lack of strategic vision.

saying "weighing" or adding it to your roadmap is a nuclear weapon for your speaker points - when you are doing impact comparison you don't need to tell me that is what you are doing.

people who have shaped the way i think about debate: john turner, shree awsare, dml, holland bald, luther snagel, addison kane, wayne tang, all of northside c/o '19

miscellaneous preferences about various things:

- tech over truth with limits. obviously requires a claim, warrant, and implication, lacking any of these things = i don't evaluate it. additionally, the "dropped" argument must be consistent with the repository of facts presented in the round. if the counterplan is articulated as fiating US action, i would not be able to vote for a "US says no" deficit that is technically dropped.

where i think i differ from most judges is that i often simply cannot vote on certain arguments when i plainly do not understand them, which i think is logical since judges are human and require a certain level of understanding to make a coherent decision. generally i think i may intervene in this instance more than other judges simply because i rarely find myself voting for arguments that i cannot articulate in my own right.

- debate is a game but i can be convinced that the game is unfair/more than just a game. "debate bad" is probably a round loser.

- i will judge kick the counterplan unless told not to.

- neg leaning on most theory. i think condo's good but can be convinced otherwise -- in order for condo to be a viable option you should sink >1 minute on it in the 1AR.slow down!!! most debates, condo is not even flowable until the 2NR. it makes every decision frustrating for everyone.

- i am fine with competition debates but they're boring. debating this as why the counterplan does compete rather than why the counterplan should compete makes much more sense to me. this means legal precision/descriptive accuracy is important.

- not sure why but i keep judging clash/policy v k debates. disclaimer that although i am fine with the k, i have found that my threshold for voting for it is much higher than i thought it to be. abstracted arguments with little connection to the aff, the topic, or a strong and clearly articulated framework claim will find little solace in my ballot.

- i appreciate critiques that are specific to the aff (that can be the plan, or its scholarship, or both!). i think that a lot of K 2NRs miss the forest for the trees, and should consolidate either to a framework-centric or alt-centric approach, rather than both. the more the K is in direct conversation with the aff, the more i will buy a framework push that is just like...this is a direct impact turn to what you said. just answer it. lol.

- i generally quite dislike "you link, you lose", and i have a pretty low threshold for voting aff on framework in these debates. i think that defending some kind of alternative, or giving the aff some kind of access to their consequences (at least as a defense of their epistemology) will make me much more receptive to a research or epistemology k. the difficulty in these debates arises when the k does not fundamentally disprove the 1ac's offense (whereas the thesis of the cap/nato bad k on this topic disproves the aff without needing to win the alt or framework) and the 2nr does not make any attempt at mitigating the case. it makes me voting negative incredibly unlikely.

- i appreciate an aff strategy that is not simply extinction outweighs + alt fails, but that is also obviously fine if that's your prerogative.

Said Dibinga New Designs Charter School-University Park

Last changed on Wed February 15, 2023 at 12:01 PM PDT

Hello, hello! How are you? I hope all is well.

As speech and debaters, you and I are part of a small, and exclusive group.

Judging is an honor, having competed in Policy Debate (aka CX) since middle school, I am keenly aware of the amount of time, research, energy, and sacrifice of time, family, and friends, that you the debater invest in preparing for tournaments, including the amount of time spent traveling to and from debates. You could be doing something else with your time, instead, your here doing battle against squads of other schools. Its because of my background that I have the utmost respect for debaters. You’re the future, remember that.

To the point, I’m not on any social media nor on my phone during a round. Unless it's an emergency involving one of my debaters at the tournament, I only use my phone to keep time.

Oh, I need to let you know that my moniker is Judge Dredd (I don't wear the helmet). Go see his recent movie, I'm that serious about judging debate and the nuances of debate.

I’ve competed in policy debate since 6^th grade, through high school, and since 2012, I’ve coached the debate squad, moot court team, mock trial teams, and shark tank teams at the school where I teach.

If your teams constructive revolves around “white supremacy”, “anti-blackness”, “anti-women, “anti-white”, “anti-religion, anti-anything, “bias arguments”, “oppressed communities”, “marginalized communities”, “America is racist”, “everything is racist” type arguments, racial slurs, I’ll tune it out and not count it towards your team’s argument. I don’t like yelling, I don’t like profanity, I don’t like Ad hominem attacks. If the items mentioned in the previous sentence is part of your debate strategy, I’m not the judge for you. Debate comes down to one thing, does the Aff plan, or Negs CP solve the problem? I prefer that Neg run a CP because attacking the solvency means nothing if the problem is allowed to continue.

The Aff isn’t the debater, the debater debates the Aff. Please refer to your opponents as either Neg or Aff, avoid saying they or you”, and look at me the judge, not at your opponents. Let’s respect each other, if I see outright abuse and disrespect towards opponents or teammates in the round, I’ll pause the time and speak on the issue. Remember that you represent your coach and your school Your coach puts in more time than teams realize, and your school hopefully supports your debate team, you are the ambassador for your school.

If a K-Aff is run, the team needs to have a ALT. I’ve written and judged several forms of K-Affs, you need to have an ALT because if your K-Aff leads to abolition, then that’s not a winning strategy. Aff has a burden to achieve.

Defense wins the debate; offense wins the round. Regarding cards, if your read an ethnic/race specific argument, and you’re not of that ethnicity/race, I’m not the judge for you. Don’t just pick a resolution that you think might trip-up your opponent, if you’re confident in yourself, pick topics that’s near and dear to your heart; trust me, those are the best debate rounds.

I am a flowing judge, I flow through the entire round, I flow everything. Often, I will flow on the ballot itself if it is a paper ballot. I refer to my flows in helping me decide who won the round. I often ask to look at the flow sheets of the debaters. A strong, flow sheet is a good thing for me to see, conversely a weak, sparse, incoherent (and I don’t mean penmanship), written in any odd fashion doesn’t really help your teams cause. You prep time should be used up by the time you get to rebuttals, go off your flow sheets. Clearly defined sign posting helps my flow as I like to organize my flow sheets. Even though I love to observe the round, I spend a lot of my time flowing.

You need to sell you position to me the judge because the only person whose opinion matters is me the judge, so if you’re only reading cards and at no point are you at least glance at me, I’ll eventually tune you out. You must sell, sell, sell, your position, spreading is just talking fast. Yes, you have a lot of information you want to cover, and maybe you’re trying to overwhelm your opponent with information, but reading half as many cards at or near your normal voice can be as effective in as much as reading all your cards at blistering speed can be ineffective. I’m from Boston, Massachusetts; you can’t spread at any speed where I won’t understand you. Remember, its debate, not speed talking.

Speakers’ points are based on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, and good clash, and I mean Roman Colosseum gladiator clash (with respect of course). Questions for questions sake is both boring and lazy. And avoid asking an open-ended question, , stay with who, what, where, and why. Giving your opponent three seconds to answer a CX, and rudely cut them off with a, “Okay, thank you, my next question,” won’t help your cause. Be respectful.

Clash is where you can not only win or lose a round, it’s also where you can plant the seeds to be used in your rebuttal. During the clash you should not be looking at your opponent. Ask challenging questions, not questions that you hope leads to dropped arguments because I judge on arguments, not drops. Again, I judge on arguments, not drops.

“Perm do both” isn’t an argument, what are you perming? Why are you perming what you are perming? Reading a tag line without warrants isn’t debating. The debate isn’t about if the author is credible, it’s about if the authors credible enough to support the warrant.

I don’t allow prep time to be used for cross-x, and I also like to keep the time during the round as its annoying to hear several timers ring out of synch. If say put away the timers, please don’t argue with me about it. If you keep your own time, do a countdown that seems to be prevalent these days, “3,2,1, go”, because the minute you start talking, I start timing. Once you enter the room, we’ll do an email chain or flash drive exchange. I’ll provide a flash drive if that will help keep the round flowing.

I will go over the good that debaters did during the round and will go over what debaters should work on. I love giving feedback, not just for feedback sake, but to help you improve as a debater. I have given feedback at the end of a round only to see the same opponents on the opposite sides of the ballot, using my feedback for when I judged them the previous round. The funny thing is that I had said to them that if I judge them again, I need to see improvement. Life is funny that way. If I have a time limit for RFD, I am always available if you see me walking about the tournament. A hint: if I’m giving feedback, win or lose, you’d better be writing it down. If I’m talking and your packing away to leave for the next round, remember that I respected your enough to listen to your 1 hour and 40 minutes.

My background? I’ve coached Policy Debate for 9 years now, and during that time I’ve also (and still do) coach the Moot Court Team, Mock Trial Team, and Shark Tank Team intramural competition teams.

By the way, I’m a student of history, global politics, geopolitics, etc., so please don’t make up information to help you win, I’ll know its false, and that can affect your chances of winning. I’m a die-hard Boston Bruins fan (I played right-wing in my youth) and I’m a New England Patriots fan, Boston Celtics, Boston Red Sox..

Lastly, I will make sure that the room we debate in is a safe place. I tolerate no disrespect in any form, nor do I tolerate profanity even if it’s part of your cards. I don’t like patronizing. If you have fellow schoolmates watching the round, they must remain quiet, and not engage with you (I don’t mind if they flow. I’ll ask them to sit peaceful one time. The second time I’ll ask them to leave the room.

By the way, if I suspect that your receiving information via IM, DM, or mobile device, during the round no matter who it’s from, I’ll ask you that I see your computer screen. If I see messaging, I will disqualify your team right there and then.

No, I don’t have a favorite school, so I have no bias for or against any of the schools competing in the tournament.

Have a great tournament and thank you for the honor of judging your round. Never forget that as a speech and debater, you are part of a very small, and exclusive group. Debaters don’t argue, we debate.

Thank you kindly,

Judge Dredd

Zion Dixon Hire

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 2:49 AM CDT

Black kid who has championed and got top speaker at both the TOC and TFA state tournament

I debate at Harvard currently - i'm the 2A and i'm partners with the best 2N Leah Y. We got a first round to the NDT as freshman:)

Add me to email chain: zionjd@gmail.com

please have the email chain started by the time the round is scheduled to start

Update for Harvard: I basically have thought most about K affs vs T/Cap and case debate from K perspective since college so it has been a minute since I have thought about the intricacies of theory debates and what not. I would still enjoy it but you should go a bit slower and explain more than you think is necessary. I also think college debate has allowed me to be a LOT more receptive to T-Framework and case outweighs (I'll elaborate on that below). I will say - I miss the silly things from LD so don't hesitate to have fun with me in the back.

Tab Shortcuts (At this point I am fresh into judging so this is more reflective of my debate style as a competitor.

K/Performance/Non-T -1

Larp-3 (policy v k 1)

T/Theory-2

T-Framework -1

Tricks-3 (tricks v tricks-4) (identity tricks -1 if you do it right)

High Theory-2

Phil-3

Debate is antiblack, I don't just believe that but I know it. With that said, I will l evaluate any and everything as long as it is warranted and explained enough for me to understand it. The exception is anything that I feel makes the round or debate space unsafe or violent I will vote you down, including but not limited to: racism, sexism homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings etc. Pettiness and trolling can be funny and strategic but don't be mean to novices and don't be unfunny.

Non T affs & Performance I love but you should expect to be well prepared for T-framework and generic responses

K debate do your thing, I really like a good framework section of the debate and I expect you to win your theory of power. Have TONS of thoughts but honestly just ask for questions so I don't rant here.

Tricks and friv theory is funny but if you read it against a performance aff or id pol position I hope you get clowned. If you extempt things during these online debates it is not my fault if I miss it. I reserve the right to gut check if you lack warrants or I don't understand your argument after the round.

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

T-Framework: You need a terminal impact, you need a response to case, you need to explain why clash or fairness has an end goal that the aff framework should care about. If you just read blocks and or do not touch case you will almost certainly lose.

Plan vs Ks - To vote aff, I like a good framework or weigh the case section of the debate. Tell me why the model and process of discussing the aff AND weighing it is good and valuable not just in an abstract but in context of the 1n K. Links are a thing, respond to them. Love alt disads. Perms without a net benefit are a waste of time. Respond to the theory of power or you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Policy (larp v larp) - 2nr/2ar I need a lot of judge instruction because I am not gonna act like I havent been removed from this type of debate for basically all of highschool

Misc:

- compiling a doc is prep but waiting for a marked doc or asking what wasn't ready is not prep and you can do it before cx

For High Speaks

- be clear and take into account audio situations with online debate

- be strategic and collapse strategically

- make the round entertaining

- If you are Black

Other things that will get you a hot L or tanked speaks 1. if you are mean to less experienced debaters. 2. if you are stealing prep. 3. if you manipulate evidence or clip. 4. if you are not Black and read afropess. 5. if you mispronoun your opponent

I rushed through this so if there is anything you are still curious or confused about after reading then just ask me before round.

Tim Do Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sat March 4, 2023 at 6:28 AM EDT

TOP-LEVEL I: if you can engage with your opponent's arguments and do PROPER weighing (for PF) or proper analytics/framework (for CX/LD), i will fall in love with you; doing so = high speaker points.

TOP-LEVEL II: debate is supposed to be a fun activity. i get that winning is great and that most of you guys are pressured to bid (this applies only to the national circuit). i love winning too, who doesn't. but seriously, please relax. i want everyone to have fun. please do not solely rely on the ballot to have fun with this activity; this activity should be more about the friends you make, the arguments you choose to read because they are the ones that interest you, and many more.

hello! my name is tim (sim low's league boyfriend), and you can refer to me as judge or just by my name! i competed mainly in public forum and lincoln-douglas as well as some forensic events (impromptu and original oratory) during high school (c/o 2020), and i currently compete in college parliamentary for johns hopkins university, where i study neuroscience.

email chain: littletimmy10004@gmail.com (please do not judge)

credentials: won multiple speaker awards and broke at tournaments in college parliamentary and VHSL district level awards (my high school team solely competed at local/district levels).

you can reach me at hdo11@jhu.edu for any questions or concerns; i am always open to giving feedback and helping you understand why i evaluated the round the way i did, so just feel free to reach out!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

notes to all formats:

--- always remember to warrant, mechanize, and weigh; don’t ever give me bare statements. be comparative, add layers and depth to your rebuttals, and always be explicit rather than implicit. what this looks like is engaging with your opponent's arguments and showing WHY your argument/impact is more important than your opponent's. how you delineate this importance is up to you, as there are many avenues you can take to do this.

--- i can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. i will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, i will flow what i can and whatever i cannot will be missed. UPDATE: i realized that there are some of you guys who genuinely speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.

--- if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. i believe that debate should be fair and equitable to all, so if you include any arguments that are prejudiced/bigoted or actively display any actions that belittle your opponents, i will drop you; trust me, i have done this in the past and will continue to do this as it makes my job easier.

--- please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals; if i find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, your speaks will be docked -0.5.

--- i will happily answer questions after the round, but i will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. as much as i love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. UPDATE: no one has ever post-rounded me in bad faith yet, which is a good thing, but if you do end up post-rounding me, trust me that my decision will not change. my RFD will be comprehensive enough that when i explain it to tab, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.

--- i am uncertain as to whether or not this applies to all formats because i came from a high school with a relatively small debate team, but please disclose your case(s) online in a timely manner. i hate voting on disclosure because debates should be about the actual resolution. however, i will always believe that debate should be an activity that is equally accessible to all individuals, so if there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, i will still end up voting for it at the very top.

--- remember to have fun! at the end of the day, debate is, and should always be, an activity that everyone enjoys. let’s have some educational and meaningful debates!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

public forum (my favorite event):

--- i prioritize efficiency, so please be EFFICIENT AND QUICK in sending cases, cards, etc. when necessary and requested. ive had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 10-15 minutes; if this happens in your round, i will deduct speaker points.

--- send me your cases and any evidence you all intend to read prior to starting your speeches. yes, this means the ac/nc and rebuttals. if you all opt out of this, speaks will be docked -0.5. UPDATE: if you cut cards throughout the round, please send me the updated version; this just provides me a second alternative in determining what was said in the round in the case that i missed something on the flow.

--- i want to see cards with proper citations on them; if not, don’t be surprised when your speaks are low. UPDATE: proper citation is very, very important. do not cheat and paraphrase what the research stated; if this happens and someone picks up on it, i will 100% vote on this. please don't have miscut cards or misrepresent your evidence as i will drop you with the lowest possible speaks.

--- do not make me do extra work. if you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out; if you are going to go for impact calc, delineate everything to me. what this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. you should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. fail to do so, and i will start to make assumptions and trust me, these assumptions will not help you.

--- i am a firm believer that the most important skill in PF is analyzing evidence and weighing arguments; if you don't know what this looks like, i am happy to go over an example prior to the round starting.

--- just because there is an argument that is dropped and you collapsed on it does not mean i will auto-vote on it. you need to still show me why you are going for that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other argument that your opponents bring up. this is where comparative analysis comes in.

--- my new biggest pet peeve in this format is when debaters tell me "this is frontline" or "i extend this." if you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, i will be sad... very sad.

--- i am okay with theory and Ks being in PF, but i would prefer them not to be; theory is okay if it pertains to misrepresenting cards, not cutting cards properly, and violating basic rules.

--- you can run any argument you want. i am a firm believer that every judge should be able to adapt to the debaters to ensure that the debaters can run any argument they want. however, this does not mean that you should just throw arguments at me and expect them to work. you need to warrant it out, provide specific link-chains, impact it out, and weigh it.

--- besides that, i don't think i have anything else to say about this format. PF will always be my special place in debate, so feel free to debate however you like. i am a pretty straightforward judge; i will evaluate you the way you want me to, but just make sure you uphold what i stated above!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

policy:

i will be honest. if i were you, i would not pref me very high. although i have a general understanding of policy and how arguments should interact with each other, i am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. i will change this once i feel confident that i am a good enough judge, but until then, do not pref me lol.

TOP-LEVEL: i know many judges include in their paradigm like specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, etc. for me, i genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. what this looks like is don't just run the cap k and just spit out words. tell me why you link and why it matters in the round you are in. my biggest pet peeve is when debaters just throw words at me and expect me to do the extra work.

--- tech >>> truth.

--- i am a BIG, I REPEAT BIG, fan of analytics and framework in policy; if you can do meta-analysis framing, that is *heart eyes*.

--- ive gotten increasingly better at understanding Ks; if you are going to include them, just explain them a bit more to me and i should have full understanding of them.

--- you must extend or collapse on whatever you are going for in the 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, or 2AR; if you don't include these arguments here, then don't really expect them to be reflected in the RFD.

--- please don't rely on policy jargon. i am a firm believer that simply stating policy jargon will never be sufficient substitutes for explanations of your evidence or thesis. if you are going to use jargon, explain them and then move onto your other arguments.

--- overall, i perceive policy to be a format that is becoming even more diverse in terms of what arguments can be made. this is what i enjoy about policy, so make any argument you want, but just make sure you always explain your arguments and concepts to me.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

lincoln-douglas:

--- this is the event that i am LEAST picky with; just do whatever your heart desires and i will evaluate you the way you want me to!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speaks:

--- when i judge, speaks always start at a base level of 28. depending on how the round goes, i move up/down. if you want me to move you up, be communicative, have good strategy and in-round choices, be comparative, weigh, impact… you get the point. if you want me to move you down, i think it is pretty self-explanatory as to what you should do.

--- if you get a 30.0, i will be framing your speech and showing it to my novices on my debate team. if you get a 29.5+, i am clearing you and expect to see you in outrounds; if you get 29.0-29.4, you did well and i believe you can break if you are in a bubble; if you get 27-28.9, you performed as expected; anything below 27, you did something terrible and i had no qualms docking you.

--- most importantly, no speaks theory.

Julian Erdmann Melissa High School

Last changed on Tue March 7, 2023 at 10:30 AM CDT

CX: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 policy rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I will let you know if you are going too fast. It is typically theory/T standards/voters where I will lose you if you spread through them. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I would say that I am more a policy maker judge than anything else. This means that I will vote for the best advocacy in the round, which means you have 3 options as the negative (squo good, CP, or K). I would say very much tech over truth. Default condo good. On T I prefer a well developed standard debate. I tend to default reasonability but at the end of the day if you can sell me on competing interps, I'm not opposed. This should be the only thing you are going for in the 2NR if this is your strategy. DA's - I love good uniqueness updates on DA's and 2AC N/Us. Love a good Politics scenario. Will vote on the impact turn on either the DA or the ADV. I'm cool with CPs. On the K debate, I am unfamiliar with a lot of K literature, I know the basics of Cap and Security but because I haven't engaged with the arguments in a few years, I'm definitely a little hazy on the details. If you are going to run a K or a K AFF please make sure you can explain it well. I want to feel comfortable after the initial cross-x that I know what your world looks like. I will vote on Framework regarding the K debate. Finally, on the Theory debate, make sure there is a clear violation and that you have some real offense coming off the argument if it is something you are going to commit to.

PF: I typically judge policy debate. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I need reasons why your world is a better world for me. I don't think PF is the place for frivolous theory. I don't mind voting on critical arguments although I will grant leeway if you butcher the explanation of the criticism to your opponents. I am cool with speed, however, seeing as we will be online I urge you to stay at about 80%. Defense isn't sticky. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. I would like to be on the email chain. Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com.

LD: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. Please slow down for theory spikes, any analysis, or what you deem important. I flow on paper, if I can't write it down it doesn't show up on my flow. I prefer not to flow off the document, if you are going to go so fast that I need to, send me your analytics. I would like to hear taglines. During the rebuttals when you are doing comparative work, please please please slow down. I'm not the fastest flow judge anymore. I will vote on the RVI especially if you can link in round abuse. I'm not familiar with the skep stuff. I'm not familiar with most K literature. I understand the basics of Cap and Security but outside of that don't assume I know your author/method/K. Your lack of explanation on the K lowers my thresholds on what it takes for your opponent to beat it. I feel you should probably defend some sort of alternative/advocacy statement. Feel free to reach out for any other questions. Add me to the chain Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com please.

Zara Escobar Stuyvesant High School

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 4:24 AM EDT

she/her

School Without Walls, Washington Urban Debate League '22 Yale '26

Add me to the email chain plz: zara.escobar@yale.edu

I did policy debate from 7th grade through high school, double 2. Currently coach middle and high school UDL teams. I mostly read Ks as a debater—mainly set col, fem, racial cap—on both aff and neg, so it's what I am most adept at evaluating. That aside, read what you want, I’m cool with voting on most anything.

Do the work for me in deciding the debate. Particularly at the top of the 2ar/2nr, tell me how I should be filtering the round, what you are going for, and why that should win you the ballot. I'll go off the flow.

Love intensity, but there’s an important line that separates it from disrespect and hostility, particularly when we consider our different positionalities within debate. I won't tolerate in-round hostility or violence.

Do your best with whatever you argue and have fun! Let me know if you have specific qs before round.

Kritiks

My favorite. Be creative, do what you want, just justify why. I find Ks are strongest when they can couple their theory of power links with more specific links rooted in the 1AC (pull lines!) and historical/ social examples. Impact out the links and explain why they turn case. “State bad” alone won’t cut it and will make me sad.

I’m not picky on whether the alt is material or not, but I do want to hear some articulation of solvency beyond just making an “epistemological shift” or “insert x in debate”—that is to say that you should be taking it further and explaining the implications. Love examples here too—point me to instances that can help envision what the alt and alt solvency looks like.

If you’re doing your link debate properly the aff shouldn’t have a chance at winning the perm, although I do appreciate external, named DAs to the perm.

**see note below from k affs

When answering the k, no matter from what side or argument style, you NEED to engage their thesis or theory of the power. It becomes really hard to beat it when you concede their way of understanding the world and of the filtering debate.

K Affs v FW

Aff

Leverage your 1AC more. Yes, the blocks you prepped are probably great, but the purpose of crafting and refining kritical 1ACs is that they are meant to challenge dominant frames of the way we think/act; your theory should absolutely be your best offense against the neg.

Your model of debate should be very clear—what’s the role of the aff and negative, what does debate look like, etc. Do impact calc on the standards debate.

**Make sure that you understand and articulate the relationship btwn your k in round and out of round ie the relationship between some performance of resistance within debate and the implications for the structures of power you claim to challenge as they exist out of round.

Neg

Need to engage the aff’s unique critique of your model; specifically, how the aff scholarship & advocacy, as well as their theory of power, exists under the neg’s model of debate. Put effort and time into the TVA; how does it provide an inroad to the aff’s scholarship? Impact calculus on standards is great.

P.S. If you’re going to run cap in addition to FW, try to have some more specific links + alt examples to at least pretend there’s a chance you’re going to go for it.

DAs

Specific links are ideal. Take time to explain out your internal link chain—too often they get superficially extended and muddled. Impact calc and framing are key.

CPs

Make sure to have a net benefit. Not a huge fan of a million planks. They better be purposeful ie with specific evidence and clearly carried through the round.

T v policy affs

Not my favorite debate but will of course vote on it. Make sure analytics are clear/ slow down a bit. Tell me what debate looks like under your competing models and why I should prefer yours.

Theory

I didn’t have these debates much. Well-warranted theory arguments that you spend a bit more time on are more compelling than second-long blips that get blown up and ironically feel like they get in the way of the educational value of debate.

While I’d say I’m tech > truth, in the end, I find that teams do theory better when the violation is an actually impactful abuse that harms the education, fairness, etc of the debate, rather than just generic blocks read every round.

You’re probably not going to convince me to vote on disclosure against a UDL team.

Ryan Ferdowsian Hire

Last changed on Sat January 25, 2020 at 3:01 PM MST

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

Amanda Flashner Lexington HS

Last changed on Thu March 2, 2023 at 11:37 AM EDT

Lexington '21, Sarah Lawrence '25, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain---amandacxdebate@gmail.com

title the email chain something along the lines of Tournament---round x---aff team (aff) vs neg team (neg)

general:

tech>truth

I debated for four years at Lexington and debated at Michigan last year before transferring. I have always been a 2a.

*online debate: please try to keep your camera on if at all possible

Counterplans:

I think that these are great. I would prefer if there is some form of a solvency advocate but what that looks like is up for debate. Smart perms are preferable to theory debates on a process cp. Links should be a sliding scale and proving the cp links less than the aff should be sufficient. I probably default to judge kick but it doesn't take much to convince me not to.

Theory:

I think that conditionality is probably good but again this is open to debate. I think new 2nc cps are probably abusive unless in response to new 2ac offense. I think cp's should be functionally and textually intrinsic which means making perms to test either textual or functional competition (functionally competitive but textually intrinsic perms or vice-versa are great). Object fiat, private actor fiat or lopez cps are probably not theoretically legitimate. Otherwise, almost all other theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and winning them, especially if they aren't going for the cp, will be an uphill battle.

Disads:

I really love these, I think I give pretty much every 1nr on a da, mostly politics. I would prefer specific links against generic ones. Other than that specific da to the aff are great and I would love to hear them. Everything else here is pretty straightforward.

Topicality:

These debates are okay, I don't really know what the topic should look like so make sure to impact out all of your standards and what limits your interp places on the topic. I don't think plantext in a vacuum is a fantastic we meet but I have voted on it before because oftentimes teams don't have an alternative model. If you can't explain the alternative to plan text in a vacuum you aren't in a great place there. RVI's are not a thing. I also tend to default to competing interpretations.

Impact turns:

I love impact turns! I’m willing to listen to anything. I love space!

In general, I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier. I also think you need to impact out the links and explain how they turn each case. I will probably let the aff weigh case and I have never heard a persuasive reason why they can't. I would prefer if there aren't super long overviews that require a new sheet of paper. If there is a floating pik please make it clear in the block.

Kaff:

The stuff I said about K's applies here. I probably won't understand your aff that well and I probably haven't read most of the lit. However, if you are reading a kaff please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key. I am going to need a specific thing to vote on and if you are hedging all of your bets on one arg please make sure to impact it out. More often than not kaffs will have a blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, please develop your arguments fully, nothing annoys me more.

Aff:

I prefer extinction affs and am probably more familiar with these as I pretty much solely read hard right affs. That being said I do not think I am a terrible judge for soft left affs I need you actually to explain framing and apply it to the other flows.

Framework:

I am probably neg leaning here. Debate is probably a game, and while it can in some ways be more than that, I think at its heart debate is a game. Fairness is the most persuasive impact and I also personally think it's the best impact. Make sure to have a reason why the aff can't weigh its self and preferably get to case in the 2nr.

k v k:

I have never been in one of these debates. However, I think the aff should be able to get a perm. I would like both sides to explain their specific theory comparing it to either the alt or the aff.

Speaks scale:

I try to average around a 28.5 and move up or down depending on what happens during the round. If I go below a 27 something happened in the round that I probably talked to you.

If caught clipping lowest speaks possible (this does mean zeros) and auto L

things that are important but had nowhere else to go:

Speech times in HS are 8 min constructive, 3 min cx, 5 min rebuttals, and however much prep the tournament allows, this is non-negotiable. CX is binding. There is only one winner and one loser. I won't vote on things that happened outside of the round (disclosure, prefs, etc.). If you feel unsafe or something offensive happens I will assist you in going to tab. I also will not vote on spreading theory and will be very annoyed to have to listen to it for 2 hours.

You have to read rehighlightings you can't just insert them.

I'm becoming annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am more annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away. A marked copy does not mean the cards that weren't read are removed

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned, except the first paragraph of this section.

LD:(stolen basically directly from Eleanora)

I have neither competed nor frequently judged in lincoln-douglass; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Patrick Fox Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sat March 25, 2023 at 12:03 AM CDT

Last Updated - TOC '23

Congratulations! Making it here is an incredible achievement, and far more than what most high school debaters ever did or will achieve (including myself). Be proud of yourself, because I'm proud of you. To any seniors, let me know if I'm judging your last debate. Congratulations may be in order.

Three topic updates, actually - not new thoughts from me by any means, but put at the top, and all concerning the upper limits of my tolerance for neg terrorism.

Intrinsicness. It needs to make a comeback. Dear God, it needs to make a comeback. Trufanov is right, he's always been right, and the Tetlock CP and North Macedonia PICs are our punishments for not listening to him.
The state of counterplan and plan texts is an atrocity, and so is the state of what counts as a solvency advocate. Unconvinced that I should vote on this in a vacuum, but very amenable to both 2NRs and 2ARs that weaponize this trend to complicate solvency and competition for affs and counterplans.
Counterplans vs K affs - I kinda don’t understand them. The basis of negative fiat is that it presents a logical opportunity cost to the aff actor - if the 1AC doesn’t adopt the USfg as an actor, it legitimately breaks my brain as to why fiat makes sense as a negative argument. I get args that say we should commit to engagement with the state, I get args that say that there are specific reforms that are viable to fight for that solve the aff but are exclusive with 1AC radicalism, but I genuinely am unsure why 2As let 1NCs get away with just fiating away US foreign policy from a basic debate theory level, when the aff doesn’t make any such assumption that this is the scope of what the aff “fiats”.

This being said, 2As have a habit of letting 2Ns get away with murder, so don't anticipate this impacting my decisions if not pushed. Just figured I'd put this at the top as I think these are my most relevant "hot takes" on this topic, as a heads-up to interested 2Ns and 2As. Nothing else has really changed about my paradigm though beyond this - condo still good, RVIs still bad, still a moderate in clash debates, etc.

tl;dr - "negative terrorist, but very amenable to aff counterterror", primarily K coach who secretly likes policy stuff a whole lot. solidly technical, but not to the point of stupidity. reasonably adept judging everything, would prefer an in-depth K v K or counterplan/DA/impact turn debate, but I accept the nightmare of clash debates as penance for the sin of debate centrism. likes lots of evidence, likes lots of explanation, dislikes stupidity hiding behind abstractions and posturing. yes, you can read a planless aff, and yes, you can read framework. very expressive, generally grumpy about everything, but don't take it personally. if you can't be funny without being a jerk, you aren't funny. please be funny. less posturing, more arguing. Please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir", pat or p.fox is fine.

the top-level stuff

Policy debate: University of Houston and Dulles (formerly Westside). LD debate: all over the place.

More robust debate CV here.

He/him/his

email chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com
Policy - please add natodocs@googlegroups.com as well.

Format subject lines email chains be "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY")

I have hearing damage in my left ear. Try and position yourself to my right.

non-negotiables

Debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion. I adjudicate the competitive aspect and enable progression of students in research and persuasion.

The safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. This is the only way you, as a debater, can genuinely make me mad. Avoid it for both our sakes. Racism, sexism, transphobia, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this than most judges - I have literally stopped flowing and submitted my ballot in the middle of a 1AR before because I couldn't justify letting the debate play out "impartially", and I will lose no sleep over doing it again.

Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech and prep times, and will submit a decision with one winner and loser or possibly a double-loss.

You are high school students, so I do not want to see or perceive anything NSFW. PG-13 is your upper limit.

If you try and tell me that anything outside of this is "binding" on my "jurisdiction" as a judge, you are incorrect. Furthermore, I will resent you telling me how to do my job.

Condo is good, RVIs are bad. I put this in the non-negotiables section because they are far and away the convictions I will have the hardest time to be dissuaded of.

judging overview

I try to be a good judge for any content-heavy strategy, and I find the best rounds to be small debates over a central controversy and driven by research. I know many judges say they have no ideological investment , but have only ever lived on one half of the weird K/cheaty counterplans dualism - I have gone for and coached both. I personally enjoy T throwdowns, impact turns and a CP/DA, framework vs K aff, policy vs K and rev v rev rounds equally, and I have no qualms judging any of them. This being said, I care above everything else that whatever you do, you defend it (and if it's indefensible, don't do it).

For what it's worth, historically I am probably a bit higher preferred by K teams than policy teams, but my voting record in clash debates was always pretty even, and I find that in the last year or so the gap seems to have narrowed. I used to say I had more practice judging K v policy and K v K rounds than policy/policy rounds - I no longer think this is true, given my judging record as of late. LD phil people - I judge less of your stuff these days, but once upon a time I was thought to be pretty decent for it.

I'm very expressive. Comically so, in fact. I shake my head and scowl at arguments I dislike (I do this with condo a lot), I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I make eye contact and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I will chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech, which I am fine with, if not actively encouraging of - I think if you have a read on me, it makes judge instruction easier, which makes everything better.

I worked with JD Sanford and Aimun Khan in high school, and work with Richard Garner (whom I am ideologically aligned with most of anyone), James Allan, Rob Glass, and Michael Wimsatt in college. I like debating in front of David Kilpatrick, Alex McVey, Phillip DiPiazza, Devane Murphy, Reed van Schenck, Jesse Smith, Doug Husic, and DML. Some former students and/or close friends of mine are Dylan Jones, Z Clough, Townes Schultz, Elliott Cook, Ali Abdulla, Holden Bukowsky, and Avery Wilson. I have debated in college with Gabby Lea and Brett Cryan. I have worked extensively with Eric Schwertfeger the past few years. There is probably some overlap between me and all these people as a judge.

2022-23 Hall of Fame: Favorite debaters I have judged this year are Sam Church, Wyeth Renwick, Elizabeth Elliott, Justin Wen, and Neil Choudhary. Debate like them and I will probably enjoy judging you too.

I find most judge paradigms unhelpful, because they’re almost all some variant of “Tech over truth, good for anything, mostly read policy stuff/xyz Ks though, I swear I’m smart and cool, I definitely have no biases” which is completely useless to me, a debater, for understanding how you make decisions and what you view as good debating. As such, this paradigm is kinda long. That being said, this paradigm used to be even longer, with many more specific thoughts on specific args - you can find those longer and specific thoughts here, for the purposes of more informed prefs. This includes my thoughts on specific arguments (i.e: the K, counterplans, etc) topic metas, and miscellaneous quirks about my judging habits and procedure.

Stolen from Jake Lee: "You have the doc in front and all you have to do is listen. If I can flow without looking at the doc, you can too!" I am increasingly appalled by the standard of flowing among high school debaters, and aside from asking for a marked doc, questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX or prep time. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for one or the other yet, I will start one for you. If you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. The obvious exception to this is if you have some sort of hearing problem or a similar issue with audio processing that requires accommodation - feel free to tell me if that's the case, and I will enforce those accommodations for you with the same vigor that I forbid them for anyone who doesn't actually need them.

here's what I think is most important to know about me as a judge:

- I judge a lot, schedule allowing - usually ~80 debates a season. This is because of three things:

1. I think judging is a skill, and it is valuable for the community to have a surplus. You can't give a good 2NR if you haven't given a speech in three months, and I can't give a good RFD if I haven't judged all season. Many judges suck because they don't think about judging as something to be practiced and refined, and have never tried to improve. I try to think about this a lot.

2. I think judging is interesting, because I like debate. Knowing what the best teams are going for both helps my own debaters and keeps me awake - the way the activity iterates and (mostly) improves over time, both in content and form, is the fun part.

3. Rent isn't free, and judging pays bills. Interpret all this as you will, but I think you can be confident I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging, and I most enjoy debates at the bleeding edge of the meta - push boundaries or show me something new, and you'll be rewarded. This being said, I'm an old man at heart, so good renditions of classics also get rewarded. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks - I am a big fan of scrappy debating.

- Some judges admit they are not the best flows. I consider myself a very good one. I flow in shorthand on my computer, and I can get down basically every word of all but the very fastest (or most unclear) debaters. It deeply frames how I view the debate, and I do not think there is any real alternative to judge by. My primary reference for the decision I make is what you tell me it is, not what your doc said or how good your cards are. If you want me to pay attention to those things, put it on my flow. Regardless of content or style, I value debaters who are organized and easy to follow - debate like Dartmouth, number args. My ideal speech structure is minimal (if not zero) overview, with arguments answered in the order they were presented in the previous speeches, and explaining the parts of your argument in the context of being responses to your opponents (i.e: putting the link debate on the permutation and explaining it in that context). I am certainly open to adopting alternative models of evaluating the debate beyond technical refutation, but I am loathe to reject it outright without having a pretty good idea what I should do instead beforehand.

- Tech over truth. However, the way debaters have come to conceptualize what that means is an atrocity. I do not think this implies that any dropped assertion, no matter how stupid, becomes true by nature of being dropped - it means that technical execution can overcome the truth of an argument. When claims are equally warranted and impacted out by both sides, tech determines the winner, but unwarranted or non-impacted tech doesn't get you far with me. This also means that in technically close debates, truth often tiebreaks. I am interested in watching you technically execute an argument that you have invested meaningful preparation and strategizing into - many styles and arguments can satisfy this, but some clearly do not. A better way to frame my philosophy here is that the burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder - if you have not warranted an argument to justify it's truth, I do not care if it is "dropped", as there was never a full argument to answer. Will happily say "didn't understand this, sucks" in my RFD, even if "technically" won. This is why, while I do apply a very strict standard of organized refutation and keep a very tight flow, I am sometimes persuaded to vote for the team that was being "out-teched" because I find the opposing team to be spamming ink instead of making a comparative response to big thesis claims (this matters a lot in Framework debates I judge, and I find both sides equally often guilty here). To simplify, techy arguments beat non-techy arguments, but techy non-arguments don't beat anything. Be wary of the distinction.

- I think that debate is best when debaters are comparative, and speak in relative risk rather than absolutes. Very few pieces of evidence support as clean cut yes/no conclusions as debaters want them to, and recognizing that will make you much more persuasive. Example: "No China war now, but plan guarantees it - outweighs because zero impact to the prolif scenario" sets a very high threshold for me to vote neg, as you've left no room for anything less than absolute certainty at the uniqueness and link level, as well as perfect case defense. By contrast, "likelihood of US-China escalation is low now even with tensions because disputes are being managed, but the plan is a massive shift towards offensive posturing which incentivizes Xi to retaliate, which would draw in the US and allies because we have too much to lose - it's significantly higher risk than the case because multiple external factors check escalation from prolif, but their ev only assumes worst-case scenarios" is certainly a longer argument, but still probably a lot truer, and leaves more leeway for me to conclude in your favor even if I have some doubts. I think debaters are almost never winning anything as decisively as they think they are, and so couching 2N/AR offense in this frame (i.e: "even if" statements) helps a lot.

- Many judges give atrocious RFDs. I try not to. I'm definitely long-winded, but being thorough and going through every moving part of the debate is better than a 2 sentence non-decision that hand-waves details. I ask myself what would be most confusing about losing if I was the 2A/2N, and try to answer that question in advance. The best way to make my decision sound like the one in your head is to tell me what it should be - please take this literally, as I coach my debaters to start the 2N/AR off with "your RFD is..." Judge instruction is an essential skill that is nonetheless deeply lacking from many debates.

- I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that attempt to avoid clash/engagement, and my threshold for answering patent nonsense is low. You know who you are and you know what this means. Debate is valuable because it encourages content mastery, and I am most impressed by debaters who can show me they've done their homework. That means that I find arguments that attempt to circumvent this pretty clearly less valuable from a pedagogical standpoint, and as such I will be loathe to reward such strategies with the ballot - the stupider or more in bad faith your argument is, the harder I will look for an excuse to not vote for it, and therefore the lower my threshold for answering it will be.

eDebate stuff

Barring connection issues, I have my camera on at all times during speeches and CX. I will turn my camera off after the 2AR while making my decision and turn it back on once I'm in. You don't have to have your camera on and don't have to ask me to turn it on/off. I'm okay with being recorded if (and only if) everyone else in the room is also okay with it.

Closing thoughts

COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted. If anyone else in the room is wearing a mask, I will also be wearing a mask. If the tournament has a mask mandate, I will be following it. If anyone asks me to put on a mask, I will put on a mask. I will hold all of you to the same standards. If you do not have a mask, I will have extra. If you refuse to abide by these very simple and reasonable standards, I will happily give you an L25.

I like music and will listen to it during prep time. I enjoy most music (I almost went to school for jazz composition, and regularly listen to hip hop, punk, blues, and metal, as well as lots in between). Any debater can suggest a song for me to listen to during prep, and if I like it, I will bump everyone's speaks by 0.1 (there's no penalty if I decide I dislike it, I promise).

Speaks start at 28.5 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3. I try and keep it relative to the pool - a 30 at TFA State is easier to get than a 30 at GBX (although I don't give out many 30s). Below 28 and I think you are legitimately in the wrong division i.e: you should go mess around in JV for a bit, below 27.5 and you have done something profoundly bad. I tend to reward organized speeches, smart and gutsy strategic choices, and debating with character. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a stupendously dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't effectively capitalize on it and loses anyways, why wouldn't I punish the 2AR harder for fumbling the bag harder?

Debate should be a safe space for everyone. Respect pronouns, respect people's personhood, etc.

A casual approach is welcome and appreciated. I'm a wacky guy at heart. Mess around a bit. Have some fun. Its the weekend. Show me you wanna be here.

I will make minimal eye contact during any given debate. It's not you, it's my autism.

I decide most debates very fast, even in close rounds. Don't take it personally.

Yao-Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck." You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

Big DC comics nerd. Favorite heroes are Green Lantern and Red Hood (and Batman, obviously). References always welcome, may be rewarded with speaks. Marvel movie jokes will get speaks penalized though.

Good luck, and see you in round!

- pat

Sakshi Garg Little Rock Central

Jesse Garrett James Logan High School

Forrest Gertin Forest Park None

Colton Gilbert Little Rock Central

Last changed on Mon February 13, 2023 at 7:27 AM CDT

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 bothcgdebate1906@gmail.com andlrchdebatedocs@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.

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 have won 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 and 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.

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 be 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.

Christian Gines Hire

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 6:44 AM CDT

Hi my name is Christian (he/him) and I am a sophomore on the Harvard CX debate team and did CX debate in high school as well.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN -cagines21@gmail.com

my experiences

I am most comfortable with LARP/K/T/Theory positions. The kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however, I've encountered most of the K lit base positions and am willing to evaluate them. Overall, just be sure to explain everything well.

Overview of Args

K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework )

LARP v LARP - im fine for this but i dont do in depth research about the political implications of the topic - largely just the kritikal ones. keep that in mind while using jargon or abbreviations.

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory however.

non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! i think these debates should be conscious about content warnings however. i expect good t-framework interactions.

my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)

tricks. full stop. :)

phil is a type of debate i dont know NEARLY enough about - it would be in your best interest to not go for a phil vs phil or phil vs policy round in front of me. however i know phil enough to evaluate it vs kritiks.

disclosure policies

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

debate opinions (take them as you will)

1 - debate is not just a game. yes it is a competition, but it is also a place where POC, and black students express themselves. there are material impacts for black/POC - some of which can show themselves through trigger warnings - dont be violent.

2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc -all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.

3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.

5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.

5 - please weigh.

6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices!

things i like to see/good speaks!

1 - collapsing !!

2 - GOOD 2nrs on framework

3 -make the round fun or interesting

notes

1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no

2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun!

3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive! try not to be rude, as we have been having trouble with it.

Gerard Grigsby Brophy College Prep

Robert Groven Eagan High School

Last changed on Sun September 25, 2022 at 2:30 PM CDT

Judging Philosophy

Robert Groven

Chair, Assoc. Professor, Communication Studies, Film & New Media, Augsburg University

Director, Minnesota Urban Debate League

Coaching policy at Eagan High School, Eagan, Minnesota

Email: groven@augsburg.edu (please add me to the email/file exchange)

Background: I started policy debate in the 7th grade, debated all through junior high, high school (Como Park, St. Paul, MN) and college (Concordia College, Moorhead, NDT out rounds, Kentucky Round Robin), and since then I've coached for more than 25 years at the college and high school level, both on the national circuit and locally in the Midwest. I have also directed and taught at multiple camps over the years. I’m one of the original founders and current head of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, and am a tenured faculty at Augsburg College where I teach argumentation, rhetoric, persuasion and various specialized forms of public address.

Debate Paradigm: When left to my own devices I function as an educational games player, which means I believe that competitive academic debate is an activity designed to educate, enlighten and improve its students and society. My primary responsibility is to serve the debaters as students, in my role as an educator, both in and out of rounds. Therefore, unless given a different framework, I resolve procedural issues by evaluating the impact the precedent would set for the educational value of the activity. If the debaters do not specify a substantive decision-making framework, I default to being a pragmatic policy maker. However, I have spent many years studying rhetoric and critical theory and I’m happy to function in non-consequentialist and discursive frameworks if the debaters defend them. I am sensitive to the important, manifold issues of identity and have devoted many years attempting to redress systemic injustices in and out of debate.

I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. In general, I do my best not to intervene on any issue, and decide rounds based only on what the debaters do and say in the round.

Style Preferences: Respect, kindness, and fun in rounds are high values for me. I do not enjoy debaters who are rude or domineering and will reduce points accordingly. Debating and debate rounds should be intense, passionate, and enjoyable.

Speed is not a problem for me, but comprehensibility is crucial. As I hope you know, most judges, even experienced, well-regarded judges, pretend to understand most of most rounds. 20 years on, I am past pretending. If I cannot understand you I will ask you to be clearer, but I will only make that request three times per person. After that, I just do my best. But, I will not vote on an issue or argument that I could not understand in constructives. And, suddenly giving clear meaning to incomprehensible gibberish in rebuttals, although occasionally entertaining, is grossly unfair to the opposition.

Tag CX is fine as long as the debaters are all respectful to one another. I’ll time prep and time speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too.

“Be kind whenever possible.

It is always possible.”

-His Holiness the Dalia Lama XIV

Julian Habermann Hire

Last changed on Fri January 6, 2023 at 5:06 AM CDT

MBA '19
Harvard '23

Put me on the email chain: jhabermann@college.harvard.edu (email any questions here too)

Most Important:

1. I evaluate debates by identifying the central questions of the round and then adjudicating line-by-line. This system rewards judge instruction and top-level analysis; I make an active effort to make my RFD in the language in which the round was debated. Additionally, I am tech-oriented and prioritize warrants highly.

2. I have minimal topic knowledge and judge experience on the current topic. I am not coaching a high school team. You will do best in front of me by throwing out most background knowledge (especially any debate meta) but by still debating in a nuanced, technical manner. Even though there aren't a lot of rounds of tabroom, I've judged plenty of high-level practice debates and UDL rounds.

3. I enjoy almost all types of debate rounds. I'll put as much effort into judging the round as the debaters did debating the round. I'm very easy to read visually.

Biases:

2A/1N

I reward risks. Please play scrappy.

Evidence quality and smart analytics make me happy.

My favorite affs that I have read are: a one-advantage China-war Cyber aff; a SetCol K aff with a plan; and a very technical asylum courts aff. Anything resembling these affs will be great.

My favorite neg strats were aff-specific Ks and CPs. Any neg team with both will get ridiculous speaks. I prefer diverse 1ncs in general.

I appreciate anything that debaters are passionate about, so don't try to adapt too much.

General thoughts:

K Affs / FW: I've read planless affs before; I've debated against many more. These debates are always decided in line-by-line not the overview for me speicifcally.
If you are aff, I prefer you to choose an impact turn or counterinterp strategy early in the debate. I am usually very skeptical of the aff c/i and do not understand the utility of how many teams read it, but a thought-out strategy prepared for the question of multiple rounds can convince me quite well. If you are impact turning, only go for at most two DAs in the 2ar or combine them.
If you are neg, I prefer you to compare the two models of debate. Most teams can explain why resolutional action and/or fairness is important but completely lack any engagement with the aff. The best way to prove your standards is by directly applying the aff's specific mechanism and what it justifies as examples of your internal link.

T: Without topic knowledge, I will be very lost in many of these debates if there is no adjustment. I will not know which model is more in line with a 'core of the topic' and what specific teams debate with the best/worst affs. Still, I will easily vote on T. In general, I find T to be a contrived time-sink rather than a thought-out strategy and am lenient on the aff for late-breaking responses, but with substantive engagement, a long T debate is one of my favorite neg strategies.

K: I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.

CP: Generally good for condo, international fiat, states, and anything with specific ev. I never went for theory on the aff, so I appreciate solid aff theory debating especially with many lackluster neg strats.
Neg: explain CP solvency for every pertinent internal link. Aff: impact out solvency deficits, don't just talk about them.
I don't judge kick unless told, but lean neg on its theory.

DA: I'm generally dissatisfied with politics and will vote aff on smart analytic i/l take outs if your shell is garbage. Generic, core of the topic DAs do surprisingly well with me.

Speaker Points: Should range from 27.5-29.7. I try to follow community norms rather than artificially deflate or inflate points. I generally give points for direct clash and tech, but I have a soft-spot for persuasiveness and funniness.

Marion Hart Hire None

Kevin Hirn Walter Payton College Prep

Last changed on Tue September 13, 2022 at 3:11 PM EDT

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Debate Coach, Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-)

Last updated: September, 2022 (topic specific thoughts on emerging tech/legal personhood are in topicality)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time, so I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college antitrust topic and the HS water topic.

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is often bizarrely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. And it's getting worse and worse every year. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd probably go neg, but it seems like a relatively even debate (and it's at minimum a better argument than many of the contrived and desperate solvency deficits that flailing affs teams extend against counterplans).

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is often the best option, I would generally prefer to see a substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic).

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals, and that will continue in the future.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "other policy debates solve your offense" can generally push back against skills claims, and the argument that "wiki/disclosure/contestable advocacy in the 1ac provides some degree of predictability/debateability" can often push back against "vote neg on presumption because truth-testing- we literally couldn't negate it" but for some reason in many debates neg's completely blow off these arguments.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is not necessarily an impact; it certainly may implicate the education that the aff produces, but calling fairness "procedural" doesn't bestow upon it some mystical external impact without additional explanation (i.e. without an actual explanation attached to that). Fairness is an abstract value. Like most values, it is difficult to explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven. It's hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" It is pretty easy to demonstate why you should presume in favor of fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity (for example, teams expect that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothes). But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. After all, I think nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know, debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

I know I just explained a rationale for potentially restricting your framework impacts to fairness concerns. But still it's nice and often more fulfilling from a judge's perspective to hear a defense of debate rather than a droll recitation of "who knows why debate's good but we're both here... so like... it must be." If that means "procedural fairness" is de-emphasized in favor of an explanation for why the particular fairness norms established by your topicality interpretation are crucial to a particular vision of the activity and a defense of that vision's benefits, that would be a positive development.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than most attempts to articulate one for fairness/skills/deliberation, but they're not unassailable: "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would) and "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

Davy Holmes Dripping Springs High School

Last changed on Thu March 16, 2023 at 5:49 PM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Updated 3/16/23 (all debate events)

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

Policy: See "Updated for Harvard 2023" section (and pretty much every other section) below.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Updated for Harvard 2023:

I've only judged a few rounds on the NATO topic so far. I don't have any hot opinions regarding what any of the key resolutional terms mean. If topicality does become a focus of the debate, you should probably slow down and make sure I clearly understand what the interp is and why the aff violates that interp.

Everything else below is probably still true.

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Not the best judge for the K, but if that's your thing I'll try my best. Arguments rooted in pessimism are a tough sell. I'm also not sure what a methods debate is and why perms shouldn't be permitted in one. I think fairness is an impact.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument. I recommend taking the path of least resistance. I know some of you 2Ns know exactly what the 2NR will be before the round starts, but if the 2AC drops T or some other easily round-winning argument and you don't go for it, I'll be upset/confused.

Updated 9/30/21:

I don't judge as much as I used to, but I have a few additions that I would like to make to my paradigm.

1. While I generally support the idea of disclosure, especially in Policy and LD, I won't vote on most variants of disclosure theory. About the only exception would be a situation where a team or debater intentionally mis-disclosed something they were going to read.

2. In Policy, affs that just ban something that might be a source of water pollution are probably not topical.

3. If I am judging you in PF, I would prefer that you treat me like someone from the general public and not someone who has extensive debate experience. I don't want to hear a bunch of debate jargon, and you should probably speak at a reasonable rate. Additionally, if it takes you forever to show your opponents requested evidence during prep time, I am deducting speaker points. If you choose to paraphrase in your case, you better have a card available with full context if it's requested.

Updated 11/13/20:

I haven't judged many policy rounds this year, but I have seen a few. Even though the team I coach likes to read kritikal arguments, it doesn't mean that is your best approach with me. I definitely prefer debates that revolve around the hypothetical implementation of a topical affirmative plan. FYI, if your aff doesn't link to the abolition K, then it probably doesn't enact substantial criminal justice reform. This doesn't mean you will necessarily lose, but you are probably in an uphill battle if the neg is competent at extending topicality. I am aware of the sad state of good policy neg strategies at the moment, so I will try to be mindful of that if you end up going for an argument that is out of my normal comfort zone. Everything below probably still applies.

Updated 2/23/20:

I've probably judged about 20-25 rounds on the topic. Most of them have involved a Saudi aff. I have judged very few K debates this year, but I have voted aff on the perm in every debate I have judged this year that had a K in the 2NR.

Updated 3/12/19:

TL;DR

I won't reject any argument or style of debate out of hand, but I have a preference for topical, plan-focused debate. I feel a lot more comfortable expressing this preference at tournaments that use mutually preferred judging. If your strategies only include kritikal arguments, you may not want to pref me. Util is probably my default decision-making paradigm, but I can be persuaded to adopt other impact frameworks. I think winning zero risk of something is pretty hard, but I suppose it is possible. I don't think I am very good at flowing, but I try my best. If I didn't catch something then you were probably going too fast for me, or you were unclear. If the tournament allows for it, I will assign speaker points to the tenth of a point. My usual range is 27-29.9.

MORE SPECIFIC POLICY STUFF

Unless persuaded to evaluate using a different lens, I tend to base my decision on whether a world with the affirmative plan is better than the status quo or a world with a competitive policy option. If the aff plan improves the world, the aff generally wins. If not, the aff loses. I also tend to evaluate in the "offense/defense" paradigm. Generally, I think the negative needs offensive arguments to win unless they can somehow take out 100% of solvency. 99% of the time you will need a reason why the plan causes something bad to happen to win on the negative.

I don't require strict adherence to my preferences. You've prepped the arguments that you've prepped, and it probably isn't in your best interests to drastically alter your preferred approach to debate when debating in front of me. However, I think you should probably know that some arguments are an uphill battle in front of me.

First, I generally think the aff should defend the topic. If your aff doesn't link to topic-related generics, then you probably have some work to do if the neg goes for framework/topicality. I think clash is super important, and I don't like affirmative approaches meant to minimize topic-centered clash.

Second, I don't necessarily think that fairness has to be an internal link to something. I think fairness can be an impact. It will be hard to convince me that the neg shouldn't get a decent amount of predictable ground or that fairness is bad.

Finally, I can't say enough that I need to know what your k alternative does or how it functions. The less clear I am on what the alt does the more likely I am to vote for something like "perm do the plan an all non-competitive parts of the alt." I'm sure your argument isn't that this particular round or my ballot is key to breaking down or eliminating whatever it is that your are kritiking, so please be specific about what it is that you expect me to vote for. I am not familiar with or necessarily interested in a lot of kritik literature, so you probably need to do more thesis explanation than you might usually do. You should also do as much contextualizing as possible when talking about your links. If I am going to vote for an argument I need to be able to put in my own words what I am voting for. I think it is your job to make sure that I am able to do that.

I would recommend not going at your absolute fastest pace, and this is especially true when reading complex kritikal arguments or multi-point theory blocks. Other than that, have fun.

LD PARADIGM

Same as Policy. Again, I'm probably not the best K judge. I'm also probably not good for contrived or arbitrary theory interps that don't relate to topicality. Even though I could possibly be convinced to vote on one, I don't like RVIs.

PF PARADIGM

I don't judge a lot of PF. Despite my Policy background, I don't think PF needs to become more like Policy. I think PF should remain accessible to the general public, and the round should be debated at a reasonable pace while using a minimal amount of debate lingo. I will probably flow, but I don't intend to evaluate the round at a highly technical level.

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Gagandeep Kang McDowell HS

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 1:22 AM EDT

UPDATE Harvard Policy (02/23):

Debated policy in high school a few years ago so it's been quite some time. Please explain your jargon and topic specific terms. Generally tech over truth. Run the arguments that you want to run, my judge pref shouldn't change that; HOWEVER, as long as your arguments aren't blatantly racist, homophobic, etc. Fine with speed, as long as both sides are cool with it. It's a learning experience so please be nice and try to have fun, I know it's stressful, I'm an easy-going judge so if any tech issue or anything else arises in the midst of the debate just let me know and we will sort it out.

please include me on the email chain: gkang2022@gmail.com

Read the rest of my paradigm if going for any critical args. tl;dr: I'm cool with Ks!

Policy paradigm

I debated in high school and am now attending university. I doubt much of that matters to you but please include me on the email chain: gkang2022@gmail.com

General

Feel free to debate with arguments that you feel are the best; however, it would be silly to assume this doesn't come with certain caveats. I have minimal experience judging on this new topic so I urge you to explain your jargon.

Tech over truth, but with limitations. Technical concessions matter a lot. However, your arguments have to be developed enough in earlier speeches that a reasonably smart opponent & judge can see it becoming a round-changer in a later speech.

Speed is fine, but I will say clear when it becomes incomprehensible. Debaters often tend to spew through their analytics within their rebuttal speeches but be cognizant of the fact that I will flow on paper so anything that doesn't make it on to my flow will not be considered within my RFD.

The quality of your evidence matters, but won’t win or lose you a round unless somebody in the round makes this happen. You certainly don’t need evidence to make every single argument. I want to be on the email chain so I can read evidence after the round if need-be

In the new world of debate, thorough impact analysis often gets left behind but is crucial to evaluating debates.

If you're going for the K, don't neglect talking about the case.

Yes, feel free to run critical affirmatives, as I did so my senior season. Regardless, I can be persuaded by good technical framework debating from the negative.

Organization and strategic argumentation are crucial to your speaker points

I'm lenient on paperless rules - as long as you don't take forever and I don't catch you stealing prep you'll be fine, if your computer crashes mid speech just let me know

Ethical Considerations

Any form of misrepresenting evidence is considered card clipping and will severely affect your speaker points and could cost you the round. Audibly marking the card is acceptable.

Don't be mean. Debate is a learning experience and a grind, so there's no place for rude behavior or ad hominem arguments

Joseph Kieklak Little Rock Central

Last changed on Tue March 14, 2023 at 3:59 PM CDT

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central.

Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. I want to see you at your best. I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am told to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. There is no educational warrant/it is unacceptable to do anything that is ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

My goal is not to intervene when judging. I can do that best when you: 1) explain why your impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts; 2) do evidence comparison as necessary; and 3) do judge instruction.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win the questions of fairness. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of fairness or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I have voted for and against framework. I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive. In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Explain how the perm works (more than "perm do X"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

Ruby Klein Hire

Gabriel Koo Hire

Last changed on Mon March 20, 2023 at 5:49 AM EDT

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

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

For questions or other emails: gkoo@gds.org . I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fair better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
Topicality. I have no idea what this NATO topic is supposed to look like so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Affs without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense does exist and that presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are.
Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.

Things:

K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I've read and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, then you are probably not going to win.
Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why impact calc or framework arguments are answers to ROB ROJ arguments.
Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will easily vote on that. But a bad permutation can easily be answered very quickly. Also I am more likely to be convinced by cross applications and new extrapolations from established arguments to answer back untrue arguments.
Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win their FW and case outweighs claims. I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs.

Things I like less:

Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra card during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep.
Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
2NC FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is highly underrated by Affirmative teams.
Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
Kritiks in PF, go for it!

Keryk Kuiper Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Thu September 8, 2022 at 2:26 AM EDT

Lane Tech - 2012 - 2013

Iowa City High - 2013 - 2016

University of Northern Iowa - 2016 - 2017

Emporia State 2018 - 2021

Berkeley Prep - 2021 -

-----

2022 Update

TLDR:

-email chain -

BerkeleyPrepDocs@gmail.com

natodocs@googlegroups.com

-Recently retired k-leaning flex debater/resident performative stunt queen for Berkeley Prep Debate

-would much rather judge a really good policy v policy round than a poorly executed k round - BUT - would ultimately prefer to judge a k v k round where both sides have competing and creative strategies that they are both a) deeply invested in and b) have interesting interpretations of. Those are the rounds I always had the most fun in, but to be clear, I have also realized over the years that a policy v policy round has the potential for just as much, if not more and have no problem judging these debates.

-the team executing whatever argument they are most comfortable with at the highest level they can, will always in my eyes have an easier time getting my ballot/receiving higher speaks which means that the the speeches I want to see are those that you are enthused about giving and ultimately, I want you to be excited to be able to do whatever it is that you are best at.

-went for everything from big stick warming affs to f*** debate performance 1AC's, to Black/Native Studies like Warren, Wilderson, Moten, King, Gumbs and Hartman to Queer theory like Butler, Edelman and Trans-Rage to High theory like Nietzsche, Baudy and OOO as well as Procedurals like T/FW/A- and I-Spec, Disads/Case turns like to deterrence, politics and SPARK and of course, multiple different flavors of counterplans. so regardless of what it is you go for I'm down - just don't take this as an excuse to not use judge instruction/concise explanations that makes sense - even if I was a Nietzsche one - trick in high school that doesn't mean I'm going to do the nihilism work for you. All this is to say is that whoever you may be, you should feel comfortable that I have in some way or another had a certain level of experience with your literature base.

Important Note:

Due to recent events its been suggested to me that I add a layer to my philosophy I wasn't sure was necessary, but in an effort to help protect future debaters/debate rounds, as well as myself/fellow judges, here is what I will say -

While I do empathize with the competitive nature of this activity, it should go without saying that if there is violence of any kind, whether that be intentional or not, my role as an educator in this community is to intervene if that situation deems my involvement to be necessary and I want to make it very clear that I have no qualms in doing so. Its important to recognize when we have to put the game aside and understand as a community that we have a responsibility to learn from situations like those and to be better as we move forward. SO just for the sake of clarity, I do not have a desire to stop rounds, in fact - quite the opposite. However, my role as a judge (one that I would hope others embody when judging my own students) is one that adjudicates the round in the most equitable means possible AS WELL AS one that ensures the safety of, to the best of my capacity, each debate round and all of its participants/observers.

Also - Sometimes, and not always, but in the same fashion as countless other judges, I can, at times, be a very reactive/nonverbal judge. Understanding that those kinds of things are a) an inevitable part of this activity b) not always caused by something you did and c) can be incredibly critical in your in round-decision making is crucial and is a fundamental skill that I believe to be vastly important in succeeding within this activity. HOWEVER, that means that whether or not you choose to modify what you are doing based off how I am reacting is, at the end of the day, your decision and your decision alone - recognizing when to do so/when not to is a core facet of competing.

Strike me if you don't like it.

specific feels about certain things:

- have aff specific link explanations regardless of offcase position - that doesnt mean that every card has to be specific to the aff but your explanation of the link should be as specific to the 1AC as you can make possible - extra speaker points to those who can successfully pull lines

- hot take: after all this time in online debate, I will in fact "verbally interject if unable to hear" regardless of whether you make that clear to me before you begin your speech - so as a personal preference don't feel obligated to say that anymore. Id rather you just give me an order and start after getting some signal (verbal or visual) that we're all ready. as an incentive to help try and stop this practice, expect a lil boost in points.

- that being said, "as specific to the 1AC" means you could have a really good link to aff's mechanism. or you could have a great state link. or a link to their impacts. etc. it doesnt matter to me what the link is as long as it is well developed and made specific to what the 1AC is. I dont want to hear the same generic state link as much as the next person but if you make it creative and you use the aff than I dont see a problem.

- affirmatives could be about the topic, or they could not be, its up to you as long as whatever you choose to do you can defend and explain. If you're not about the topic and its a framework debate, I need to know what your model of debate is or why you shouldnt need to defend one etc. if youre reading a performance aff, the performance is just as important if not more than the evidence you are reading - so dont forget to extend the performance throughout the debate and use it to answer the other teams arguments.

- whether its one off or 8 please be aware of the contradictions you will be making in the 1NC and be prepared to defend them or have some sort of plan if called out.

- on that note theory debates are fine and could be fun. im not that opposed to voting on theory arguments of all varieties as long as you spend a sufficient amount of time in the rebuttals to warrant me voting on them. most of the time thats a substantial amount if not the entirety of one or more of your rebuttals.

- perm debates are weird and i dont feel great voting for "do both" without at least an explanation of how that works. "you dont get a perm in method debates" feels wrong mostly because like these are all made up debate things anyways and permutations are good ways to test the competitiveness of ks/cps/cas. that being said, if you have a good justification for why the aff shouldnt get one and they do an insufficient job of answering it, i will obviously vote on "no perms in method debates"

- dropped arguments are probably true arguments, but there are always ways to recover, however, not every argument made in a debate is an actual argument and being able to identify what is and isn't will boost your speaker points

speaks:

how these are determined is inherently arbitrary across the board and let's not pretend I have some kind of rubric for you that perfectly outlines the difference between a 28.5 and a 28.6, or a 29.3 and a 29.4, or that my 29.3 will be the same as some other judges.

I do however think about speaks in terms of a competitive ladder, with sections that require certain innate skills which ended up being fairly consistent with other judges, if not slightly on the higher side of things. Hopefully, this section will more so help give you an idea of how you can improve your speeches for the next time you have me in the back.

-26s: these are few and far between, but if are to get one of these, we've probably already talked about what happened after the round. The key here is probably don't do whatever is that you did, and is most likely related to the stuff I talked about at the top.

-27s: If you're getting something in this range from me, it means you should be focusing on speaking drills (with an emphasis on clarity, and efficiency), as well as developing a deeper/fuller analysis of your arguments that picks apart the detailed warrants within the evidence you are reading.

-28s: Still need to be doing drills, but this time with more of an emphasis on affective delivery, finding a comfortable speed, and endurance. At this point, what I probably need to see more from you is effective decision making as well as judge instruction - in order to move into the 29 range, you should be writing my ballot for me with your final rebuttals in so far as using those speeches to narrow the debate down and effectively execute whatever route that may be by painting a picture of what has happened leading up to this moment

-29s: at this point, you're probably fairly clear and can effectively distinguish between pitches and tones as you go in order to emphasize relevant points. The only drills you should be doing here should be concerned with efficiency and breathing control, and if you are in the low 29's this is most likely a clarity issue and you should probably slow down a bit in order to avoid stumbling and bump your speaks up to high 29's. Higher 29's are most likely those who are making the correct decisions at most if not all stages of the debate, and successfully execute the final speeches in ways that prioritize judge instruction, and clearly lay the ballot out for me throughout the speech.

-30s: I actually don't have a problem giving these out, because I think my bar for a "perfect" speech can be subjective in so far as 30's for me can definitely make mistakes, but in the end you had a spectacular debate where you gave it everything you could and then some. I try not to give these out often though because of the risk it could possibly mess with your seeding/breaking, so if you do get one of these, thanks - I had a wonderful experience judging you.

-0.0 - 0.9 - this section is similar for every category in that it is dependent on things like argument extension and packaging, handling flows/the line by line, cross ex, link debating, etc. however, a team that is in the 29 range will have a higher bar to meet for those sort of minutia parts of your speech than those in the 28 or 27. That's because as you improve in delivery you should also be improving in execution, which means that in my eyes, a debater who may be in the 27 range the first time I see them, but is now speaking in the 28 range will have a higher bar than they did before in order to get into the high 28s.

Lianne Kulik Long Branch High School

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 8:42 AM EDT

For e-mail chains and questions/concerns: lianne.lk@gmail.com

Arguments:

I don't really prefer certain types of arguments. I would like to see you run whatever you think you can argue best. That being said, I do prefer clear, substantive debate with good clash. Listen to your opponents and make sure you are actually responding to what they run. I am most interested in judging debates where the two teams are actually listening and responding to each other. Keep it organized. FLOW and respond to arguments based on your flow.

Kritiks: If you are running a complicated K at full speed that is heavy on rhetoric and clearly meant to confuse rather than educate, I am not the right judge for you. I am not impressed by use of buzzwords and highly complicated literature that you refuse to help your opponents understand during cross-ex. This seems to be trending more and more prevalent in policy debate and it is a real turn-off for me. If you are reading in any complex critical argument, you need to slow down during speeches and work to clarify the complex argument in cross-ex when opponents are asking you clear questions.

Topicality: If the affirmative is reasonably topical (as in not a K-aff), and responds to T efficiently in the 2AC with we meet and/or counter-definition/interp, etc... then you should assume that I will not be voting on T. I will favor reasonability in cases like this, and don't particularly enjoy judging rounds arguing rules and technicalities through to rebuttals if we can avoid it. So, my advice to neg would be: if your opponents adequately respond to T in the 2AC, you should kick the argument by the 2NR.

General Note: Ultimately, I judge the round based on the evidence and analysis explicitly provided by both teams. I will not make arguments for teams under any circumstance. If the aff says the sky is purple, the sky is purple on my flow until the neg states otherwise. You should also explicitly tell me why you win the round in your rebuttals. The only time I would make an exception in my "tabula rasa" approach to judging is if something stated is blatantly offensive and/or discriminatory. This is as a means to ensure student safety and equity within the round.

Flashing Evidence/E-mail Chains/Sharing Speech Docs:

This is probably sounding outdated in the world of post 2020 debate, but I'm leaving it in for now just in case: Your prep time stops only when you pull out your flash drive to hand to the other team. Saving, attaching, compiling, etc. is all part of your prep.

Now for the more technologically relevant: In the same spirit as above, for e-mail chains and/or drive sharing, prep time stops when you press send on and email or press share on a google/cloud document. I would suggest asking for your opponents email addresses prior to the start of the debate round so that doing so does not take time out of your prep. I really do not want to be the judge in a round holding up a tournament, and unfortunately it seems like this is the only way I can hold everyone accountable without everyone stealing prep left and right.

This should also go without saying, but the expectation is that you are prepared to and have planned for sharing speech docs in some way with your opponents. If you have no way of doing so, I will request that someone in your partnership allow the other team to use your laptop to view the speech. As a last resort, I will instruct the opposing team to stand and read over your shoulder during your speech so that they can flow appropriately. These are, to reiterate, last resorts. The ethical move for the sake of education in the round is to make sure you have a way to share documents: via email, google docs, dropbox, flash drive, etc.

General Conduct/Protocol/Speaker Points:

Open cross is fine. Make sure questions and answers remain a team effort though, for the sake of your speaks.

High speaks go to debaters that stay organized, keep to their road-maps, and clearly signpost.

Err on the slow side with me. I am super unimpressed by debaters that spread unintelligibility. State your taglines and authors slowly with extra clarity to be sure that they end up on my flow; If I can't understand you, I can't write down what you are saying, and your argument is moot. Spread only if you truly know you can be understood when you do so (that should go without saying, but based on rounds I've had to sit through, I guess it needs to be noted explicitly). Rule of thumb: if I am not typing while you're speaking, take that as your clue that nothing you are saying is going on my flow.

Treat your fellow debaters with the utmost respect, especially during cross ex. I understand that debate can be stressful, but stress is never an excuse to be rude or nasty. There is no simply need for it. Unnecessary hostility in cross-ex is a major issue for me. Chill out and try learning from each other. If you are rude or unnecessarily hostile to either your opponents OR your partner, your speaks will negatively reflect that.

The use of any derogatory/discriminatory terms, including sexist, homophobic, and/or racial slurs when referencing an opponent or judge will result in my stopping mid-round to call out the unacceptable language. Speaker points will negatively reflect the use of such language. Repeated use of slurs/name-calling will result in my ending the round with an automatic win for the opposing team.

I don't love the use of profanity for profanity's sake-- Meaning, if you can make your argument without the use of profanity, I would prefer that. If you are using profanity, your words should be chosen for a reason, and the reason should not be shock value - make smart choices here.

My personal background:

- I have been involved in policy debate in some capacity as either a college debater, judge, or high school coach since 2010.
- I am a high school teacher. (Courses taught: AP Macroeconomics, Economics, Law & Equity, Criminal Justice, Intro to Debate, Advanced Debate, US History & Social Justice).
- My academic interests mainly lie in economic theory. I believe strongly that economic impacts ARE social impacts and existential impacts.

Final Thoughts:

I congratulate you on choosing to participate in one of the most difficult, yet rewarding, activities that high school/college has to offer. I encourage you to use debate as a true learning and growing experience. If you allow for it, debate can make you a critical reader, a faster thinker, a better writer, a more confident speaker, a more prepared activist, an in-tune empath, a team player, a humble winner, a gracious loser, and ultimately a better overall citizen of this world. I wish you the very best of luck, and encourage you to use what you learn in debate to create more good in the world, starting as soon as you possibly can... perhaps even right now.

Kimtee Kundu Hire

Julie Kurd Dearborn STEM Academy HS

Kevin Kuswa Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Tue March 1, 2022 at 10:05 AM EDT

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

Sebastian Laprea Hire None

Jack Lassiter Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Sat September 11, 2021 at 4:34 AM CDT

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and done on the top of your kritik/topicality violation before it is applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Thomas Latta Northstar Academy High School - Newark

Last changed on Fri February 10, 2023 at 1:20 AM EDT

Policy Debate Coach

North Star High School, Newark, NJ - email chain: tomlatta@optonline.net

Former policy debater, volunteer judge, now first year policy-focussed coach with novice team. I am relatively inexperienced as coaches go and judge primarily in JV and Novice as I become more experienced. I am comfortable in policy and LD. I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernable, at the bare minimum. I'm not receptive to speaking styles with purposely low volume or monotone and this will be reflected in speaker points and, if egregious and repeated, the RFD. I appreciate clear signposting in all speeches.

I can be considered a traditional, stock issue, legal and flow model judge. I am comfortable with tightly reasoned arguments in this context that make small, detailed distinctions that the speaker understands and communicates clearly. I expect to hear explanations about how the arguments impact the flow and overall balance of the debate. Simply stating an argument will not carry the flow; you need to tell me the relevance of the argument to the debate overall.

I am receptive to most counter-plan, topicality, k and theory arguments if you can reasonably explain why they are relevant. If you spread these arguments, however, I will not follow them. If the argument is novel or on the edge of policy theory, you need to explain your reasoning in a more detailed but understandable way. Generic DA's are vulnerable to aff attacks on links. For LD, I look for a clear understanding of frameworks and their interaction in the debate and I pay close attention to the level of a speaker's understanding as shown by responses when ideas are questioned or an argument is under stress.

I appreciate clever, creative arguments within the traditional framework that demonstrate the speaker’s understanding of the topic. I also reward demonstration of listening skills reflected in a clear, hair-splitting clash of arguments (and clash, in general). Signposting is important to me, given my experience level. The ability to bring arguments to a succinct and pointed summary will also be rewarded.

Speaker points…28.5 is average clarity, clear-thinking and focus. More and less of those qualities will be reflected by divergences from that point but will not go below 26.

In general, I will give you my full concentration as a judge, provide clear and reasonable feedback and appreciate your efforts to improve my understanding of policy debate and the round we are in.

Eleanora Lawrence Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun October 30, 2022 at 11:56 AM EDT

Sarah Lawrence '25, Caddo Magnet High '21, she/her, yes I want to be on the email chain-- ejarlawrence@gmail.com

Top-Level: I prefer a fast, technical debate and default to evaluating debates as a policymaker, but can be persuaded otherwise. Don't overadapt - debate is a game, and winning your arguments is what matters. I like to reward good evidence, but I won't be reading every card after the round unless it is flagged or a close debate and good evidence is not an excuse for unwarranted debating/little explanation.

T vs policy affs: I don't enjoy close definitions debates. T debates where the interpretation becomes clear only in CX of the 2NC or later will be very hard to reward with my ballot. I understand that good T debates happen (T-LPR on immigration comes to mind) but if the topic doesnt have easily understandable, legally precise definitions based in government literature (CJR comes to mind) I'm going to err towards reasonability more than anyone I know. Plan text in a vaccum probably sucks, but if you can't articulate a clear alternative you probably can't win. Predictability probably outweighs debatability.

T vs K affs: Debate is probably a game, but probably also more than that, and neither team's offense is likely truly reliant on winning this anyway. Fairness is probably an impact, but it is frequently pretty small. Neg teams that clearly explain what the aff's interpretation justifies (ie. internal link debating) and why that's bad are more likely to win my ballot. Aff teams that come up with a counter-interp that attempts to solve for some limits/predictability seem more instinctively reasonable to me than those who try to impact turn things I think are probably good like predictability, but either strategy is fine.

Counterplans/Theory: Theory other than conditionality/perfcon is not a voter and going for it will wreck your ethos (and speaks). On a truth level, I think being neg in a world without massive conditionality and theoretical abuse is impossible on lots of hs topics. Given that, I'm actually fairly familiar with and interested in hearing good condo debating- competing interps means if you have something explainable and not arbitrary (infinite condo, infinite dispo, no condo) and can articulate some standards I won't hack for anyone. Default to judge kick, but can be convinced not to, counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, I'd love to hear a real debate on positional competition but I'm not optimistic.

Disads: Uniqueness matters, and determines offense on the link level, but win the link too. No politics disad is true, but some politics disads are more true than others. These were my favorite arguments to cut and go for, and interesting scenarios that are closer to the truth or strategic will be rewarded with speaks. I'm of the somewhat controversial opinion they make for good education and the less controversial one lots of topics are unworkable for the neg without them, so don't go for intrinsicness/floortime DAs bad theory.

Impact Turns: Nothing much to say here, other than a reassurance I will not check out on something I find unpersuasive in real life (any of the war good debates, spark, wipeout). If you can't beat it, update your blocks.

Impact Framing/Soft Left Impacts: I default to utilitarian consequentialism, and have a strong bias in favor of that as a way to evaluate impacts. If you want to present another way to evaluate impacts, PLEASE tell me what it means for my ballot and how I evaluate it. "Overweight probability" is fine for the 1AC, but by the 1AR I should know if that means I ONLY evaluate probability/disregard probabilities under 1%/don't evaluate magnitudes of infinity. Anything else means you're going to get my super arbitrary and probably fairly utilitarian impulse. I would love if whoever's advocating for ex risks would do the same, but I have a better handle on what your deal means for the ballot, so I don't need as much help. "Util Bad" without an alternative is very unpersuasive - BUT a fleshed out alternative can be very strategic.

K vs Policy Affs: I vote neg most often in these debates when the neg can lose framework but win case takeouts or an impact to the K that outweighs and turns the aff. I vote neg somewhat often in these debates when the aff does a bad job explaining the internal links of their FW interp or answering negative impacts (which is still pretty often). For security type Ks, it seems like some people think they can convince me sweeping IR theories or other impacts are false with all the knowledge of a high schooler. Read a card, or I will assume the aff's 3 cards on China Revisionist/cyber war real are true and the K is false.

Brief tangent ahead: If you think the above statement re: the security K does not apply to you because you have a fun way to get around this by saying "it doesn't matter if the K is false because we shouldn't just use Truth to determine whether statements are good to say", I think you're probably wrong. You're critiquing a theory of how we should evaluate the merits of Saying Stuff (traditionally Truth, for whatever value we can determine it) without providing an alternative. So, provide an alternative way for me to determine the merits of Saying Stuff or you're liable to get my frustration and fairly arbitrary decisionmaking on whether you've met the very high burden required to win this. I've judged like four debates now which revolved around this specific issue and enjoyed evaluating none of them. Aff teams when faced with this should ask a basic question like "how do we determine what statements are good outside of their ability to explain the world" please. First person I see do this will get very good speaker points. TLDR: treat your epistemological debates like util good/bad debates and I will enjoy listening to them. Don't and face the consequences.

K vs K affs: I've now judged a few of these debates, and have found when the aff goes for the perm they're very likely to get my ballot absent basically losing the thesis of the affirmative (which has happened). This means I don't think "the aff doesn't get perms in a method debate" is a nonstarter. Other than that, my background in the literature is not strong, so if your link relies on a nuanced debate in the literature, I'm going to need a lot of explanation.

Miscellaneous: These are unsorted feelings I have about debate somewhere between the preferences expressed above and non-negotiables below.

For online debate: Debaters should endeavor to keep their cameras on for their speeches as much as possible. I find that I'm able to pay much more attention to cx and give better speaker comments. Judging online is hard and staring at four blank screens makes it harder.

I am becoming somewhat annoyed with CX of the 1NC/2AC that starts with "did you read X" or "what cards from the doc did you not read" and will minorly (.1, .2 if it's egregious) reduce your speaks if you do this. I am MORE annoyed if you try to make this happen outside of speech or prep time. 2As, have your 1A flow the 1NC to catch these things. 2Ns, same for your 1Ns. If the speaker is particularly unclear or the doc is particularly disorganized, this goes away.

At my baseline, I think about the world in a more truth over tech way. My judging strategy and process is optimized to eliminate this bias, as I think its not a good way to evaluate debate rounds, but I am not perfect. You have been warned.

I am gay. I am not a good judge for queerness arguments. This isn't a "you read it you lose/i will deck speaks" situation, but you have been warned its a harder sell than anything else mentioned

For LD: I have judged very little lincoln-douglas; I have knowledge of the content of the topic but not any of its conventions. I understand the burden for warranted arguments (especially theory) is lower in LD than in policy - I'm reluctant to make debaters entirely transform their style, so I won't necessarily apply my standard for argument depth, but if the one team argues another has insufficiently extended an argument, I will be very receptive to that.

Non-negotiables:

In high school policy debate, both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, 3 minutes for CX, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says. CX is binding. There is one winner and one loser. I will flow. I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab so that they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate on.

You have to read rehighlightings, you can't just insert them. If I or the other team notice you clipping or engaging in another ethics violation prohibited by tournament rules and it is found to be legitimate, it's an auto-loss and I will give the lowest speaks that I can give.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously very arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it is also up to the judge's discretion for when the line has been crossed.

Jake Lee Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Thu March 23, 2023 at 12:56 PM EDT

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Present and Past Affiliations:

Current High School Affiliation - Head Coach and Math Teacher at the Mamaroneck High School

Former College Affiliation - Assistant Coach at the University of Michigan ('20-'21)

Former Assistant Coach - Pine Crest ('18-'21), Strath Haven ('19)

Former Debater - University of Pittsburgh ('16-'20), Qualified to NDT ('19) D7!

Former Debater - Glenbrook South ('12-'16)

My Email for the Chain: jakelee8771@gmail.com

HS Debaters ALSO add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

In-Depth Judging Record: View this Speadsheet (if you are into data and stuff)

TOC Note:

Congrats on Qualifying to the TOC!! This is a major accomplishment, and every debater deserves to be celebrated for all of your hard work on getting to the TOC.

Important Note:

Before the start of every round, each debater is going to go around to say their name, their pronouns, and one fun fact about each other. You all come to tournaments too stressed and forget to have fun at debate tournaments. Having this little icebreaker makes rounds more enjoyable since we all are here to have fun and compete in a safe, friendly environment. It does not matter if you know each other, it helps reduce the tension in the room.

No more of this "can you send a marked copy of the doc, and take out the cards that you did not read". No more, you all should be FLOWING! This is a terrible excuse for not paying attention. Any team that asks for this request, I'm going to run your prep time, the other team can stall as long as they want because you decided not to flow. I don't care if they purposely run your time to ZERO, FLOW! You have the doc in front and all you have to do is listen. If I can flow without looking at the doc, you can too!

Top Level:

Tech > Truth, a dropped argument on the flow is a true argument on the flow.

Will not vote on Death Good, Racism Good, Sexism Good, etc.

Explanation matters more than evidence. Cards only matter to break ties in arguments when warrants/arguments are explicitly contested.

Condo is probably fine. New affs justify condo and maybe perf con.

You are NOT allowed to insert the re-highlighting of a card. You MUST read you re-highlighting. I will not flow it

Number your arguments - Debate like Dartmouth, makes the flow so much better

Stop Calling me Judge, just say my name lol

NATO Topic Thoughts:

Majority of the debates this year I have judged have been clash/K rounds. I think the one thing that bothers me about these debates quite often is the topic if just forgotten and these debates become generic framework/extinction outweighs debates rather than something specific to the topic.

T-A5 is the worst argument on this topic. I just WON'T vote on IT.

Most DA's seem pretty weak right now, but I can be convinced otherwise with good evidence spin

Is there a good Biotech AFF? One team has so far shown me a good biotech on this topic.

Consider the Following:

1) Implicate Arguments: A lot of you are able to explain what the claim of an argument, good. Some of you are able to tell me what the warrants to the claim are, great. Barely any of you implicate why your arguments matters in the debate, oh. Yes, an argument has a claim and a warrant, but you also need an implication as to why this argument matters to the flow. Let's use the following as an example for what I mean. 95% of you would say the following: "the economy is collapsing now which leads to war, so vote neg". Okay Good that's just a claim. 4% of you would say the following: "the economy is collapsing now, wages and jobs declining, inflation rising, all means the likehood of war is high because of diversionary war, so vote neg". Okay now we got some warrants. The very 1% of you say this "the economy is declining now, the AFF's evidence does not answer our warrants about wages and jobs declining and inflation on the rise which means we win the UQ debate of the DA--this increases the likehood of war due to diversionary war tactics which none of their impact defense address which you should prevent the 2AR from making new answers--vote neg". Okay now see why this argument is just substantially better then the argument extension at the start. IF you do not tell me why I should care about this argument, or what I should even do with this argument at the end of the debate, you are making it a lot harder for me to judge the round for you.

2) Theory Debates: Please just stop reading pre-written blocks in these debates. I know you think you are "answering" the argument, but you are really not. Do Line-by-Line as you would normally do on any other flow. Just say "they say neg flex, their interpretation cannot solve neg flex because x which proves our interpretation is better". That is just so much better to listen to because it actually shows you are actively listening and thinking about your opponent's arguments in the round.

3) Warrant Comparison: The best speakers in debate not only do evidence comparison, but they also do warrant comparison. It's good that some of you really do care about evidence quality such as "this card is too old" or "their evidence is from paid off hack". Obviously implicate why that matters as directed in the subpoint above. To go a step further, you should compare your warrants to your opponents. "Their argument about jobs falling is wrong, our evidence from yesterday cites numerous charts and graphs from the government that jobs are rising, their data is from one small town in Rhode Island, prefer our evidence". This sound of argumentation just sounds so much better then just "they are wrong, jobs are rising because our card is newer". Compare and Implicate Warrants, you will get boosted speaks for doing it.

4) Framework Debates: These debates are often quite frustrating to resolve at the end of the day. To win Framework on either the AFF or NEG, you need to do impact calculus! This gets really left out in these debates and ends up being two ships passing each other. Use the language of the other team to really help me guide the debate. The other thing that annoys me that teams do not do is explaining their interpretation of debate. Both sides just breeze through this when this actually matters to me a lot as to why you resolve your own offense and why they link to your own offense. Debating and refuting each other's interpretations matters a lot and gets you a lot farther in the debate.

5) Counterplan Texts: Counterplan texts need to not be vague or incredibly short to the point where it does not make any sense as to what the counterplan is doing. Example "The USFG should develop a data strategy that promotes innovation". Okay, so what does this actually do? What is a data strategy? How does that promote innovation? If you cannot answer those questions, then you have shot yourself in the foot by reading a bad counterplan text. The counterplan text should describe what the counterplan is doing. Bad counterplan texts make you and your partner bad in cross-x.

6) Hiding ASPEC and other Tricks: It seems to always happen at Blake, but there was a proliferation of teams reading ASPEC/other small voting issues and then HIDING it. Cowards! Any team that does this, the AFF team just needs to say CX Checks and then move on, no need to justify the "new" argument. I will ONLY vote on these arguments IF they are on a SEPARATE FLOW and DEVELOPED PROPERLY in the 1NC.

7) Impact Calc???: Where did it go? A lot of people are forgetting to do impact calc? I'm not sure why since we do those fun impact calc tournaments! Please do impact calc to help with impact framing!

Miscellaneous:

High Schoolers - Some College Debaters you should look up to: Kelly Skoulikaris, Michael Scott, Andrew Pak, Henry Mitchell, Maya El-Sharif, Bella Piekut, Josh Harrington, David McDermott, and Nate Glancy

High School Coaches I agree with - Jeremy Hammond, DB, Gabe Koo, Eric Forslund, Allie Chase, Tim Lewis, Peter Susko, Scott Wheeler, and Yao Yao Chen

Schools I have Judged the Most: Lexington, GBN, Calvert Hall, New Trier, Berkeley Prep, Bronx Science, Peninsula, and GDS

Top 5 Favorite Topics I debated/coached (top was favorite) : Domestic Surveillance (2016), Executive Authority (2019), Transportation Infrastructure (2013), Alliances (2021), Oceans (2015)

Top 5 Least Favorite Topics I debated/coached (top was worst): Education (2018), National Health Insurance (2018), Space (2020), Latin America (2014), NATO (2022)

(Old Thoughts from Previous Topics)

CJR Topic Thoughts:

The lack of to no 1AR cards being read is happening too often.

Topicality is becoming very meh to me. I have yet to hear a persuasive interpretation that does not make impossible to be aff without complaining about how being neg is too hard. Like yes being neg on this topic is probably hard, but just saying that is not persuasive to me to vote neg.

So what is the DA now since Elections is done?

Been more sympathetic to process CPs on this topic. Still needs to meet the requirements outlined below.

Why are people talking about Space Elevators on this topic?

The abolition critique is cool.

It feels really ironic that teams who have "framing contentions" do not do any framing at all. Both aff and neg are at fault for just reading cards and not "framing" anything. Please make some role of the ballot/judge or something to frame the debate if there is one.

Alliances Topic Thoughts:

Assurance and Deterrence DAs are the best on this topic. Please put these DAs on case when relevant, just makes things flow easier

Topicality debates seem interesting on this topic

Simon Lee Miami Beach Independent

Elizabeth Li Hire

Vincent Li Hire

Geordano Liriano Hire

Last changed on Tue February 21, 2023 at 3:13 AM EDT

Email Chain: Geodb8 AT gmail dot com

[…]

Debated in the New York Urban Debate League (Bronx Law) 2008-2014 and the University of Iowa 2014-2019.

Summer Lab leader: 1x ECLI, 1x DDI, 2x NYUDL, 3x Cal Berk, 1x GDI.

Argument assistant: West H.S., McQueen H.S., Lane Tech H.S., and most recently, CSU Long Beach.

General thoughts:

I vote for the team that did the better debating. I default to first weighing the impact calc debate and focus almost exclusively on the flow to determine what arguments to evaluate. I do not like judge intervention and prefer you all successfully determine the best metric to evaluating the debate.

Speaker points:

While speed is completely fine, please do not sacrifice clarity to “get through a card,” it translate to poor spreading and muddles the rest of the speech. Remember to follow your roadmap, allocate time, sign post, and commit to line-by-line refutation. Refrain from disorganization, shadow extensions, and poor rhetorical skills. While all Cross examinations are open, consider they are as important to your speaks as constructives and rebuttals.

Affirmatives:

Whether or not you read a plan is less important than winning offense against a competing strategy, procedural violation, or DA. In short, win that the aff is a good idea/performance/policy implementation.

a) K/Performance AFF’s

I think 1ACs should be tangibly related to the resolution. 1ACs are research projects and yearly resolutions are the result of a research paper written and voted for by the community. Effectively your AFF is a response to community consensus and their underlying assumptions.

K’s

Critiques are arguments based on philosophical inquiries. If you do not know or understand the philosophy you are advancing it will likely show throughout the debate and can negatively effect speaker points. More importantly, I will not fill in gaps for inaccurate or poor-quality arguments. Remember I focus on what’s happening/the flow.

That aside, I am very familiar with philosophies across numerous cannons.

CP’s

Neg has the burden to prove mutual exclusivity, a CP without a net benefit is just another plan and plan plan debate isnt a thing, the permutation will probably win every time.

a) Method debates

While I am sympathetic to “no-perms,” the negative must prove a link greater than omission. The best Counter methods are stylistically, theoretically or methodologically different than the 1AC then generate offense based on those differences.

Procedurals

a) T/FW

Topicality is a debate about words, the (mis)use of them and their importance. T’s appendage, Framework is a heuristic for debate, a vision for how competitors should engage the activity. While the words topicality and framework are used interchangeably a good debater will identity what they are being called to answer/defend so to make more convincing arguments.

i) Framework specific

Limits is an internal link to a terminal impact; K aff counter interpretations should be bound by the resolution; ontology/epistemology arguments are responsive to FW; I usually vote for FW on TVAs, ground, and procedural fairness.

b) Theory

Easiest debates to decide. Difficult debates to execute. Do not go for theory if you aren’t informed of the meticulous refutation you must accomplish to get the ballot. Believe it or not, there was once a time people went for theory their entire final rebuttal. Conversely, ask whether those few seconds amounts to a W or just defense to prevent the other team from winning on theory.

c) Ethics violations:

These are acts or words done by a competitor that deserves ending the debate. Preferably the tournament organizers resolve the alleged issue. This includes card clipping.

Card clipping claims STOP the debate. Note: I am always either following a speaker on my own pc or listening for the last word they say in each card.However, a card clipping violation requires theclaimant provides evidence otherwiseI will be stuckpiecing together whatIbelieve happened as opposed to whatI know happened.

A more subtle way of committing an ethical violation is stealing prep.

I use to steal prep. Only in the sense that I put my plastic podium, laptop, flow, and sent out the email chain after prepping. But the intentional stealing of prep, actively writing materials, organizing speech docs or speaking to your partner is not fair and excessive prep stealing will result in considerable speaker point deductions.

DAs

Quick observation —the community has elected to have these debates in various parts of the flow as opposed to just a DA page. Linear DAs are on an all time high and overlooking these random DAs may cause a card to turn into a viable strat.

DA proper —I subconsciously rely on an offense/defense paradigm on every flow and can follow internal link chains so I am game for traditional DA debates.

En fin

I start deciding who won by organizing my flow in order of importance, I read evidence if contested or heavily relied on, I weigh your arguments against each other and confirm lines can be drawn between speeches so to discern new arguments.

Lastly, I’m usually flowing cross examination. Explain your arguments well, ask good questions and above all, be respectful.

—————————

Notes:

- James Roland an outstanding educator in the activity gave a lecture at the first camp I attended on being a successful Policy Debater: https://puttingthekindebate.wordpress.com/tag/james-rowland/

- Top 5 debate movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EacYl00YzZ0

Lucas Lobo Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Thu January 26, 2023 at 7:27 AM EDT

Emory ’26, Calvert Hall ’22, 2A/1N 3 years, 2N/1A 2 years, yes email chain: lcsrlobo@gmail.com

Top Level/2 Min Read: Tech > truth absent obvious gaps in truth. Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication, I feel like debaters usually forget the last. Tell me what to do, do judge instruction. Line-by-line is best for any form of debate. Speech time, prep, clipping, and each debater giving a constructive and rebuttal are rules, everything else can be debated*. Don't assume I know everything you do because I am not doing topic research.

*If there is an ethics violation introduced (clipping, evidence fabrication, etc.) you must stake the debate on it. When it is introduced, the debate won't continue. If you were involved in a Title 9 violation at camp do not pref me.

**I really, really do not want to vote for dropped, shallow theory arguments. Please do not do this, and if you do expect a low-point win.

Novice Debate: Have fun! Ask questions! Your first year should be about education, not competition. This activity relies on tons of jargon and uncharted territory for many, so if any part of my decision does not make sense, please do not hesitate to ask questions. Plan debate is likely more conducive to education in this format. Will not vote you down if you read a K AFF, but prefer that it be policy. Time your own speeches.

AFFs: Case debate is good, important, and underrated. Would much prefer internal link/impact presses over “CP/fiat solves” over and over. Will reward good, in-depth case debate with high speaks. I get 2ACs are time-pressured but you should still extend warrants/make coherent arguments to answer 1NCs instead of just tag-line extending stuff.

Framing: it will be the first thing I resolve. Impact arguments contextual to the AFF are better than Connetta, Kessler, etc.. CP solvency and turns case can mitigate AFF pushes. Beat the DA if it’s so bad, don’t just use the framing page as a crutch for everything. Even though I think the NEG is usually true in these instance tech > truth means you shouldn't brush it off/drop arguments.

Topicality: Favorite debates to judge when executed well, least favorite when executed poorly. Competing interpretations makes more sense when the interp differential in limits/ground/precision is large; reasonability makes more sense when the interp differential in limits/ground/precision is small. Reasonability is the difference between interps, not “our aff is core of the topic,” not persuaded by the latter since T is always a question of models. Blocks should include a topical caselist and “what they justify” caselist. Impact calculus is important and often the tiebreak, especially “x turns y” or “lack of x causes y” style arguments. Defense wins championships is especially true in T debate; I feel like functional limits/lit checks is true in most instances, but smart NEG pivots/defense to AFF offense can circumvent it. T as a last resort option isn’t my favorite, but definitely understand why it’s necessary.

Counterplans: I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to. Remind me as early as the 2NC or say “status quo is a logical option” when asked. Deficits grounded in evidence are much more likely to convince me than analytical presses. Sufficiency framing doesn't make sense if the AFF deficits are well-impacted. Uncarded advantage CPs with ridiculous policy proposals are bad and CP text vagueness will 99% of the time justify new 1AR responses. "Links less" as a frame only makes sense when the net benefit is really big or presumption clearly goes one direction.

Conditionality/Theory: teams should go for it more often -- this is not to say I think condo is bad, but 2Ns often struggle with the technicalities. Numerical interps are probably arbitrary, logic + risk aversion make sense, and fairness-related standards on their own probably outweigh education. Theory: Substantive arguments can often overcome theory objections, i.e. perms against process CPs. AFF on functional and textual competition, consult, limited con con, and delay. NEG on states, non-limited con con, international on NATO, and pretty much everything else.

Disadvantages: Turns case is usually irrelevant because probable risk of case/DA is usually low enough. Turns case related to enforcement is resolved by durable fiat. 1ARs that double down on a few, round-winning arguments will go much farther than shadow-extending every 2AC argument. In general, I'm in the pool of read all the cards you have over analytic pushes.

Kritiks: NEG: Your overview should be 40 seconds tops. If it’s more, move it to the flow. I will never vote on death good; if you think your argument is adjacent to it don't go for it. Framework interpretations that rely on “you link, you lose” AND “only the plan should be considered” are usually equally self-serving, so winning a middle ground is best. However, I am very tech > truth (for the fourth time in this paradigm!) and have found myself voting on big, dropped pieces of offense from the NEG. Links should be unique (to some extent) AND turn case. Don’t need to win an alt in front of me but it’s probably good to keep it in the 2NR, say judge kick if you want me to.

AFF: impact turn links and go for extinction outweighs OR go for the perm and link turn; attempting to do both rarely works. Either way, defend your AFF. AFFs usually lose these debates when they a) don’t pick up on tricks/get lost in the weeds of the specific theory or b) don’t compartmentalize the moving parts of the debate. I'm not really sure what a logical alternative to existential util is, so make sure you have a robust defense of it. Debate probably does shape subjectivity but individual rounds probably don't.

T-USFG/K AFFs: What is considered an “impact” is contingent on your explanation and contextualization. Fairness, clash, skills, etc. all have the potential to be terminal. If you are not going for “debate is a game” fairness, you should definitely have a TVA and/or SSD argument. These are super super compelling when executed correctly, but explanation should go beyond “prevents dogma” or “can read it with a plan.” K AFFs should be in the direction of the topic. Pet peeve (in all debates, but especially these) is when 1ARs don’t do any LBL, just read blocks, and then 2AR answers the 2NR in-depth. This is new and I won’t consider it. As a debater, I had more trouble answering the counter-interp solve + link turn + risk of external offense than the impact turn everything strategy. As a judge, I am down for either.

K v K debates often come down to the perm so winning a material DA or theoretical objection to it is a must. Don't see myself voting on no perms in a method debate if it isn't dropped, winning a K turns case claim is a better way beat the perm.

Brian Loo Sidwell

Last changed on Sat March 11, 2023 at 1:24 AM EDT

In General

Please be courteous and respectful. I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily aggressive styles of debating. You should win a debate through the strength of your arguments, not the force of your emotions.

Public Forum

This is a debate event designed for a general audience. I am judging you not only on the flow of the debate, the coherence of your arguments, and the strength of your warrants and impacts, but also on how well you speak, how convincing you are as a speaker. I prefer that debaters not spread in PF, but if you have to spread to get through your speeches, please make sure you're slowing down and being clear when making key points.

I tend to be more forgiving of dropped arguments in PF because it is a less technical debate, but you should always frontline (address your opponents' attacks on your case) even in the second constructive. If your opponents drop an argument, you need to point out they dropped the argument and explain why this is significant.

Congress

In my view, a good Congress round combines some aspects of speech events and other debate events but is also uniquely its own thing–a form of legislative debate. Top-level competitors should demonstrate that they are well-researched and well-prepared but should never simply read a pre-prepared speech. If you have a pre-prepared speech you should perform it. But the best competitors adapt themselves to the flow of the debate in their chamber, incorporating and addressing the arguments of their peers, just like any other form of debate, which requires more extemporanous speaking skills. A winning competitor in Congress is always competing for the top position even when they are not speaking: through their motions, questions, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, amendments, even the number of times your placard is raised, etc. Lastly, a truly competitive chamber requires you to find a way to stand out in a large crowd of equally excellent debaters and, just like any other speech or debate event, that means knowing what style of debate suits you best–some light humor, wit, oratorical flare, social intelligence (because, yes, a great Congress chamber is also a social body with its own particular dynamics). Whatever brings out your strengths and makes you unforgettable in a round.

Policy Debate

I'm relatively new to judging Policy, though I have judged PF and did Lincoln Douglass in high school. Please share your cards with me and your opponents at the beginning of the round and as necessary throughout the round. However, I do not tend to look closely at cards unless I am instructed to. The burden is on you as the debater to draw my attention to any weaknesses in or misreadings of your opponents' cards. I am okay with spreading in Policy but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to understand. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. If your opponents drop an argument, you have to point it out and explain why this argument is significant. You do not automatically win the debate because they dropped an argument unless you can convincingly explain why this argument wins you the debate.

In general, Policy is an event that allows debaters to get into the weeds of specific plans and policies, and I welcome this. Just be sure to clearly and consistently frame the significance of your warrants, cards, and impacts in the overall flow of the debate–how do they respond to your opponents' arguments, how does it defend your own, how does it win you the debate. I should never be left to wonder why you are making a particular argument or introducing a particular card.

Timothy Lopreiato Long Branch High School

Jake LoRocco Prospect Hill Academy Charter School

Sim Low Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Thu February 23, 2023 at 1:21 AM EDT

wear a mask in common spaces like the cafeteria and hallways. i will have extras, you can ask me for one. if you see me unmasked (i am a flawed person), please don’t be shy to tell me to mask.

if online: I don’t care if your cameras are off, go slower, and at least have verbal/chat cues to make sure everyone is ready.

general information:

my name is sim! you can just call me that, no need for “judge/ma’am/etc.” any pronouns will work, i don’t care.

i’m the head policy debate coach at georgetown day school. i’m still finishing my undergrad at johns hopkins where i’m double majoring in public health and Black studies. i’m also a researcher in asian american studies with emphases on critical pedagogy and afro-asian history. my current projects are on demographic profiles on the aapi community in baltimore, the history of asian communities in baltimore, and asian identity debate. if you’re checking to see if i won the toc or something like that, sorry to disappoint you. i debated for a tiny local program in oregon, i have never competed in a national circuit or real varsity round, and i learned debate entirely by flowing rounds on youtube. this does mean i keep a neat flow and i trust my ear, no matter how fast you’re going (given you’re clear).

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com | add me to the email chain with a subject that resembles the following subject: tournament name – round x – team 1 vs team 2

slow@gds.org | reach me here for other inquiries, but do not ask either email for email chains. if i never respond to your email please don’t take it personally, i just get busy with school and such and it probably slipped my mind. feel free to bump me. if you are a student, do not contact me on my personal social media.

general judging approach:

judging is a necessary evil, emphasis on evil. i’ll still flow rounds and put thought into my decisions though, particularly for bubble rounds and elimination rounds. i usually take ages to decide these rounds; please don’t get anxious about it, i just want to be 400% sure in my decision given the stakes. otherwise, i do think i submit a decision rather swiftly. that doesn’t mean your debate was an absolute stomp or that i didn’t think, i just track arguments actively and usually have an idea of what the win condition is and what i need in the 2ar/2nr.

i do not care what you do if you do it well. debates are wildly boring and i don’t think i have judged anything that i have not judged before. form over content and tech over truth! i think everything can be debated out. there are obviously silly arguments, but i think these should be easy to beat and if you can’t, i don’t know why you should win. an obvious caveat is arguments in the vein of “racism is good.” i’ll still vote for impact turns like dedev, death good, etc.

i am not an algorithmic judge -- i don't think this means i am not technical, but it does mean that i don't look at my flow like an equation to find the most conceded argument to vote on. conceded arguments or warrants are not inherently meaningful, they still need to be implicated and weighed. debate is a communication activity -- it is not a document compilation race. "docbotting" is a huge pet peeve of mine and i expect you to do more than stare at your laptop and read blocks out loud. you should be worldbuilding throughout your speeches and telling me why your world is a better one than your opponents. if i do not have a sensible idea of what your world looks like at the end of the round, i'm not voting for it. you can call me interventionist or a bad judge, i don't really care.

i clearly have an expectation for you to paint a big picture, but the small moving parts of the debate do matter. first things first -- extensions matter. i want an overview with proper technical extensions of all your warrants in every speech. i do not care if they drop case in the 1nc -- if there is no extension from the 2ac into the 2ar, i will rip up my case flow. i really appreciate direct clash between warrants. i feel like i'm just flowing cards and i would like to explicitly be told why i should prefer one over the other. i think that everything you say should matter and go towards that vision for my ballot -- if not, then i don't know why you are wasting your breath. in a lot of rounds, the role of the x or framework (that isn't t-usfg) becomes irrelevant because neither team uses it to frame out their opponent's arguments or weigh. i need to be given a way to evaluate competing claims besides seeing what is conceded on the flow by the end of the round. not doing so is lazy debating and will result in me being a lazy judge, so expect intervention.

obligatory disclaimer that i have the right to stop the round for any reason. i have never had to, do not make me have to. i literally never want to have to judge an ethics violation so just don’t cheat.

argument-specific thoughts:

this is short because no one cares what i say and will debate how/what they want anyway. below are important tidbits.

k aff | do your thing. i’ve judged a lot of these but i won’t fill in the blanks for you. teams seem to think that if they win their ontology thesis that they’ll auto-win my ballot. you still need to explain your thesis and implicate it; explain that ontology undergirds all arguments and then extrapolate for offense. teams have been shallow with thesis explanations lately and that isn’t going to work in front of me. no matter how much i know or read, i will adjudicate a round as if i know nothing, so the phrase “Blackness is ontological” or similar statements are not meaningful to me. i am not a fan of kicking the aff or counter-interpretation, conceding all the neg offense on framework, and then just going for disadvantages to framework – if you want to do this, you need to extend your ontology thesis extremely clearly and tell me why i can just vote on it even though it was not a testable or debatable.

policy aff | like i expect with k affs, i expect sufficient extensions and explanations, not tagline extensions. i like case turns k/da (ha, league pun) arguments.

framework | no preference for any impacts. be more specific on the standards debate and implicate their model of debate. you need to interact with their counter-interpretation. you don’t need to win a topical version of the affirmative, but if you read one, it needs to actually meet your interpretation.

kritiks | links of omission are not persuasive. links to the status quo are also not persuasive. interact with the affirmative’s specific mechanisms. you don’t need to go for the alt in the 2nr.

policy strategies | okay.

topicality/theory | i have a significant preference for debates with substance so while i wish i never had to listen to these, that is not possible. have clear connections to your interpretation and point out what was so egregious in this round. while i don’t think independent ballots change anything (i will still vote on norm-setting arguments), i evaluate these like framework and think of it was a model for how debates should operate.

lincoln douglas debate:

this format is so quirky and i don’t understand anything. debate as if you are in policy and if you disregard this, i will immediately vote for the debater i understand more because i will not go back to documents to try and teach myself your arguments. i do not know what permissibility or truth-testing is, i have never read Immanuel kant in my life, i am very clueless about ld’s little quirks and i am alright with that.

public forum:

this format needs to be abolished. if you want to read kritiks or theory or debate in a way that actually has clash and is educational, you should shift formats! i am truly sorry you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. if you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, or you do not send a speech document that contains all evidence you are about to read before your speech, i will immediately vote for your opponents and give you the lowest possible speaks. if both teams happen to be cheaters, i will pretend i am a parent judge and evaluate the round like a speech event, since none of you want to act like debaters. i am absolutely serious, none of this is a joke. this event was made for the “layperson” anyway, so none of you should take issue with me not judging it seriously or treating it like the other formats.

final thoughts:

i appreciate “thank you” speeches in elimination rounds. it is a sweet gesture and showing gratitude for your support system.

debate is too serious, banter and showing your personality in rounds are welcome. i also get tired and stressed at debate tournaments, so i will probably get up to stretch or pace outside during prep time. don’t be alarmed if i just walk out.

if you make a league of legends reference in your speech or include funny league memes in the speech docs, i will give you nothing less than a 29. unfortunately, i cannot accept boosting or skins in exchange for the ballot.

don’t pref me, i’m honestly such a bad judge. i should be a 3 at the maximum, but realistically, i’m a solid strike. you are better off with a parent judge. do not let my judging record deceive you! i also have an abysmal sit rate!

Ian Lowery Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 11:22 AM EDT

Ian Lowery (also goes by "Izzy" and/or "Bishop"),

Assistant Director of Debate at George Mason University (2022 - Present).

Former Policy Debater at George Mason University (2014 - 2018).

Former Assistant Coach for James Madison University (2020 - 2022).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top Level: I believe that my role as the judge is to absorb the information provided within the round and decide who wins based on the debater's ability to explain and defend their positions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that may make my decision easier or increase your speaker points.

I mostly ran kritical arguments during my time as a debater. In my earlier years I did traditional policy but most of my relevant experience is with the K.

Tech over Truth - I feel strange about the fact that I need to specify this but I believe in voting on the flow. I'm not the best flow, but I try. And unless I am more than 85% sure that a statement or argument is universally false, it can be debated and proven true on the flow. Beyond that, I will still try to be unbiased in my evaluation your argument, but you're rolling the dice.

- Examples of what breaks my 85% threshold: "Death Good" or Wipeout - The concept that the outcome of a debate can constitute a denial of anyone's existence or directly harm their ability to exist - Not all, but most out of round spillover claims - Reverse voting issues - Spec Arguments -

- I will evaluate arguments which suggest that I should not flow or not decide the round based on traditional policy argumentation standards - but their needs to be a clearly articulated net benefit to doing that (better pedagogy, more accessibility, etc.) - and I need to be given an alternative method of evaluating the truth-value of arguments. Otherwise, I don't see how I won't just end up voting on the flow anyway or flipping a coin to decide who wins.

Conduct - Don't be a jerk. It's alright to be aggressive, but have a point behind it. At it's core, I think debate is a game, so everyone should have fun.

Time - I don't keep track of time well in my personal life or in debates. Please don't rely on me for that. Keep track of your own and your opponent's time.

E-mail Chain - Yeah, put me on it: itlowery20@gmail.com

Specific Stuff:

Topicality - See Section 3.01 of Judd Kimball's paradigm. Please slow down on the analytics for me. I default to competing interpretations but find myself easily swayed by reasonability in some instances.

Theory - I like theory debates. It's often a viable path to victory in most debates when I'm in the back.

Counterplans - I'm fine with most CPs. Not a huge fan of process, delay, or conditional multiplank CPs. Judge kicking isn't really my thing (I will if the neg says I should and the aff doesn't respond, but don't expect me to on default).

Kritiks - I prefer alts that actually claim to do something. I don't like links of omission. Argue your position well and prove that you have an understanding of your literature base = I will probably want to vote for you.

Kritical Aff's/Framework - I am willing to vote on alternative interpretations of debate or turns to framework. I don't consider "fairness" an impact by default, but certainly can be convinced to vote for it if well impacted in the round. If the Aff doesn't have any clear bridge to the topic/resolution, I'll be more sympathetic to fairness arguments.

If you have any questions, hmu at itlowery20@gmail.com

Cesar Luevano Hire None

Emmanuel Makinde Stuyvesant High School

Last changed on Wed February 8, 2023 at 1:06 PM EDT

Emmanuel Makinde - Add me to the email chain - (emmanuelmakinde18@gmail.com)

i debate at NYU currently

update for nato security coop

tbh i cut like two or three files on this topic for a camp, but that was before the topic really got shaped in terms of the arguments that are being run now, so honestly, i don't rlly know this topic that well. i also think this topic is bad and my initial reaction to it was that it was just way too small. i hope i was wrong and I'm excited to see some of these AFFs, but w that said, i'll probs be a little more AFF leaning on T.

Top-Level

For the sake of all things good in life, cringe, and the activity of debate... call me Manny or Emmanuel, not "judge"

Phil: Debate is a space where people come to test their intellectual capacities through a discussion about the reading of the 1AC. I don’t care what your methodology is for accessing that discussion, but you should be able to defend it. I love debate and have a lot of fun, so it is more enjoyable for me to see other debaters having fun.

Bias: I can't promise to set aside my biases entirely (I try my best, but I don't think anyone can 100% do this). I do promise to evaluate debates as fairly as I can and give you the most valuable feedback. I'm always going to be open to questions at the end of debate, and don't be afraid to disagree with the RFD. I've experienced a fair share of inexperienced judges, and strive to be as far from that as possible. I default to common sense unless you tell me otherwise.

<3: The nuance between, "The plan is not topical" and "The plan is so obviously, wildly untopical" can make or break debates. Don't mistake this for ad homs, but don't forget that debate is about persuasion as much as it is about research, and argumentation—how you articulate your argument makes a difference. I'll clarify here that tech and truth aren't mutually exclusive, but judge instruction on how to evaluate a certain argument is useful. Here, I'll also insert a link to a certain segment of Juju's lecture that embodies how I feel about tech v. truth. A dropped argument is true to the extent that you explain it.

Spreading is good. Speaking slow is good. Debate ultimately relies on communication. I know how hard it might be for you to grapple with the idea of maybe not spreading incomprehensibly through tags and analytics, but it's just that simple. If I can't hear what you said, it won't get on my flow. Just be smart and self-aware about your spreading. You don't automatically get higher speaks because you spread faster.

Plans Texts

Plan texts are cool. I think a lot of policy AFFs have poor evidence and can be beaten with analytics sometimes. I generally dislike the ones that “The USFG should do the resolution in its [insert plan focus]” plan texts because they are a moving target for me. I will gladly fill in for the neg here and probably err on any theory if there isn’t much contextualization coming out the 2AC. I value the quality of evidence (because it’s really hard to find), but I won’t look at you sideways if your warrants are SLIGHTLY inconsistent with your tag unless the opposing team points it out.

2ACs should integrate extensions on the line by line. 2AC overviews are fine, but I won't flow them as a response to any case arg made by the 1NC. Long 2AC overviews are boring.

Case debates are so underrated. Please do it more

CPs

I love weird, specific, techy CPs. Advantage CPs and PIKs are my favorite. A lot of teams are usually bad at explaining why the perm doesn’t solve beyond a random card in the block or saying “Perm links to NB”. Good analysis is rewarded on the perm debate. Case solvency usually needs more time spent as well.

I don't believe in judge kick lmao sry

DAs

Similar to 1AC's, I think a lot of DA's have terrible link ev. I don't think it's the fault of the card cutters, but rather the topic committee for picking topics with terrible neg ground. I also think generics are generics for a reason - you can win on them if you debate them well. I'm willing to vote aff on any part of the DA that neg loses (i.e. if there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w)

I read afropess my senior year (alongside ecofem, A. Mollow, and governmentality at a point). That is the only lit base I have a comparatively solid understanding of. Other than that, I understand the general thesis of DnG, dark Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, and some other pomo Ks, but do not expect me to fill in the lines. In those debates, I will flow cross and value/reward digestible explanations on the line by line.

I'm more attracted to small alternatives/advocacies than big ones. The former is more like "Discourse within this round is good" while the latter is like, "We organize an international communist revolution". I think the bigger ones lose more often to the args that are foundational on the "How do we get there?" questions. With that said, presumption becomes more convincing on the big advocacies than the smaller ones.

Be clear whether or not you're kicking the alt in the 2NR.

I’m not the judge for you if you are not black (especially white) and you want to read anti-blackness. Same thing w two dudes reading fem. So on so forth. autoloss 0 speaks. Content > Strategy. It’s the same thing if you read bizcon and cap in the same 1NC. Do not embody perf cons.

K/Performance Affs
I've read several K AFFs the majority of my senior year (and still do in college). Even though I love the K so much, remember that I still value the clash and technical component of debating, so don't just read a 2.5 hr overview and then say "that was the work i did in the overview" in response to line by line. That is not debating. Also, do not come into the debate with the idea that your K just sort of subsumes every conceivable notion of human thought that doesn't directly engage with the body of literature you introduce. There isn't any theory of power that can intricately explain every single other theory of power.

With that said, KvK debates are fun but easily get muddy. Fortunately, there are easy ways for you to get out of the muddiness (specific link contextualization, using the grammars of your opponents, specific quotes, etc.).

I do not appreciate you reading a K Aff as a justification for being rude and disrespectful. A lot of K debaters in general have felt the need to assume this perceived role of K debaters (especially identity K debaters) as just rude and like all French revolution "F the state and F you". No. Your K authors aren't saying to be rude to people, so don't do it. Don't confuse that with being assertive which is excellent.

It should be related to the topic. You cannot just read a K AFF that has nothing to do with the resolution---you will definitely lose on T. I know how tempting it might be given the low prep burden, but even one card or two cards that establish a relationship to the resolution is enough.

I love performance AFFs and respect the debaters who have the courage to do it and make it look so easy. I also don't care if you choose not to read cards; just make it something flowable.

Prefs

On a scale of 1-10, how confident am I to render a ballot on certain debates?

Policy vs. Policy: 8.2

Policy vs. T: 6.3

Policy vs. K: 8

K vs. FW: 7.9

K vs. K: 8.1

K vs. Cap K: 9

K vs. Antiblackness Ks: 9.3

K vs. Pomo Ks: 7.2

Theory

If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it (i.e., procedural, reason to reject the team, PIK solves case *these are not mutually exclusive, but it helps in terms of impact framing*)

Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.

If you feel like there is an ethics violation, I'd rather you make it as an argument than stop the debate unless you feel the ethics violation is making you seriously uncomfortable or unable to continue the debate. Here, I'll insert that homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, sexism, and any other "ism" that expresses deep prejudice towards any specific group warrants 0 speaks and an auto loss. Ad homs are also weird.

More than 3 condo probably isn't good against common AFFs that were alr on the wiki. Disclosure is good.

T/FW

Fairness is an impact if it's an intrinsic good. Otherwise, it's an internal link to education and clash. Predictability controls everything.

v. K Aff: If the 2NR doesn't have a way to prove why you can access the critical lit/discourse of the 1AC (i.e. TVA, SSD) then aff offense on your model becomes so attractive. PIKS, counter-advocacies, and your regular CP + disad debates are smart if deployed correctly.

v. Policy Aff: If you think I'm slightly on edge about whether or not the plan text is topical, good impact debating should mitigate that. If the plan is "obviously" not topical, then that should be clear to me from the 1NC. A single line as to why I should prefer the interp or C/I is necessary.

I believe non-traditional AFFs can be topical because "affirming" the resolution is entirely up to the terms the debaters set on. That means I have a high bar for voting on T against non-trad AFFs (especially ones that don't impact turn the resolution). That doesn't mean if you read non-trad you shouldn't work hard to win your model of debate, but I will not just sort of default to normative ways of affirming the resolution.

Cross

Cross ex is the most interesting time of the debate. It is where debaters actively interact with each other. I don't flow cross, but I pay close attention to and will write down arguments that are made. I've seen entire K links from cross make it into the 2NR.

If you run high theory and can't answer questions about your thesis sufficiently, you will likely lose.

The nuance between assertive and rude are apparent and you lose speaks for the latter.

Misc

Tech -----x--------------- Truth

K ----------x---------- Policy

AT x-------------------- A2

Turns case x-------------------- O/W

Saitama -x----------------------- Goku

Ins and outs are fine.

Some of my favorite current/past debaters & coaches atm: *subject to change* Will Baker, Darrian Carroll, DB, Eu, Tyler Vergho, Raam Tambe, Azja Butler, Nae Edwards, Greg Zoda, Joe Leeson-Schatz, Aden Barton, Gabriel Chang-Deutsch, Julian Kuffour, Abhis Sedhai, John Sharp

+0.3 speaks if you reference any of the following:

Adventure Time

Steven Universe

Vikram Saigal

Maximillian Layden

kate Marin Hire

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 1:43 PM EDT

The briefest background info ever:

2A at Binghamton - I did a lot of K debate in high school - I do a lot of K debate now.

1- K, phil

2- policy/LARP

3/strike- theory/tricks

Put me on the email chain

cmarin1@binghamton.edu

Do whatever you want* just tell me how to vote, what to vote on, and why I should vote on it

* Misc things that are not up for debate

- problematic behavior/rhetoric/language/vibes means your speaks= the number of hours of sleep I got last night (I promise it's less than 10)

- If you give me a ROB but not a metric of evaluation you might as well have not read the arg, don't waste your time. The reverse is also true (looking at you trad LD)- if you give me an amazing framework/rob/metric of evaluation but don't win any impacts under it, you still lose and you did a lot of extra work for no reason

- presumption flips neg until a CP, alt, or FW is read

- If you're reading Schmitt or Heidegger your speaks are capped at 26 regardless of whether or not you win- we don't tolerate Nazis in this house

- Freud(+zizek+lacan) was a bad enough person for me to dislike psychoanalysis but not for me to not vote for it on face (if you impact your author indicts in terms of how they overdetermine the theory I will BLESS your speaks)

I do care about the theory your/your opponent's theory is citing, and will eval args predicated on that if you can explain why it matters

My default procedure for evaluating a debate -

*I believe very strongly that the three points under this heading are up for debate - these are just defaults*

1. Who am I, what is the round, what is the ballot and what can it do? Absent arguments that tell me otherwise:

- I am a college debater majoring in linguistics and psychology, I care a lot more about the activity than policymaking

- The round is a competition predicated on your ability to persuade me to vote for you - but this is inseparable from the educational content of the round - I have yet to see a persuasive argument that debate does not ! subject formation, which at least spills over to the debaters in the room

- The ballot cannot do anything but indicate my persuasion

2. What are the roles/burdens of the aff and the neg

- I don't care if the aff reads a plan, defends a change from the status quo, makes no arguments at all, you just have to explain why it means I should vote aff

- the negs job is to convince me to vote neg

- fiat is reciprocal but unconditional - ie. if the aff gets it so does the neg

3. Who solves what impacts and how do I evaluate/compare them?

- what solvency means is largely dependent on points one and two but generally: a proposed action can resolve a material (in/out of round) or immaterial (fiat/hypothetical k advocacy) impact in the imaginary of the round, via the ballot, or by spilling over - pretty much any combo of these things is fine

Default impact strength comparison type vibes -

- material>fiat

- in round>spills up

- policy ~ k

- soft left>e!

- Util=/=preventing extinction

(my % certainty that the ! is solved)*(scope(probability*magnitude))=strength of !

Then I'm going to put those in order according to a linear timeframe

more detailed takes for people who want them:

K's:

I have probably read your pomo nonsense, if I haven't I'm equally excited to hear it

Do something fun and exciting, do something we've all seen before, just do it well and enjoy doing it

It's your round, I'm just living in it

Phil/framing:

Go for ontology, epistemology, skep, etc. Explain it well, make sure it's at least kind of grounded in the literature base. Just saying the words "ontology is a prereq" will get you in trouble if you can't explain it.

Feel free to go for Util, I've read Bostrom, Mill, Bentham, and probably whatever generic card you're using this season. Just justify it, explain it, and be ready to defend it. Tossing in util cards you don't use, didn't cut, and didn't read before the round is a pet peeve and will hurt your speaks.

My time on the local circuit means I'm familiar with Locke/Hobbes/Rousseau, all the various versions of Util and consequentialism, Maslow, rule of law, governmental legitimacy, distributive justice/veil of ignorance/Rawles, kant, etc. If you're going to run it, do it well. Explain why it's a better weighing metric, don't just call it a prereq and move on. You will make me sad. On the other hand, if you can justify it, go ahead and frame out your opponent's offense.

Brownie points in the form of speaks for a well-executed phil strat in any event (that includes util if you do it right).

DAs:

Love them (and never get to judge them lmao)

DA and case can make for a super convincing 2NR- hella speaks if you pull this off

CPs:

Solvency advocate theory is a pretty easy win in front of me- as in you need a solvency advocate for all thirteen planks of your counterplan

Topical counterplans are probably abusive, but the aff has the burden of proving that

Theory/T:

Not a fan, but if you desperately want to please make sure the full shell is in the speech doc.

Disclosure theory means I need screenshots with a timestamp- but if you're a circuit debater and your opponent has no idea what's going on I will deck your speaks

If there's clipping, misrepresentation of evidence, falsification of evidence, the round ends as soon as the accusation is made- so I hope you can prove it

affs

I'm a 2a, I've read all kinds of affs.

K aff's- literally do whatever you want. I don't care if you mention the topic. I don't care if you have a c/i on fw.

I will vote for soft left affs, and honestly I miss them, probability>magnitude is very winnable in front of me.

Policy affs- please keep your internal link chains alive ???? Lazy debating (ie. a 2ar that could be about any extinction scenario on any policy aff) might win you the round but you won't like your speaks

Joshua Martin Sonoma Academy

Last changed on Tue February 14, 2023 at 7:49 AM EDT

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans. That doesn't mean I always vote negative in those debates, I'm not sure what my actual record is, but it's probably like 60-40 neg or something. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

Gerardo Martinez-Hernandez Hire None

Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco Success Academy HS - Liberal Arts

Last changed on Fri March 24, 2023 at 4:23 PM EDT

Email: cydmarie.minierciriaco@saschools.org

Coaching Experience:

Policy + PF Debate @ Success Academy (September 2022-Present)

Parliamentary Debate @ Inwood Academy for Leadership (2017-2021)

Hi everyone! I am very excited about coaching and judging policy debate this year! Although this is my first year coaching policy debate, it is certainly not my first time coaching or judging competitive debates. Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

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

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

3. I pay close attention to the rebuttal speeches. Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win. I

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

5. I find K-AFFs and Kritiks to be very unique and interesting. I enjoy them if presented well enough for me to understand. Do your very best to explain the complex rhetoric you're stating in the round. Regarding critical affirmatives, the expectation is that your plan is still topical and related to the resolution. Regarding Kritiks on the Neg, please make sure you present a decent link story to the AFF and that you prove that your alternative is better than the AFF's plan.

6. I enjoy cross-examination periods. Take advantage of your cross-examination periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions. Try not to waste your C/X time asking clarifying questions.

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

8. Run anything on the NEG, no preference.

9. I typically find myself voting on 3 things in a debate: solvency, impact calc, and framework.

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

11. Regarding speed, I'm totally fine with spreading. Just please project your voice, roadmap, and please make sure you're clear. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

Brendon Morris Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat January 7, 2023 at 2:59 AM EDT

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

What gets you good speaks:
- Making it easier for me to flow
- Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
- Making things interesting
- Clear spreading
- Productive CX

What hurts your speaks:
- Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
- Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
- Being really boring
- Being rude

PF Specific

I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Rishi Mukherjee Hire

Last changed on Wed March 1, 2023 at 9:00 PM EDT

Rishi Mukherjee (he/him)

Lexington High School 20

UMass Amherst 24

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com put me on the chain

Emory Update

- i noticed i am regressing speakswise because im not impressed recently

- i know the NATO topic pretty well - i debated a NATO aff for all of alliances and have done some prep on this topic plus i occasionally read the news abt Russia - and im disenchanted with the love of recent ev as a substitute for coherent warrants

- talking to shree a lot has made me care more about a) cards in K debates & b) near-excessive contextualization to the other team in FW v Kaff debates by both the aff and neg

- whimsically down for a condo debate that starts early in the 2ac

LD Paradigm(Updated for Blue Key RR)

If I were preffing myself: 1 for LARP, Ks, Tricks, & T/Theory and 2/3 for Phil

I do CX, but I've done and judged a fair bit of LD. Everything from my policy paradigm applies. Defaults and Bias are my position without explicit argumentation. Defaults: I default to T as a higher layer than the K . I default permissibility and presumption negates. I default dtd on T/Theory.
Ks/Kaffs/T-FW all fine - I've debated on both sides. Far higher tolerance than most for "frivolous" theory, tricks, a priori's. Harder sell but ok for T-Nebel and RVI's but that's because I think plans are good and people are mid at 1ARs - if you win technically you're fine.

Memes aren't an autowin despite what you might hear about me. They still need to be fleshed out arguments. But I will be pleased if you send it and go for memes!

Policy Paradigm (Updated for Emory)

Top Level:

- I believe debate is best when the judge does not favor adjudicating the round based on personal preconceived notions such as "rep" or "truth" among others. I strive to uphold this ideal and evaluate the debate in a technical manner. "If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates; explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments & competing claims as well as why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I will make my own judgements on how to evaluate competing arguments. Many "JF's" occur because judges put the puzzle pieces together differently in their own head. Tbh this is more important than "opinions" on arguments. Tell me how to think and why!

Online Debate

- Don't start a speech without me.

- I usually won't say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. It is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming args until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully.

- Record your speeches; people inevitably disconnect in the middle of a speech and recording prevents issues that arise from this. My computer caught on fire one time lol anything can happen.

K v Policy

Kaffs/Framework

- TLDR: I'm very middling. I would pref myself above most clash judges but below judges who lean for you because I'm good for policy-policy and K v K.

- I don't care about what the aff does unless the neg makes it an issue. I read both affs with a plan and planless affs in high-school and continue to read both on the aff in college and I also often read FW on the neg.

- I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg i.e. people who say fairness is always better than clash etc. I think that categorizing certain impacts as always strategic or unviable is an L take. Go for whatever option you are most comfortable with/you think is most strategic.

Ks on the neg v Policy Affs

- I'm persuaded by the idea that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.

- I find it simpler to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.

K v K

- Framing and judge instruction should be very explicit and debated out.

- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds; buzzwords lose rounds.

Policy Stuff

- I like the full package: I want a predictable model of debate that also produces good debates. I find it difficult to intrinsically care more about one of these components than the other.

- Reasonability is more persuasive to me when articulated with specific arguments with impacts like substance crowd-out rather than vague pleading that I should believe the affirmative.

DAs

- Comparison of any form including turns case or impact calc wins debates.

- A central question I usually have is evaluating and comparing risk. I find "zero-risk" impossible but often negligible risk is functionally the same. For example I consider the risk of randomly getting struck by lightning negligible so I wouldn't decide against going outside just because the magnitude of taking a walk is outweighed by death by lightning zap.

CPs

- I don't judge kick unless instructed to do so.

- Fine for hella condo, but I always will take condo seriously if properly extended. I also personally care much less abt perf con than most. I've recently been persuaded that topic bias is of utmost importance.

- I have no problem with process CPs that compete off of "arbitrary things" like certainty/immediacy as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other abusive CPs. However, most good aff teams will handily defeat these positions with proper theory and competition debate.

- I think definitions are given too much importance in competition debates, for me it usually comes down to not who reads the best definitions but the offense/defense about which interp is better. I think both sides are best served when they treat competition debates like a T-Subs debate where the interp ev is trash on both sides and teams are just trying to access the best model of debate.

- I'm not as enchanted with tricky perms as most - fine but often not as strategic as a well crafted theory interp imo.

Misc

- Don't make debate unsafe. Self harm/"ism's" etc. are a no-no. I don't have a problem with stuff like the Death K, Spark, Wipeout etc. but use your best judgement.

- Clipping or other ev ethics violations are a loss and 0 speaks, accusations need a recording/proof and will stop the round.

- I give "modern" speaks and modulate based on the tournament "difficulty".

- I often flow CX.

- Meme arguments are an art form - passion and skill are critical!

- While I might not think too highly of debate in the abstract, I definitively respect the passion and effort people put into the activity. Therefore I approach judging and feedback seriously in accordance. The investment is what makes it all worth it.

Luca Musk The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 4:16 PM EDT

Update for Harvard:

I've been out of the circuit for a while but am excited to be back! I think my paradigm still represents my disposition accurately, especially regarding critikal theory familiarity (I'm a philosophy major and specifically focus on critical theory). This topic is also one I love, and have a similar background to since I was still a plan debater on the arms sales topic, a similar topic regarding technology and international agreements. Excited to see y'all, and feel free to email me at luca@lucamusk.com if you have any questions while filling out your judge preferences. I should respond within a couple of hours.

TLDR:

K v K - 9/10

K v. Policy - 10/10

K-affs - 9/10

DA/CP - 8/10

T - 8/10

FW - 9/10

Other Theory - 7/10

The actual paradigm:

I'm a second-year out who originally competed at the Bronx Science. I'm not doing policy in college if that matters to you. In my career, I've predominantly read kritiks though flex and policy debate have always been something I respect. In short, read whatever you want in front of me as long as it's not racist/sexist/anti-queer/ableist. Do it well, and if you are creative I will definitely enjoy the round (especially if you are creative with more traditional policy arguments like impact turns and CPs, I super admire that skill #goforwipeout).

Ks:

I love Ks. I'm comfortable with anything, especially arguments which draw on Marxism, post-structuralism, and Heidegger. In my senior year, I primarily went for Agamben/Heidegger, though in my career I've read basically everything that falls under the mantel of "high theory." With identity based arguments, I have a lot of experience going for settler colonialism and though I've never read afro-pessimism in round, I've read writings by Wilderson, Warren, and Moten and feel pretty comfortable judging it, especially if you emphasize the Heideggerian articulation Warren typically uses.

K v. Policy rounds are probably my favorite to judge. Line by line is super important for me. Long overviews and cloud clash are really not my thing in these types of debates, so please actually engage with the other team. Framework is basically a make or break in these types of debates unless you go for a link as a case turn or linear DA. Aff teams, win framework, target the alternative, and go for clever link and impact turns if you can. If the aff wins framework, extinction first is pretty easy for me to buy. For both teams, evidence quality is super important. Specific evidence from the neg is especially a gamechanger for me.

K v. K rounds are also super fun, though they tend to get a little out of hand. Overviews in these types of rounds are okay, and at times encouraged since you really need to focus on building a distinction between the K and the aff. Impact calculus is especially important in these types of rounds and typically gets lost. Extinction is still a thing that matters (unless argued otherwise), even in k v. k debates lol.

DAs:

Pretty simple, I love a good, technical politics round. The main concern for you should be my lack of experience judging very high level rounds like this (though I was a very technical K debater). Evidence quality is super important for me, especially regarding recency and author qualifications.

CPs:

Favorite types of CPs are advantage CPs and very, very crazy CPs (if you have the space elevator CP backfile, I'm a judge who would love to see you read it). I don't really think a CP needs a solvency advocate, and I really love creative CPs crafted in response to the aff (if you can include evidence quotes from the 1ac, that's even better). Agent CPs are fine, though I do think there's room for a theory debate if they are particularly abusive. The same applies to process CPs and multi-actor fiat.

Standards debate is really where it's at for me. Evidence quality is important only if you say it is with a standard like legal precision or predictability. I think reasonability is under-utilized, but you do have to articulate it as aff predictability or otherwise it's kinda a wash.

K-affs and FW:

Framework, to me at least, is directionally true on the impacts but really bad on solvency. To me, framework is typically not just a model v. model debate. The model is just an impact that you need to at least progressively solve for. What this means is that I'm a lot more willing to buy arguments that voting negative on FW doesn't solve for the negs impacts so I can presume aff (as I would with a counter-plan). If you are negative, this means two things. First, I think fairness is probably the best impact, since my ballot does actively resolve in round unfairness. Second, you should think through what it means for a judge to repeatedly vote negative against K-affs, and articulate that if the affirmative presses you on solving for FW's impacts.

Affs, y'all need to be very good at top-level framing questions in framework or be incredibly good at the 1AR. The 1AR makes or breaks FW rounds for me most of the time, so efficiency is key. Role of the Ballots are especially helpful to me since I often find myself uncertain what my ballot even means or if it means anything in these types of debates. Absent any meaning to my ballot, it's a lot easier to presume negative which y'all obviously don't want.

Presumption:

This is my only other thing that's worth mentioning, but I find presumption versus any argument pretty hard to buy. Unless you win literally 0 risk, it's hard to just default to the status quo absent any legitimate offense.

Julio Nivar Hire

Chris O'Brien Lake Travis High School

Last changed on Wed February 16, 2022 at 10:05 AM EDT

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

Oge Ogbogu Hire

Last changed on Sat January 30, 2021 at 1:58 AM PDT

Polytechnic '20

Harvard '24

Add me to the email chain: oogbogu@college.harvard.edu

Competed in policy debate throughout high school and currently competing in college. I have competed in PF and parli as well, though.

I generally am more familiar with the K; however, please continue to run whichever argument you want. Everyone should have that fair opportunity.

Pref me lower for a policy vs. policy round, but policy vs.K or FW vs. K or K VS. K I'm better suited for.

Framework: I do love framework when it is utilized and argued properly by both sides, and I find that especially for Kritikal teams, I love to see teams leverage their K's impacts against the impacts of the framework arg. Clash is key when discussing FW; the team who can better articulate the setup of debate and their impacts will have a better chance of winning FW and further args.

Please use framing and judge instruction. It truly will bolster your arguments and when done right. Streamline the debate very well.

CPs: Pretty neutral on these as I haven't really hit them in a while. Your CP has to be competitive to the purpose/solvency of the AFF. Please perm, perms allow you to test this competition.

Das: Again, pretty neutral, but your link must be articulated well, and your impact must be carried through. Affs should evidence and link chains thoroughly and weigh their impacts against the DA.

K: I read the K most of my high school career and still reading it in college. I am most familiar with critical Race Theory, antiblackness, Black Feminity literature, and args in generally all capacities. That being said, I follow identity args and literature much better than high theory, so for high theory Ks like Baudrillard, please be clear with your argument throughout the round. Jargain is not debate or clash. I am sympathetic to some explanations of the K, but I am in a firm belief that the K must be grounded in the aff, especially links. I love performative links, and I think extrapolating those performances to textual links makes the strong K args. Contextualize your alternative. I need to know what the alt is and what it does, and how it solves. It must be coherent, and I say this outside of clear, but the alt must make sense by the end of the round and prove competitive. Affs should always perm to test both competitions on solvency and link. Outside of that, I love hearing all new sorts of Ks and args, and it would be appreciated on both sides if there is a K vs. Policy/FW debate that both sides create clash so an in depth debate can take place.

K affs: I personally ran k affs as well throughout high school and college, and I think they offer a lot of creativity and perspective to various topics I think are needed. That being said, my only ask is that you explain and extend. If you aff is a counter-model to debate, I need an explanation of how and why it is needed. If you do not have a counter interp, I need an explanation as to why it is not needed. If your aff is somewhat grounded in the resolution, I need an explanation of the relationship between the aff and the resolution and why you chose your stance. If you choose not to be with the resolution, I need a clear reason why that is a necessary choice. Be consistent with your args, have proper solvency, and do a lot of clash and weighing of the aff and its impacts. Please extend your arguments. It will only make the aff stronger but don't lose the aff in the debate, that will be harmful.

CX: I am fine with tag team cross. If. I feel that someone is rude that will mark down speakers. That being said, I like seeing a respectful cross and an understanding that some of the args that people read are more personal than others. Therefore, understanding CX should be the point in debate where we go back to being normal people who understand this. I believe CX does garner args from the flow. I will write down these arguments, but it is a team's responsibility to extend them to be proper arguments. Extra speaks for good CX starts and questions. I appreciate humor, but I also appreciate seriousness, so however you enter the CX, enter it the way most authentic to yourself.

Overall, you do you, and I will flow. I start all my evaluations from the level of framing, so please have a lot of judge instruction and ROB and ROJ. Clash, weighing and impacts key, and run whatever makes you happy. It goes without saying I don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything of the sort, and teams, especially those running these arguments within reasonability, should feel comfortable pointing this out in round and determining if they are voters or not. Simultaneously it is also important to understand we are all learning and growing and notice that weaponizing growing moments against people may not actually educate anyone or solve the situation, so prioritize education and growth over debate.

Thanks, Maddox, for helping me with this, lol.

Magi Ortiz Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Fri January 13, 2023 at 11:46 AM EDT

mx.ortiz.m@gmail.com

Assistant Coach @ Mamaroneck, 2020-2021

Assistant Coach @ Lexington, 2019-20

Debated @ Northside College Prep, 2015-19

TL;DR

The sections below this are a set of my opinions on debate, not a stringent set of guidelines that I always adhere to when making decisions. I encourage you to go for the arguments that you enjoy instead of overcorrecting to my paradigm. I tend to like most arguments - my only distinction between good and bad debates is whether or not your argumentation is strategic and nuanced.

I think CX is heavily underutilized by most debaters. Organized debates make my job easier and are more enjoyable.

Non-negotiables:

I won’t vote on things that have happened outside of the round.

There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude in CX - please be aware of it.

Don’t threaten others or make harmful comments about someone or a group of people - you will lose the round and I will talk with your coaches.

Non-Traditional Affs/Clash Debates

It’s hard for me to be convinced that policy debate actively creates bad people OR perfect policymakers; I think there’s value in challenging our understanding of the resolution and debate itself, but I also don’t think T is inherently violent.

In clash debates, I tend to vote negative when the affirmative fails to parse out the unique benefits of their model of debate, and tend to vote affirmative when the negative fails to grapple with the applicable offense of case. Organization often falls by the wayside in these debates, so I would encourage you to identify the nexus questions of the debate early and compartmentalize them to one area of the flow.

Fairness can be an impact, but it is not one by default - that requires explanation. I’ll vote for any impact on FW if effectively argued, but I personally like strategies centered around truth-testing/dogmatism. I think skepticism is healthy and that breaking out of our preferred ideological bubbles results in more ethical and pragmatic decision-making over time, but I can also be persuaded that the method the aff defends can also be consistently ethical/beneficial.

Aff teams are overly reliant on exclusion/policing arguments but almost never actually impact out the tangible consequences of the negative model as a result, or provide a reason why the ballot would resolve this. If arguments like these are what you like going for, I suggest you codify them within a reasonability paradigm that criticizes the usefulness of the competing interpretations model when it comes to K Affs.

I will say that I am quite partial to teams that go for the K against non-traditional affs (I judge FW debates frequently, and they get repetitive). Most K affs nowadays are specifically tailored to beat FW and generally rely on generic permutations to beat back K’s. I can be easily convinced that permutations exist to compare the opportunity cost of combining specific policies, and that in debates of competing methodologies the evaluating point of the debate should be reliant on who had broader explanatory power and a more effective orientation. How I decide that is up to what parameters you establish within the debate.

Kritiks

I’m not opposed to any of them. However, I do prefer techy K debaters - overviews should be short and the substantive parts of the debate should be done on the respective parts of the line by line.

Specificity goes beyond good links - nuanced impact and turns case explanations make it easier to vote on something tangible as opposed to nebulous platitudes. It’s easy to tell when you have a generic link wall with fill-in-the-blanks like “insert aff impact” “aff mechanism” etc.

For both teams - know the broader theories that your arguments function within (i.e. understanding what theory of IR your authors defend, or actually knowing a decent amount about the author your K is named after). Understanding these concepts outside of the context of debate will give you the tools to be more specific in round, and will often give you additional ways to leverage offense.

Aff teams with extinction impacts - stop overcorrecting to the negative team's strategy. Extinction is extinction, which is easily defensible as bad - if you're not link turning the K/going for the perm, I find it strange when the 1AR/2AR try to subsume the K's impacts/offense by describing how the inroads to extinction would be bad for X group the K is worried about ("nUcLeAr StRiKeS tArGeT uRbAn CeNtErS") ... because extinction, in the end, kills everyone. Also, K teams often capitalize on this arbitrary framing and make it a new link. Don't waste your time - win that you get to weigh your impacts and then win that your impacts outweigh.

CP’s

The more specific, the better.

Yes judge kick. “Status quo is always an option,” once said, is sufficient enough for me to be willing to kick the CP unless the aff explicitly challenges it in both aff rebuttals.

Condo is good. If the 2AR is condo, it's either been dropped or you think it is your only road to victory.

I lean neg on most theory issues, but can be convinced that process CPs and 50 state/NGA fiat are bad for debate.

Invest time and organization into the competition debate - meta definitions matter just as much as word definitions in these debates because they are about competing models.

Severance perms are probably always bad, but intrinsic perms can be very useful if you know how to defend them well.

DA’s/Case turns

Love them, even the crappy ones - there's nothing more fun than watching someone very effectively debate in favor of something everyone in the round knows is ridiculously unlikely.

Winning framing does not mean you win terminal defense to the DA. Winning that a DA is low risk comes from substantive arguments, and then how the framing debate is resolved dictates whether or not risk probability matters. Seriously. Nebulous arguments about the conjunctive fallacy or the general low risk of existential impacts mean nothing if the 2NR can just get up and point to a unique internal link chain on their DA that has not been contested.

Impact turn debates are some of my favorite rounds to judge, but unfortunately I am often left to resolve stalemates within a debate by reading a bulk of the cards in the round and then determining on my own which ones are better, which I think functions as a disservice to everyone in the round. I don’t think that having less/worse ev necessarily means you’ll lose the debate, but you must have constant and effective comparison in-round.

Topicality+

Evidence comparison matters. Terminal impacts are important - so many 2NRs don't do this work (why, I don't know). Not enough teams are going for T against the egregious number of bad affs on this topic.

I don't like arguments like Embody PTX because I don't think there is a way to enforce them as a model and thus lend themselves to problematic enforcement, and it frustrates me when affirmative teams don't make the obvious case for this being true.

Aff teams should be going for reasonability more often against nitpicky T violations - not as a vague appeal, but as a better heuristic than competing interps.

Kwudjwa Osei Hire

Last changed on Wed September 7, 2022 at 6:38 PM EDT

Email: ema3osei@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/Them

4 years at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School, 3 years at University of Pittsburgh, NDT Semi-Finalist among other things

Be persuasive, do what you do well, but remember you're more than a debate round.

I think the goal of debate is to invoke strategies that compel judges to articulate a nuanced analysis as to why the ballot they chose was preferable to the alternative. The most transformative educational moments come out of this dynamic and nearly everything else is subsidiary. Any style of debate that you choose revolves around this outcome, even if it is a meta-theoretical question about ethics or the function of debate. I believe most 'hot takes' about debate miss the point of the activity and negatively impact debaters' perceptions about work, community, and the outside world.

Defend what you're doing in a debate if it's questioned. Be ready to explain why your position is desirable, especially if it is nontraditional. Always keep in mind that just because you're right doesn't change that you're still a debater doing debate. Explain what parts of the cards you think justify your argument and which cards to look at if needed.

Do not read arguments in front of me just because you think it will appeal to me. My specific thoughts on topicality, kritiks, and other 'important' positions do not and should not guide how you approach those topics on a substance or strategic level since every debater approaches debate according to their strengths. I prefer to vote for a good debater over an argument that is good in theory.

Please think about what will encourage the strongest analysis by the end of the debate over arguments that waste time, are unfamiliar to you, or otherwise have no strategic value.

Speaker points are awarded based on how persuasive and engaging you are. That sounds nebulous because speaker points are subjective. I believe I'm generous with them.

I prefer debates with fewer sheets. I don't like to keep up with incredibly fast debates but I will . Essentially, don't spread faster than is comprehensible without following along your own blocks.

Just make it make sense.

A dropped argument is not a true argument, though it may be persuasive.

Micro-aggressions exist. Be cognizant. Sass is always welcome though. As with all else, just do it well or don't do it at all.

Have fun!

Jackson Owen Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 9:17 AM EDT

please put me on email chain

jaxrowen@gmail.com

former 2A/1N for Mamaroneck BO (2018-2022); freshman at UPenn

General Stuff

Not very familiar with this year's NATO topic discourse, but I have a developed understanding of IR and the alliance in general.

I have a policy slant and am definitely tech>truth (TO AN EXTENT)

Don't change your strat because I am judging, I will vote on anything reasonable

dropped arguments aren't true if they are ridiculous and/or illogical

tell me the implications of arguments, I get mad when judges over reward teams for vagueness because of past experience

I am good with speed but please say "And" or "Next" so I can flow without following the card doc

Clarity on analytics will earn higher speaks and probably allow you to win the round

Please don't be racist, homophobic, offensive in round

K affs

Explain your Theory of Power in some way in the 2ar if you want my ballot

I probably lean neg on t-usfg, but creative debating by aff will compensate

procedural fairness is an impact.

Case

The offense-defense paradigm will apply unless I'm given a reason to reject it

durable fiat solves circumvention unless fiat as a concept is argued against

impact turns are dope, but no racism good

love a good heg good/bad debate, impact level debates in general are enjoyable to me

T/Theory

If your A-strat is going for T or theory violations I am probably not your judge; I will do my best to evaluate the debate fairly but tech-y T debates are not my specialty

should be 3-5 cards at most, or else aff conjunctive fallacy arguments become persuasive

conjunctive fallacy is not enough to answer a disad, not very strategic

I love a creative disad, but make sure it makes sense

Dispositionality means you can kick it if they read perms

PICs are great if they're creative. Depending on the aff, case probably o/ws word PICs

Judgekick=ok

x counterplans bad need specific reasons to reject the team not the argument, or I will probably err neg if they kick the counterplan

Please explain and impact out theory arguments on counterplans

I find Ks very interesting but I will probably lean aff on framework - tell me not to weigh the aff and I will consider not weighing it

Perfcon allows the aff to sever out of reps links, convince me otherwise if you want to go for reps links after reading other worlds in the 1nc

overviews shouldn't take up most of your speeches. Just explain your Theory of Power, the parts of the K and get on your merry way

Unique Palmer Baltimore City College

Sooho Park Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Mon January 30, 2023 at 6:15 AM EDT

Email:simonpark101@gmail.com
Centennial (MD) Class of 2016
Conflicts: Centennial, McDonogh, Atholton, River Hill, Reservoir, Capitol Debate, Georgetown Day

Updated 2022/2023

For all rounds I have judged so far, I decided within 5 minutes after the final speech. The biggest factors are the lack of embedded clash and extensions of arguments without an articulation of the warrant. Take that however you may.
The final 2 rebuttal speeches, ESPECIALLY, need to be able to write the ballot for me.
PLEASE make paperless/electronic/online debate run SMOOTHLY. This is on the debaters in the room. Prep time ends when you SEND the speech doc. Unless prep time is being used, both sides should be ready for CX as soon as the constructive speech ends etc.
Communication between partners outside of the speeches, CX, and prep is PROHIBITED because it is considered stealing prep. I WILL dock speaker points and call you out.
Please remember to be competitive, and more importantly, have fun!

Qualifications
- Debated all 4 years of high school. Few of my accomplishments were: 2015 TOC Semi-Finalist, 2015 Harvard Invitational Champion, 2015 Harvard RR Finalist, 2014 Greenhill RR Champion

Top-Level
- I never loved judges that had paradigms that said anything along the lines of "if you read <<>> I won't vote for you/like it." Judge adaptation is important, but it should never be to the degree where you take a whole 180 degree turn. Do what you're good at and comfortable with.
- Don’t clip/cross-read/cheat in any way
- Everything I say below can be persuaded the other way
- Tech > Truth
- Presumption goes towards less change
- Debate is a communication activity. If you aren't communicating with me in your speeches, you're not doing your job. In other words, be clear and confident. Gabe Koo said it best "...If I hear you muttering how awful your 2AR is right as it ends, why do you think I would want to vote for you? If you don't think you won, why should I convince myself you won?" Even if your argument is a flat out lie, if you sound badass/persuasive/intelligent in your speeches/CX going for those arguments, it makes me want to give you good speaks at the very least.
- You don't need impact defense to beat a disad/advantage if you explain how the internal link(s) = illogical (but who actually does this more often that not anyways?)
- Framing is important – the line by line is obviously important too but I like it even more when there’s a meta level framing argument that changes the way I should view the arguments in the line by line
- Been both a 2A and 2N so no huge bias on each other side

Framework
My view of Framework could not be summed up better than what Gabe Koo said in his judge philosophy – see below, slightly edited

Aff
- I read an Aff with no plan my junior year. I think there is high value in these Affs, just ask my coach DB. Where I see people going wrong when answering framework is just repeating the same old "fairness for whom" with no explanation. That is a good first line of offense but there are more arguments than that. I think the smartest way to answer framework excluding your turns is 1. clown the internal links 2. generate external offense 3. consider the uniqueness and the relevance of their scenarios too. If you do this successfully their impacts are low, and now your impact turns have much more weight.
- The best no-plan affs in my opinion are ones that are built to beat "do it on the neg" and "topical version of the aff" arguments. If your aff isn't that, I don't know why you're reading it vs. a team you know that is going for Framework.

Neg
- There are two routes. 1. Liberal 2. Hard-core Right. I personally think the hard core right is better because if you go the Liberal route, the Aff is able to either include themselves in your interpretation and your internal link thresholds are a lot weaker, or the Aff can solve for your terminal impacts a lot easier. I think the most persuasive way to go for Framework is to go for limits/clash as an internal link to fairness and advocacy skills/decision making. Make a bunch of turns case/solves case arguments as well.
- I do think the Liberal version of Framework can be persuasive when there is a good link argument to the aff that proves a trade-off. However, given the way people read no-plan affs now-a-days, that is hard to win. When the Liberal version of Framework is executed correctly, it is devastating.
- Please make the case debate relevant and jive with your Framework argument.

Counterplans
- the 2NR has to explicitly say the judge has to kick the CP
- Solvency advocates are necessary
- Slow down on the CP text
- Acronyms should be explained
- Advantage CPs are awesome. It really exposes how bad teams are at defending their internal links
- Well-researched process-based CPs/PICs are my favorite

Theory and where I lean
- Conditions CPs/Word PICs/Process CPs/Object Fiat/Contradictions Bad – Aff
- Topical CPs/Unconditionality/Intrinsic & Severance Perms – Neg
- International Fiat/50 State Fiat/Agent CPs/Conditionality/Floating PIKs – Middle

Disads/Impact Turns
- Smart analytical turns case arguments are underrated
- Zero risk is more than possible for me
- Politics is awesome
- Smart, well-researched specific disads = better
- I don’t have much to say here other than jargon like “uniqueness controls the direction of the link” or vice versa is meaningless

Topicality
- Mostly aff leaning on reasonability vs. competing interpretation questions but can be persuaded otherwise
- Generic fairness/education impact calc is boring. That should all be contextualized to the aff/what the aff justifies
- I give the 1AR leeway when T is extended for like1:30or 2 minutes in the block. Because if it is only1:30~2:00of the block, it was probably super blippy and in most cases, awful

The K
- Link/impact contextualization to the aff’s plan mechanism/internal link triumphs contextualization to the aff saying "USfg" in the plan/the impact card the aff reads
- I really don't have a huge problem with high theory stuff as many other judges do. However, I will say you are put at a higher threshold to explain your stuff, not because these arguments are ALL “bad” per say, but my knowledge on this stuff will be low
- Role of the ballot/judge arguments getting thrown around a lot but never being implicated is my biggest pet peeve. Given that, I think it is kinda ridiculous how some K debates go down vs. policy affs. Obviously debate isn't ONLY be about the plan vs. squo/competitive policy option and obviously debate isn't ONLY about whether the aff's reps/epistemology/ontology/other are ok. If the 1AR drops a K bomb, that's a different story but there needs to be some sort of middle ground established.
- In addition to what is said above, I find "reps don't shape reality" type arguments super unpersuasive. These arguments are usually only won by the aff when the neg totally forgets to answer it. There are a lot of really good hardcore right-leaning teams that only lose to the K because they don't engage the substance of the K i.e. "our reps are key to solve X Y Z," which I find a ton more persuasive.
- 2ACs impact turning the K is an underrated strategy. I don't know why people don't go for imperialism/capitalism/biopolitics good as much as people used to. If you’re going to defend the hard right, might as well stick to it.

Left on Left
- Most of “The K” section stuff apply here too
- Should the aff get a perm? After thinking and long and hard about this, I am super 50:50 about it because being Neg against K affs that are a walking permutation is very frustrating. However, on the flip side, is the aff getting the permutation a better way to facilitate clash and opportunity cost education? It is up in the air and being technical on this part of the debate is crucial for both sides.

Ways to get good speaks in front of me (in no particular order)
- Badass strategies: 1AR kicking the aff and impact turning a disad, whole constructive on impact turn(s), no prep speeches (your speech gotta be good because if it’s not, you epically failed)
- Ethos. You’re not a total jerk but have swagger while being sassy.
- Good execution of arguments/shifting/framing
- Clarity
- Efficiency/Organization

The TKO
- “This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?” – Brian Manuel

Kimo Peluso Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 6:10 PM EDT

Current Occupation:

Partner, Sher Tremonte LLP - attorney, commercial litigation, New York City

Education:

Harvard Law School, JD, 1998

University of California, San Diego, BA Philosophy, 1995

Mt. Carmel High School, San Diego CA, 1991

My email: kpeluso@me.com

Debate Experience:

As a debater: Policy Debate - Mt. Carmel High School, 1987 to 1991

As a judge / assistant coach: 1991 to 1995

Paradigm:

I was an active debater in high school, and then regularly judged debates during high school tournaments while I was in college. I also worked as an assistant speech and debate coach for four years, although that team did not do policy debate at the time.

I have no recent experience judging policy debate. I have no experience with critiques, and have only heard the term in passing. Feel free to argue them, but you'll have to explain why you think it results in a win.

Debate Philosophy:

Debaters excel when they understand and convey how to connect individual arguments to the big picture. The only question in the debate is the resolution. The affirmative has the luxury of picking any plan they want to demonstrate that the resolution is true. Every element of plan and case matters only because it proves or disproves the resolution. Debaters achieve better advocacy and can afford to be more selective about their arguments when they learn how to connect individual arguments and elements of arguments into this big picture.

Civility and Decorum:

Treat each other respectfully -- your opponents, the judges and your teammate.

Do not interrupt each other during constructives and rebuttals. Interruptions include one word comments or visibly mouthing the word "no" while your opponents talk. Vigorous head shakes, eye rolls, and grimaces will not make a favorable impression. If you want to impress me while the other side is talking, have a good poker face.

Stick to the arguments. Do not make personal comments about your opponents. Do not comment on their speaking ability, their style of presentation, their motives, or anything else that is not about the merits of the debate. (To anticipate a possible reaction: please do not point it out to me if you think your opponents have violated this advice -- that would be spectacularly missing the point.)

Other Views on Style and Conduct:

I do not like spreading.

Please use abbreviations sparingly, do not use abbreviations that you have not explained.

I would not recommend making reflexive topicality arguments against a plan that is obviously topical.

Limit yourself to arguments that are facially credible. Nonsense arguments, arguments that are not comprehensible will not be given any weight.

I would recommend against running DAs or Counterplans that are vague, not fully formed, or lack required elements. If the other side offers a counterplan with no specific plan, you do not need to waste time beating it from seven different angles.

Dropped arguments will be treated as true, but not necessarily dispositive. For example, dropping a DA does not necessarily prevent the 2AR from arguing that the disadvantage, even if accepted as true, does not outweigh the benefits of the plan; so long as the 2AR is not making new arguments.

Yulan Peng Li Chen Independent

Sonnie Picallo Hire

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 1:37 PM EDT

The Basics

Hi! I debate at SUNY Binghamton and debated for Brooklyn Tech. I use they/them pronouns. If you have any questions email me at hpicall1@binghamton.edu and I am happy to answer them! This also works for rounds.

I am what you say I am, I will do what you tell me to do. Explain to me what I should care about and how I should evaluate it. Debate rounds can look like a lot of things, and I am down for all of it. If you make it feel worth it, I will do work for you. Bering persuasive, creative, or captivating are all ways to make me give an extra glance at what you are saying. Do something cool! Or don't.

I don't like the delineation between tech and truth. Tech is truth, insofar as the tecnhe of this activity shapes the parameters of what constitutes truth. But if you convince me that what you have to say outweighs whatever argument you dropped, then you win. I am a very flow centric judge, but I care about the optics and social dynamics of what is happening just as much. After all, the flow is a written recollection of what happened in the room. But I was in the room, and what happened can make me view my flow with suspicion.

Be good or be good at it. If you want to do something crazy, go for it. But be prepared to do it well. I respect anyone who wants to think outside the box, but you have to explain why the box is bad and why it's good that you aren't in it. Whether or not you do it well, you have my undying love and support !!!! <3 But not necessarily my ballot.

Debate is an oratory activity!!! I care much more about well warrented analytics than a super fire card. I won't be looking at the speech doc unless you explicitly tell me to look at a card after the round or to catch up if I disassociated. If the card you told me to read is mid I will be annoyed. I reserve the right to say "clear" and to not evaluate arguments that werent clearly articulated.

I think "US Hegemony good" is a more disgusting argument than "death good". I will vote on either. What does this say about me? Whose to say.

I don’t know debate clout nor do I care to. I don’t care if your coach will post round me because I probably don’t even know who they are and don’t know if I should be scared. Is this good or bad? You decide.

I reserve the right to intervene in the round if it is made unsafe due to bigotry. If there is anything that I can do to help facilitate a safe space, I am happy to do so.

uwu

The More Nuanced Version

If you want to learn more about what I think about debate and have some time to read, I’ll put stuff here. This is for if you are bored looking through paradigms or you think I'm neat in which case I'm flattered :3

Thoughts on me

I study philosophy with the intention of going into public education. Much of my experience in debate outside of competing is with the NYCUDL, helping volunteer at programs and tournaments. This means, for me, the reason why debate is important is its ability to spread important political education to as many people as possible and from as many backgrounds as possible. If there are ever questions of accessibility in rounds I am more than happy to help out and make sure debate is as educational and am more than happy to talk with coaches or debaters after rounds to explain my decision and help see the UDL debate grow.

In debate rounds I do wacky things. No cards on the aff, live music on the neg. I like to talk about the relationship between race, class, and the ways that we construct meaning through semiotic representation. I have been in a lot of different kinds of debate rounds, and it has taught me that there are many different things one can do when the doors close and tab isn't looking. Debate is a game, but it is also a cite of creation and expression!

My current philosophical crushes are Sylvia Wynter, Jean Baudrillard, Fred Moten, Michel Foucault, and others who articulate how the way that we perceive, perform, and practice the world shapes and is shaped by the environment that we find ourselves in. I also think Marxism is probably true. So is Afro-Pessemism. If you ask me, I will make it make sense. I think more often than not critical theory authors agree with each other, albeit using different traditions and verbiages. I love synthesizing different philosophical traditions, as I feel that people end up describing the same couple phenomena. This makes me a bad academic, but a good educator.

Thoughts on arguments

Plan based aff’s: You do you. Im not going to flow each advantage on a separate sheet of paper (sorry) but just make sure your impact scenario makes sense and that you clearly articulate your framing in later speeches. The clearer you explain your impact scenario, the higher your speaks will be. Don't let the aff disappear !

K Affs: Please solve for something. By the end of the round I would like a good idea of what the aff does and how . I think K affs should be in the direction of/engage with it, and I love creative interpretations of the resolution. Using examples and historical understanding to contextualize your solvency to the world will be very helpful. If your aff has performative elements, please carry it throughout the debate. Saying “hey we had poetry in the 1ac that’s solvency” isn’t enough, and when done well performative affs can be a joy to watch that expand the boundaries of what we think policy debate can look like. And if you do want to break all rules, be prepared to defend it. I am very down to vote on weird things, but you need to win said weird things and prove why you won.

K’s: Be clear, both with your scholarship and with how you use it in debate. I will give high speaks to those who are able to articulate kritikal literature in ways that are easy to understand and relevant to the round. Often in the 2nc the K splits up into the framework and plan based flow, and while I am fine with this just tell me where to put my pen. I will probably use a separate sheet of flow for the framework portion of the debate.

CP’s: I find very well researched and articulated counterplans to be very fun to watch in action. Advantage CPing out of k affs is baller and not utilized enough, policy teams using their arguments to mess with k teams is innovative and cool

DA’s: You do you homie. Not really much to say here except going for policy da’s against k affs is a smart strategic move if they defend them.

T: When executed properly, I really like going for T against affs where it genuinely applies. I hate super small policy affs that defend nothing or policy affs that garner offense off of elements of the resolution that they dont access. That being said, explain !!!!! I will vote on T, but I am not caught up on the T meta so you will need to spend some extra time comparing definitions and explaining buzzwords.

Framework: I am making an important distinction between T and FW. T implies the existence of fiat while FW does not (as no part of the resolution implies fiat, but the question of fiat is irrelevant in T debates because it is implied). Most people probably scrolled down just to see my thoughts on FW because this is the Northeast and FW is half of the debates we have here, so I will be more articulate.

(Note: I have become less pessimistic about fairness as an impact since originally writing this. You will have to do work to explain why fairness and limits are intrinsically good, but i'm open to it.)

Education comes first: framework is a question of education, and at the end of the day its the only real impact to framework. The terminal impact to fw is either teams leave debate (which doesn’t matter/is good if normative debate is bad) or the affs model makes us worse people (deliberation skills/whatever silly jargon think tanks use nowadays to describe why normative political subjectivity is good). If you want to prove why the game is worth playing, its because it is valuable, and that value is its educational ability. That being said education can look like different things (deliberative dialogue, research, movements, etc) but its still education. This can be hedged back against by proving that debate doesn't shape subjectivity, but thats an argument you need to make and not one that I will assume.
The question then becomes, what about the game? Arguments about fairness and models of debate are important because there must always be a negative to negate the aff. I think affs should articulate their model of what debate and competition looks like in their model. You don't need to do a ton of work on this question, but its always important that standards are addressed as some terminal defense
Clash is the best argument and Fairness is an internal link: clash is by far the best internal link on the framework flow. This is because all skills we get from debate, and the thing that separates it from other activities, is the ability to engage with and refute the opponents argument.
In the old version of my paradigm I had written "Fairness is a sham with no real impact, and the ballot has no power to resolve any of it. What happens if things aren’t fair? Huh? People get sad and quit? Ok cool people quitting and not getting education is the impact. Fairness isn’t an impact, just an internal link to other things. Feel free to go for it as an internal link to other things or as an impact into itself, but just know that you will leave yourselves open to the very damning question of "who cares if its unfair if your model makes us worse people"' Not sure if I am as passionate about this as I used to be, but know that in a past life this was my opinion.

Theory: Its cool, and I like creative interpretations of theory. Just make sure to send out and not spread your theory analytics too fast so I can understand and flow them. (Debate hot take: the best condo interp is that you get two condo advocacies, one competing policy alternative and one kritkal one, its the only non arbitrary interp and fosters great debates. But like, Ill vote on whatever if u win it)

Things That Will Get You Good Speaks

These are things that you don't need to win the round, but I will appreciate if you do them and give you better speaks

- Be cool: I am very down for whatever debate persona you have, and love when debaters are distinct and have a presence in round and will always reward them for that. Feel free to go through the throat, but do it well. I am rarely swayed by "gotchya" moments.

- Be a baudrillard pal not a baudrillard bro: As for """""high theory""""" debaters or really anyone articulating abstract theories, you will look so much nicer and get way better speaks by being genuine and helping your opponent understand your arguments than if you are smug and mess with them. The better your opponent is, the more I will allow you to be smug.

- Be tidy: Dawdling, stealing prep, taking long with the email chain, these are all things that make me cringe vaguely. Tighten it up! I want time to decide.

- Don't rely on blocks too much: debaters who are able to contextualize their arguments to the round in specific ways and can speak of the flow will get better speaks, because it shows that your thoughts are your own or that you have practiced and refined a speech so well that you can do it off the top of your head. This applies more so for rebuttal speeches (yes judges can tell when you write your blocked out 2nc overview on your flow and pretend its at the top of your head).

- Playing music: okay you dont have to do this if you dont feel comfortable, but I am a huge music person (planning on a music minor but that plus a philosophy major is a death sentence) and am very down to hear and expand my musical knowledge. Be careful!! If I like a song I may ask what it is so I can add it or try and disseminate my random musical suggestions (I apologize in advance)

A Quote That I Really Like

“Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.” -Bald french man (you know the one)

Hey you made it to the end of my paradigm, thanks! I will put my spotify here because I often play music in rounds (not your rounds, I will let you assert the vibes) so if u wanted to see what my vibes were here u go. https://open.spotify.com/user/calypsocan?si=XMTWgaD3TdOMsDKfL80cHg

Also listen to my music lol - https://open.spotify.com/album/2byHkEafvXES0XxfC0Ki1Q?si=zohIOJ0_QS6Qq9CAmz2VPA

Thanks for reading!! Hope u have a nice day/tournament

Maddie Pieropan Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Fri February 24, 2023 at 4:51 AM CDT

Maddie or Mads, not "judge"

they/them

maddiepieropandebate@gmail.com and bvswdebatedocs@gmail.com--please add both to the chain

Background/Affiliations: BVSW 2020, KU 202(?); Coaching at BVSW and Truman HS.

TLDR: Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in. Research should be a fun tool for you to explore new and interesting concepts, and debating is the manifestation of your process and progress in exploring new literature bases. The below paradigm is extremely long and in-depth--since I am largely in the back of clash debates, I feel the need to explain exactly how I decide debates so as to avoid confusion. I judge a ton of debates and I think judging is a privilege.

Prep Notes:

(1) I am very close to adopting Tim Ellis' prep practices. I've seen a major increase in people taking way too much time in between prep, CX, sending docs, etc---I will try and be as sympathetic as I can, but my patience is growing thin.

(2) "marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." you do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that. If you must, that's prep (note: prep and not cx time). This is majorly pissing me off recently. (special thank you to holland bald for the wording)

Clipping: If an ethics challenge is forwarded, the debate will end and I will determine its validity with a loss and lowest speaks. If an ethics challenge is not forwarded but I believe clipping happened anyway, I will also give a loss and lowest speaks, but allow the debate to continue. Clipping includes being unreasonably unclear while spreading the text of a piece of evidence--I am willing to clear you three times before doing this.

Most important:

First --- I think most people would characterize me as a “clash” judge, which I’m okay with. I’m down for a good policy throwdown, but I’m best in terms of feedback for K v Policy, Framework, and K v K debates (and they’re the debates I enjoy judging the most). My voting record is pretty even.

Second --- I very passionately situate myself as an educator in debate. What I mean is I place quite a bit of value on my role as an educator, not in how I decide debates necessarily, but rather how I give decisions. I have previously held that I will put in as much effort into judging you as you do debating, but I have since realized that I tend to put in maximum effort into judging debates and give substantive feedback. I flow debates very carefully and care deeply about the post-round commentary and feedback I give, so be prepared for the RFD rants I have grown to enjoy.

Given that, I think the pedagogical value of this activity is tremendous and believe it should be acknowledged as such. If I deem that you have engaged in a practice that harms the community (read: don’t be racist, transphobic, misogynistic, or otherwise), I will not hesitate to dock your speaks, contact tournament directors and/or coaches, or simply end the round early as I deem necessary.

Some educators that I respect highly and have influenced my beliefs as an educator include: Joshua Michael, Alaina Walberg, Brian Rubaie, Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Larry Dang, Yao Yao Chen, Jesse Smith, Ned Gidley, Azja Butler, Squid Monteith, Derek Hilligoss, Dr. Harris, Brett Bricker, Julia Hunter, basically every current KU debate coach---honestly this list obvi isn't exhaustive but I think you get the point.

A caveat – this is not a referendum on my argumentative alignments or predispositions relative to these folks, but rather that I respect and admire their approach to judging, coaching, and educational development.

Third (this is important) --- Because I think debate is necessarily educational, I encourage debaters to be intentional in making arguments. Including arguments for the sake of including them is asinine and largely frustrating.

T-USFG/Framework

Things that matter to me:

1. Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all kritikal AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained.

2. Both teams should identify what 2AC offense is intrinsic to the AFF vs the C/I, there are plenty of debates I watch in which the 2AR goes for a C/I that doesn't solve their impact turn to T, which is not persuasive. Negative teams should be taking advantage of poorly written C/I's.

3. Debate can certainly be characterized as a game, but I think it is better described as a competitive research activity--intuitively, debate is not yahtzee. Debate is a game is impact framing, not an impact.

4. Internal links matter more to me than others and I find this portion of the debate regularly is underdebated. That said, internal links and impacts are not interchangeable, your 2NR explanation should reflect that.

5. I have found myself giving many RFDs this year that are extremely frustrating because 2NR's and 2AR's alike are refusing to go for both offense and defense. Both teams need to extend an impact, do impact calcand impact comparison, and resolve residual pieces of offense with existing defense. If you do this, my life will be easier and your speaker points will be higher.

On the negative ---

----Clash is very persuasive – particularly:

1. Predictability > other internal links alone: Predictable clash is good and guided by resolutional wording. We rely on the resolution as a pre-season and pre-tournament research guide that allows us to determine what is and is not included in research areas under the resolution.

2. Contextualize it to the topic. Why is clash over the resolution good—what pedagogical, transformative, or reflexive potential does it have? I prefer these defenses of research to be personalized and about debate as opposed to spill-up arguments about enacting change – i.e. how does clash over the resolution change the ways we engage with the controversy surrounding the resolution rhetorically, educationally, and politically. These don't necessarily have to be "NATO good" but "studying NATO good" or something.

3. Turns case arguments are your friend, especially against AFFs that criticize debates research. Comparative internal link debating and impact calc are super important here --- contextualizing clash as a pre-requisite to actualizing the telos of the AFF, i.e. the epistemic shift the 1AC attempts to resolve.

----Fairness:

1. Good for this now. That being said, I often am hearing 2NR fairness explanations that end up being roundabout ways to get to a clash terminal, if this is the way you explain fairness, you would be better suited to simply go for clash in front of me.

2. Even when going for fairness, you need to answer AFF offense against your model of debate/content of research you mandate. Saying “debate is a game” and T is a “procedural question” doesn’t mean you are shielded from AFF offense against the content/research produced as a consequence of “fairness”

3. Its an impact, but one that is typically poorly explained.

TVA/SSD: My apparent “hot take” is that I think there are few scenarios in which it is strategic and beneficial to include both a topical version of the AFF and switch side in the 2NR. Usually, there is a blatant reason why either one solves the AFF, and you should pick that in the 2NR. The TVA and switch side are not ‘you drop it you lose,’ but impact defense, use it that way, and flag which piece of offense you think it is responsive against.

On the affirmative---

1AC Construction:

1. Be intentional: I want to emphasize this for those who read kritikal affirmatives. The 1AC should be a complete and cohesive argument in some capacity, I am not particular about the form through which this is conveyed (i.e. performance or scholarship or both), but I think many kritikal affirmatives lack an argumentative telos that is largely frustrating. The AFF should not be an 8 minute framework pre-empt, just as you should avoid including evidence that is not useful to you as offense. (this is a similar frustration to that I hold of policy AFF’s with K-pre empts and framing contentions)

2. You don’t need an advocacy statement, but if you do not have one, I should know what your argument is prior to CX of the 1AC.

C/I:

1. Prior to writing the AFF, you should decide if your angle vs fwk relies on offense that is intrinsic to the speech act of the 1AC or your counter-interpretation as a model of debate/research. You should make this distinction clear in the 2AC and establishes a threshold of what solvency mechanisms you have to win in order to access your framework offense.

2. Contextualize the C/I to the 1NC’s offense, anything the C/I doesn’t solve you should impact turn.

Misc:

I appreciate those who show me that they understand the academic context of the 1AC beyond the evidence included --- that includes history, examples, references to authors, etc.
If you are reading from a literature base from which you are unfamiliar with,I will know and I won't be happy. I do not care if you have skimmed the cards, if you cannot answer questions that your literature base has foundational answers to, I will be reluctant to give you speaks higher than 28.5
1AR/2AR consistency is important --- you should be using similar language to explain your offense
Please defend things. Stop trying to avoid talking about the AFF, if you’ve read your lit base and are confident in your level of explanation, I don’t see a reason why you should be responding to every 1AC CX question with a variation of “we don’t do that,” especially when you clearly do.
ROB/ROJ arguments are very helpful for 2AR packaging and framing, you should use them
2-3 well developed, carded DA’s to FW > shotgunning 8 DA’s that say the same thing
2AR impact turn strategies need defense

Policy v K:

Misc:

1. I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

2. Framework probably matters to me a lot more than most. I think about debate a lot through its mechanics, not necessarily only through its content. I start here in most debates, unless told otherwise.

On the neg:

----The 2NR should always extend framework as a framing argument for how I evaluate consequences, otherwise you’ll likely take the L to a 2AR that moralizes about extinction. Explain what winning the framework means in context of the permutation/evaluating link arguments, I need contextualization and instruction of what you think framework does for you.

----You don’t need to extend 10 trillion link arguments, 1-2 is fine, impact them out and include link alone turns case arguments and specific contextualizations to the AFF---1AC lines or references to AFF speeches are rewarded.

----If you’re not going to the case debate, tell me why it doesn’t matter - I have been voting on extinction outweighsa lot recently

----I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense

----Theories of power/structural claims mean nothing in a vacuum – you have to apply them where they matter and tell me what it means to win your theory of power

----I judge a lot of these debates and find that so many 2NR's overstretch themselves here. The 2NR should not be a condensed version of the 2NC, rather, you should make strategic decisions about whether to go for an alternative OR framework heavy strategy depending on the 1AR's decision

On the AFF:

----Like I said, framework matters a lot more to me, and you should use it to your advantage. The most persuasive way to articulate FW on the AFF in front of me is in the context of competition. Most framework debates devolve into weighing the AFF vs not weighing the AFF, which is always messy. Instead, contextualize your offense to how competition gets established and how that implicates link generation/alt solvency.

----The 2AC permutation explanation should contextualize the permutation to all of the links, explaining how you resolve it

----“Extinction outweighs” is not a defense of extinction rhetoric. You have to defend your research/scholarship by defending its academic/pedagogical value, because most of the time they are not critiquing securitization/extinction rhetoric in a vacuum, but rather the aff’s use of extinction rhetoric in an academic space for whatever reason.

----Asserting that something is a link of omission does not a link of omission make, this 2AC line is often a cop out for answering link arguments.

----Your FWK interpretation shouldn’t be “you don’t get K’s,” I’m far more persuaded by predictable clash style arguments like I explained above. That said, I think predictability and competition based framework offense is incredibly persuasive if you explain why it matters. Framework should always be in the 2AR, competition based offense makes winning a permutation a lot easier as well.

----If the K makes a structural claim or theory of power, you should read defense to it but also offer an alternate theory that explains [the thing]

----I’m not a fan of the 1AC structure that’s like [4 card advantage] [17 K pre-empts], nor am I a fan of the 2AC card dump vs 1 off strategies --- you should be thinking about how your aff interacts with the K and contextualizing 1AC evidence/scholarship vs the K

----I have judged a few debates now where the 2AC reads a link turn and an impact turn to the K. Please refrain from double-turning yourself.

K v K:

----If you have an advocacy statement, I generally agree that you get permutations, but I can be convinced otherwise

----I will be very impressed if you exemplify knowledge of how your literature base interacts with the other literature base your debating, most of the time scholars engage with one another by name and discuss their theories co-constitutively, and if you have read those theorizations and can explain them well I will be very happy.

----Comparative debating about structural claims/theories of power is really important here

Separate note about settler colonialism because I find myself in the back of these debates often:

----I agree almost whole-heartedly with Josh Michael’s paradigm here

----I have found that some people attempt to overadapt and go for settler colonialism in front of me, for whatever reason. If you aren’t familiar with the literature base and read this just for the sake of it, don't. That said, if this is a literature base that you are wanting to become more familiar with, I am more than willing to offer feedback, resources, and any other advice that might be helpful for you to continue exploring!

----I usually think that settler colonialism debates should be one-off debates, most importantly because I feel that it’s difficult to make a well-developed settler colonialism shell that is 3 cards

----GBTL/Material Decol > everything else

----Paperson doesn’t say legalism good.

----“Ontology framing bad” doesn’t disprove the structural claim of settler colonialism.

----You should be reading indigenous scholars. Geez.

In the unlikely event that you find yourself in a policy throwdown with me in the back:

Theory

----SLOW DOWN – I need to catch interps

----neg leaning, dispo is the only thing that solves your offense.

----Random procedurals are a waste of time and ruin speaks.

CP’s

----like these debates. good for PICS, bad for process. Competition debates that depend on legal intricacies are difficult for me to decide.

----Solvency deficits need impacts

----default judge kick

----stop getting to internal net benefits with 30 seconds left in the block.

DA’s

----the more specific your link ev is the better.

----turns case matters more to me than others, i think. tiebreaker in close debates will usually come down to this for me.

----I judge too many debates where the 2NR just doesn't extend an internal link, do that.

----fine for most t debates, bad for t debates that are particularly couched in legal distinctions.

----precision and predictability > debatability

----have judged a few of these debates recently that came down to insufficient violation ev---making this part of the debate clear to me makes deciding the rest of the debate a lot more clear.

Closing rants and pet peeves:

----Don’t use language/jargon that isn’t found in your literature base. Academic diction isn’t something you can mix and match to apply to your argument unless the evidence you're reading uses that particular language. If your evidence doesn’t use “communities of care,” “ontology,” or “social death,” don’t describe things as that.

----“Lengthy” overviews are the bane of my existence. I cannot remember the last time I gave a K 2NC with an overview, everything you do there can be done on the line by line. When I say lengthy I mean literally anything more than 25 seconds.

----I'll doc your speaks by .2 if you give a stand-up 1AR.

----(ONLINE SPECIFIC) Be respectful of everyone’s time. I am sympathetic to tech issues, but please make sure you aren’t having to send 3 different documents because you forgot to hit reply all, someone isn’t on the email chain, or you attached the wrong document.

----I hate the CX line of questioning that's like "if we win x,y,z does that mean we win the debate?" most of the time you're just asking "if we win the debate do we win the debate" and it gets you nowhere

----If you seem like you’re genuinely enjoying the activity, being respectful, and not taking things too seriously, chances are I’ll reward you with high speaks. My favorite debates to judge are those in which debaters are having fun!

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or otherwise, feel free to e-mail me and I’ll try and respond as soon as I can!

Christopher Polidoro SUCCESS ACADEMY HUDSON YARDS

Rohith Raman Hire

Last changed on Fri February 11, 2022 at 12:51 PM CDT

Add me to the email chain: rohithraman4@gmail.com

he/him

Tufts 25, I debate in college, but also like not really

Top Level stuff

As a first year out, I haven't had much of any experience judging and my thoughts on debate aren't set in stone or insanely clear - I'm also not an great flow, especially online

Read whatever you want - if you're clear and fully fleshing out the args then you should be fine.

With that said, I have almost exclusively invested in k debate throughout high school - if your ideal 1NC is 6 off policy strat, then pref me much lower

The 2NR/2AR should frame my decision - how do I think about the args, what comes first and why etc - judge instruction will be rewarded and just makes decisions easier

Most of the time, tech over truth – however, I won’t vote for an arg just because it was dropped. Impact it out

Don't be a shitty person - understand how you interact with spaces like debate and change accordingly. I’ll stop the round if there’s anything racist, sexist, homophobic etc being said – goes without saying

Disclosure is good.

Notes this year - go a little slower than you usually would and record speeches in case someone cuts out if it's online. I also know very little about the topic, so limit the amount of topic specific jargon you use

Neg ---

I approach fw from the point of the broader vision each team has for debate. What discussions are you forwarding, and how do I differentiate between the two? What vision does your model have for engagement, or does that come secondary to another impact?

You are more likely to get my ballot if you explicate the end point of your model. For example, I find discussions of clash to refine political strategies or create better advocates as a much more persuasive argument than keeping clash to simply “preserve the game”. Going further and explaining why certain things matter will help a ton. A 2NC/2NR that is able to win an exportable impact and argue how it gets better throughout the year alongside some aff offense through either SSD or TVA is in a great spot

I find it shocking that a ton of fw teams will go through rounds without mentioning any specific stuff about the aff – engage with the aff

creative interps, standards, and answers are ALWAYS preferred - diversify how you approach each aff – you don’t always need to read t-usfg

Do I think procedural fairness is an impact? No. Especially if there's no actual explanation on it - you should be talking about what the unfairness looks like in round, examples of your inability to engage etc. I prefer deliberation, skills, clash based args as opposed to fairness because it gets to the question of why this matters. Fairness debates end up becoming a question of their external net benefit like clash or education, so starting there just makes more sense to me but you do you

SSD and TVA – These should be areas of the debate where you can most easily access aff offense. Most aff teams don’t know how to answer SSD, but you need to explain what reading on the neg would look like etc. The TVA doesn’t need to “solve” the aff, but I do think they need to be able to include most of the aff’s discussion somehow, especially if the aff has reasons why that discussion matters. Most neg teams will simply say the TVA doesn’t need to solve and move on, which isn’t sufficient

Don't just forget case - a significant case push makes neg ballots way more viable - most k affs don't do anything so go for presumption please

Aff ---

I tend to lean aff in these debates, but make sure there isn't ambiguity over what the aff does / you clear it up quickly – I’ll vote on presumption for sure

Just explain why the end point of their model causes [aff impact] + why that’s bad and you should be good. I personally think impact turn strats are much better because focusing on a counterinterp often forces the aff to find more common ground than offense. Regardless, decide what strat you want to go for and stick to it.

I love DA’s that target both form and content of fw

Crafty counterinterps are always great

You have to have some sort of topic link – use that to your advantage because that should be the crux of your fw answers

k stuff

General ---

I primarily read Afropessimism, Black Nihilism, Baudrillard, Semiocap/James, and Settler Colonialism, but I’m familiar with most ks in varying degrees. Regardless, nuanced explanation of the theory is important

I'm fine with debaters reading stuff outside their subject position but that requires an understanding of how your identity relates to the arguments you read and sometimes a change in the way you read the arg - whether thats how you approach talking about instances of violence or the alternative you read -- (opponents should always push on these kinds of questions) -- Its clear when a team has thought through their relationship to the scholarship and when they haven't

I'm fine with longer overviews, but I think its way more strategic and easier to flow if they are shorter - do your work on the lbl

I really like smaller k's or piks (that actually have strategic benefit)

K v policy ---

Framework is probably one of the most important part of these debates to me because it determines how I view literally everything else – if you are winning fw, I don't think an alt is needed as long as you are framing stuff correctly

"Generic links" are fine, especially if there is a broader fw push, as long as you are getting specific when extending them. Obviously, the more specific the link, the better. You should be giving me examples and pulling quotes when extending the links

K v K ---

These can be some of the best debates if well executed.

Methods need to be explained - what does the alt do? What does the aff do? You should be spending time here, include examples, quotes, etc – I think the alt should be resolving either the impact to the links and/or the aff, but if you want to go for it as a non-unique da then I need significant offense on case

That being said, explain perms fully - you should be doing more than simply showing an ideological similarity between both authors/lit bases. What does the perm look like in application? Again, examples are really helpful – I tend to lean aff on the question of no perms in a methods debate – it’s a standard for competition that tests the legitimacy of the links, but I also agree that most perms in these debates make zero sense

Theory of power stuff can get pretty muddled - make it clear - you don’t auto win if you have a better theory of power, but it helps

Policy stuff

I'm not your judge for the 8 off debates, but I'll do what I can if I’m in the back. I would much rather you limit the cards read in the block and use more analytical arguments rather than card dump – either way, make sure there is actual engagement

T ---

Default to competing interps,

More specific interps are better, but these debates can get really confusing and annoying - just explain things like definitions or what the interp looks like fully

Having case lists and describing what debates would look like under each model is always helpful

Cps ---

Try to have some explanation about what the perm looks like outside of perm do the cp in the 2ac

I don't really care about judge kick - if the neg doesn't go for it then I'll kick it but if you want to go for it as offense then sure

DAs ---

I mean just extend it properly and have offense that o/w – its pretty straight forward

Random theory stuff ---

I hate these debates - most of the time nothing is really abusive – if the 2ar goes for theory, it has to do the work of comparing its impacts to the stuff that the 2nr goes for

Other stuff

CX is really important and I flow it - just don't be rude / unnecessarily cut people off

Recutting ev is always persuasive – you definitely can get offense from unhighlighted parts of cards

Make me laugh

For LD/PF, the closer you are to policy the better.

Gema Recio Hire None

Amelia Ritenour Boston Latin Academy HS

Last changed on Sat February 25, 2023 at 12:04 PM EDT

They/Them/Theirs

Add me to the email chain: queeratlibertyuniversity@gmail.com

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a hijabi queer, nonbinary, disabled law student. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

Gabriel Ritter Fenway High School

Last changed on Sat January 14, 2023 at 7:36 AM EDT

Top Level

-I debated policy at Georgetown Day School for 4 years and am now debating at Brown University. In HS, I had 8 bids to the TOC.

-Unless your argument is in favor of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc.), I’m down to vote for it. Tech>Truth for sure.

-Examples are awesome, and you should use them whenever possible. A few well-explained ones are usually better than a bunch of small ones. These can be used as historical contextualizations of why something will fail/succeed, or turn out well/poorly, or as demonstrations of your praxis.

-In debate, I spent more time reading kritikal args (see below), but I'm more than hyped to judge a policy throwdown.

-I read evidence when asked to or when a team makes a big deal out of a card in the last rebuttals. Quality evidence makes for good later speeches, especially when you can pull direct quotes from your ev that are really applicable. Just remember, that debaters, not cards, win rounds, so you can absolutely spin a bad card into a phenomenal argument.

-If you have any questions, just ask before the round!

Case

-Explain what your aff (policy or K) does in crossex, especially on the K side I need concrete solvency examples, and on the policy side, I need to know exactly what policy change the aff makes.

-For the neg, case debate is great, particularly solvency takeouts, and recuttings of the affirmative team’s own evidence (hint: these recuttings are not nearly as hard to find as they should be).

Disads

The two most important things to win here are a credible internal link story and impact comparison. Too often, neg teams get away with a ridiculous internal link chain, that the affirmative should absolutely expose (affs also tend to have these, neg teams should expose these as well). The 2nc/1nr and 2nr should explain step-by-step how the aff causes your impacts. Impact comparison means not just explaining what your impacts are, but why I should prioritize them over the aff’s. For example, I don’t just want to know why the aff causes nuclear war, I want to know why that matters more than/happens more quickly than/is more probable than, the aff’s impact scenario(s).

Counterplans

Establishing exactly what parts of the aff you do and do not claim to solve (and why) is key here. The net benefits to your counterplan should be explained in the context of the disad (or if you’re not going for a disad as an independent off-case position, why mutual exclusivity is clear, and why your impacts outweigh). Also, the theory in these debates tends to get extremely muddled. If this happens it will make me sad.

T (vs plan affs)

In these debates, both sides generally agree with the theoretical impacts the neg is going for (i.e. that fairness/education etc.) are good in the abstract, so the nuance comes down to whose interpretation provides them better and/or is more resolutionally based. That means that knowing what debates look like under your model is paramount. Topical Versions of the Aff, especially ones with cards, are cool, so are arguments (on both sides) about how your model of debate produces ethical subjectivities, better advocates etc.

Theory

Slowing down and getting off your blocks is crucial here, especially since I feel strongly that jargon is not a good replacement for nuanced warrants. That said, if you can clearly explain why something the other team did is/should be illegitimate, I’m more than happy to vote for it. Also, please specifically explain why whatever they did is a reason to reject the team rather than just the argument, if you’re going for it that way.

Kritiks

These are the majority of the arguments I read in debate (aff and neg). This is both good and bad for you if you read Ks. This is good for you, because I’m probably at least relatively familiar with your arguments (particularly Afro-pessimism, coloniality, variants of the cap K, and high theory like Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Psychoanalysis). It also means that your link contextualizations can be more creative than a hardcore policy judge might prefer (note that “creative” does not mean link to the status quo, but rather that you can, if you win it in the round,link into the aff’s discourse or political telos). This is bad for you if you read Ks because I know how these arguments can be poorly executed, which means that using a bunch of jargon without explanation and not doing line by line will generally not turn out well. Fun K Tricks are fun.

K affs vs Framework

I had these debates. A lot. As a result, I’m probably pretty good for both teams here, for the aff because I've debated on your side a ton so I can definitely see your argument, and for the neg, because I know that a lot of K affs are ridiculous and completely unconnected to the topic area (which is distinct from using the USfg). For the aff, a counterinterp that provides a real and better model of debate + a couple impact turns to their standards are best. For the neg, I’m really cool with any standards you wanna go for, and TVAs are good as long as they actually solve some of the aff (as opposed to, “Look! We have something that is tangentially related to their lit base!”) Also, showing how the aff’s model produces terrible debates is going to make it harder for them to win on impact turns alone. The only argument I don’t like here is that being topical is a “rule.” In contrast to things like violating speech times, clipping, etc (which will result in an automatic loss), almost all judges will agree that you should not inherentlyreject affs that are not topical (i.e. vote neg after the 1ac) and I’m not sure how something is a "rule" if teams get rewarded for breaking it all the time. I, however, am open to voting for framework as a good norm.

**Final Note: I'll boost your speaks a bit if you make a good (emphasis good) reference to The Dark Knight or The Matrix.

Nahomy Rivas New Designs Charter School-University Park

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 12:54 AM PDT

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:Hello, my name is Nahomy, my pronouns are she/her. I have debated in all 3 divisions in lamdl and I have debated in varsity 2020-2022. So debate how you want, but keep it within the topic and in connection with the topic. Most importantly... Have fun. Keep the nice vibes.Im a pretty chill Jude im cool with mostly everything. PLEASE KEEP your time I don't really like playing time keeper. PLEASE DO NOT ask me anything pertaining to debate while in the round ex: what you should run or what can be ran. Ask me these type of things before.

My Email: nahomy.rivas09@gmail.com please keep me in the email chain

If you say anything racist, homophobic, misogynistic, ableist, transphobic or xenophobic, I will vote for the other team and give you low speaker points. Please be nice to everyone in the room; this is a safe space for everyone.

I will also dock speaker points if you are disrespectful to the other team.

Time: I will keep time. Please also keep your time its really good to keep track of your time.

CX: open cross x

Here I go into detail on off cases, case, and how I vote but don't stress your self out don't overcomplicate debate just give me a nice constructive and speech on why I should vote for your side and not the other side use your evidence to back your points up. Be respectful keep it friendly with me and your opponents and were good.

Framework:

Big on framework if you run framework I expect to see a framework from both sides example if frame is ran on the aff side I expect a counter-frame from the neg ect. Also, I like to flow framework separately so make your frame explicitly clear!

Case:

Inherency: Tell me whats going on currently in the status quo and any issues going on

Advantages: explain the positive consequences that happen via your aff plan

Plan: Break down your plan in depth to give me all the good details about it

Solvency tell me how the AFF solves the issue via your plan this is very important

K:So if you choose to run K explain your ALT clearly please explain your link too. Explain why voting AFF is bad but also what voting for this K will look like and why its ultimately better than the AFF.

T: Voting issues ground and fairness I considered all of these when voting for the T.

CP: Why should I vote for the cp and how is it better than the aff plan you should tell me why I should vote for the cp than the plan

DA:How is the aff bad tell me all the harms and the how its linked to the affs plan explain your links and internal links impacts all the good stuff.Paint me a nice picture of all the bad things that happen when voting aff.Do an impact cal.

For the aff please answer the negs off cases do not leave something unanswered because then I have dropped arguments and that can led me to vote neg.This is For both sides dont drop your own arguments or your answers to your opponents arguments.

Ask me anything you want me to clear up before or after the round.

My basis are left at the door I will evaluate all the arguments how they were answered and handled during the round. Dont expect me to vote on something emotional if it dosent have anything to do with the topic at hand. and if you kick out of something I will stop considering it and say anything I should prioritize while making my decision.

Jeffrey Sabol Binghamton City Schools

Juliette Salah Northview Independent

Last changed on Thu March 9, 2023 at 8:10 AM EDT

Juliette Salah

Northview IS, MS

23.penguino@gmail.com

Top

**If I look confused, I am confused, please make me not confused.

**Yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER reading the K in front of me on either side IS NOT a guaranteed ballot. Quite frankly I've grown frustrated with the K especially when it's poorly debated.

**Most of this is stolen from Pranay because my paradigm deleted right before a tournament (Update: I did go back and add some stuff since then)

**LD folks scroll to the bottom for specific LD stuff

General

1—Please don't call me judge. Makes me feel hella old. Just call me Juliette.

2—Tech over truth to its logical extent. Debate is not about solely the truth level of your arguments but your ability to substantially defeat the other team’s claims with your technical ability.

3—When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate."- Matt Cekanor

4—For those curious, I mainly debated the K in high school (on both sides). I'm usually good with most Ks, even so, you still have the burden of explaining it to me well as I vote off the flow and won't do additional work for you even if I read the lit. (Excuse the rant but...) I think most POMO arguments in debate are stupid and for some reason every POMO debate I've judged the team has double turned themselves (lowk probably cuz most (if not all) POMO is ridiculous to read in this activity). Then again, debate it well and yes I will vote on whatever POMO stuff you throw my way.

K-Affs

This may be one of the rare sections that isn't stolen from Pranay (not my fault he didnt have one smh).

Yes, I read a K aff. Yes, I will vote on them. No, I don't think a majority of these affs solve any of the impacts they claim to solve. I think a key thing that most of these affs lack is proper solvency. If you're going to convince me that you solve things, I need a good reason to either why your method is good (i.e. give me concrete examples of what your aff looks like) and/or tell me why an aff ballot in this debate solves. That being said, for the negative, I often find a good presumption push to be a solid strat.

Framework

1. No preference on what impact you go for (but come on, clash is not an impact... alas, if you debate it well I will vote on it). Some impacts require more case debating than others. For example, if going for fairness, you need to spend more time winning the ballot portion of your offense and defense against the other team’s theory of how debate operates. If going for clash, you need to spend more time winning how your model over a year’s worth of debates can solve their offense and spend more time with defense to the affirmative.

2. I have spent a large part of my high school career thinking about arguments for the negative and the affirmative in these debates. To put it into perspective, almost 90% of my debates over a given season are framework debates, on the neg and the aff. For a large amount of framework debates, the better-practiced team always wins.

3. Use defense to your advantage. Nebulous claims of inserting the affirmative can be read on the negative with no specific internal link or impact debating will largely not factor in my decision. However, there are fantastic ways to use defense like switch side debate and the TVA.

4. Very specific TVA’s can work against very specific types of framework arguments. If the affirmative has forwarded a critique of debating the topic then TVA’s can mitigate the affirmative’s DAs. However, if the affirmative team has forwarded an impact turn to the imposition of framework in the round, they are less useful.

5. Impact turning topicality - Do it. Do it well and you'll be rewarded.

6. Often times when starting out, 2AR's go for too much in the 2AR. If you are impact turning T, go for one DA's and do sufficient impact comparison. Your 2AR should answer the questions of how T is particularly violent or links to your theory of power and most importantly HOW MY BALLOT CAN RESOLVE THOSE THINGS. Your impact only matters as much as its scope of solvency. You must also do risk comparison. Most neg framework teams are better at this. The way the aff loses these debates is when there's a DA with substantive impact turn and there's a negative impact that is explained less but is paired with substantively more internal link work and solvency comparison.

If going for a CI, focus on one impact turn and focus on how the CI solves it and how the DA links to their interp. Think of it like CP, your CI should include some aspects of their interpretation but avoids the risk of your DAs.

K v Policy AFF

Two types of 2NRs. Ones that go for in round implications and ones that go for out of round implications.

A)In Round—In round route requires a larger push on framework and a higher level of technical debating on the level of the standards but is usually much easier if you’re a practiced K 2NR. 2NC will usually have like 10 arguments on framework, 1AR extends their standards and answers like 2 arguments. 2NR just goes for the DA and all conceded defense, GGs. In addition, the best K 2NRs going for the in round version will have a link to the “plan or the effects of the plan”. What this means in this sense is that they will tie affirmative implementation to a link that proves their ethic mobilizes bad subjects IN DEBATE.

B)Out of Round—Out of round requires like close to 0 time on framework. Most policy 2As now just grant the K links but just say affirmative vs the alternative. Thus, if you are going for the alternative with links to the plan, just spend time winning the link debate, explaining why the affirmative doesn’t happen in the way they think. Most times these Ks will have a substantial impact turn debate so winning that is essential.

K v K Debates

1. Technical Debating is often lost in these debates but this necessarily happens due to the nature of K v K debates as theory of power debating is often the most important part. That being said, vague link debating will mitigate you winning your theory of power. 2. You need to pick something and defend it. The neg team will ask about the affirmative in 1AC CX, that explanation should stay consistent throughout the round. Lack of a consistent explanation will lower my threshold for buying a risk of a link and higher the burden for you to win the permutation.

3. Use links to implicate solvency. Often times its hard to make a K aff stick to in round or out of round solvency. Use links in the 2NC and 2NR to mitigate parts of both so even if the 2AR consolidates to one, you still have defensive arguments.

4. K affs have built in theory of power and solvency that's inherently offensive. I'll be grumpy if you jettison the aff but will not if you provide extrapolated offensive explanations in the 2AR using your affirmative and pieces of offense that they dropped. 2AR's that do this will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality (Policy v Policy)

1. Fine judge for these debates. T can lower your burden of prepping out some affirmatives that are inherently untopical and it's a good strat to have in your back pocket. However, for this topic the caselists and violations are pretty overlimiting.

2. Caselists are always useful for understanding these arguments.

3. Impact debating doesn't matter much in these debates but internal link debating does. Make sure to indict and compare interps and both sides. Predictability is the IL to all impacts.

4. The best 2AR's in these debates are ones that pick through negative evidence and identify no intent to define, arbitrariness, and combine that with reasonability

Counterplans

1. Probably err negative on theory concerns but if there's a technical crush I will certainly vote affirmative.

2. My predisposition toward counterplans is that they must be both textually and functionally competitive but always up to interpretation by the theory debate in round.

3. The best counterplans are PICs and other counterplans that are cut to beat specific affs. That being said, I do find some PICs (especially on this topic) to be extremely abusive so I will be sympathetic towards the aff on a PICs bad theory debate.

4. Presumption flips aff when you read a CP.

5. Affirmatives always freak out when they hit a CP they don't have blocks to but your advantages are there for a reason, its not hard to write specific deficits during the 1NC.

Theory

I dislike generic theory debates. I do not think anything but condo/extremely abusive PICs is a reason to reject the team but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is extreme in-round abuse or the other team straight-up drops it.

It will take a lot to convice me to vote aff on condo in a one/two conditional off debate. Three conditional off can start getting more legit in novice. Four and plus and sure I'll listen.

1. Risk matters most when evaluating a DA. The affirmative arguments are made to give me skepticism in the internal links and the negatives job is to mitigate that by link work and turns case debating implicating affirmative solvency.

2. DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact arguments are presented. If not present in the block, the 1AR will get new answers. I also need a full scenario in the 2NR for me to vote on.

3. When the DA is the best utilized is the 1NR. Very hard for the 1AR when 1NR gets 5 minutes to read a slew of cards answering all 2AC claims.

Case

1. Yes you can win on a straight-up presumption ballot. This type of ballot is not popular anymore but it should be. Too many teams get away with reading an affirmative with no specific evidence or internal links. This was especially prevalent on the criminal justice reform topic but it is still a problem on the water topic too. Teams will highlight evidence terribly and act like the solve it even though it makes no sense, especially against the K. K teams should take advantage of this. Ex. aff that talks about financing technologies- solvency advocates will mention one type of technology but the advantage area will be about a different kind. Neg teams call this out and go for presumption.

2. Affirmative teams must answer all case arguments not merely by extending their impact again but by answering the warrants in the card. Most policy teams just say "doesn't assume our x" without refuting the warrants in the card.

Argument Preferences

1. Don't really care what you read in front of me. Though I've spent the vast majority of my high school career in the K realm, and probably because of that, I've thought about most policy answers to the K so either side can make sense to me. However, it is your job as debaters to ensure a technical win, and ensure my job is to solely evaluate the flow.

2. If you are going to read the K in front of me, please do it well. Because I've seen the K debated at some of the highest levels, it's annoying to see it butchered.

3. I'm fine for policy v policy throw-downs. These debates are often much easier to resolve as one team almost always clearly wins on the flow and are much easier to understand.

Speaker Points

(This is also not stolen from Pranay... but hey I needed some of my own takes on speaks)

I find myself giving speaks on the higher end. Ways to improve your speaks include:

Being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, make fun of anyone I know.

Cross-ex can be a great way to improve speaks, however, there's a thin line between being competetive and just being rude and I have no shame in docking speaks if you choose to be a jerk.

It irks me when debaters claim their opponents "dropped" something when I have it on my flow. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and you don't flow an argument or something similar. However (comma) if it becomes a recurring problem in a speech I will dock speaks each time it happens.

Also, I will yell "clear" three times, if you choose not to slow down or be clear I will start docking speaks. If you are speaking faster than I can move my pen or type then don't complain when I didn't catch something on my flow. "I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it." - Blake Deng

I’m not an LD person, so keep things as simple and direct as possible.

I sorta know what a value criterion is.

You gotta do more weighing in phil debates.

Now on a technicality I’m probably best for the K, however, because policy speech times are longer, I tend to look for more warranted comparisons by the end of the debate. Also, I just have high standards for explanations.

I refuse to vote on something I don’t comfortably understand.

Important thing to remember is I was a policy debater NOT and LD debater. Lucky for you, my face says it all, if I look confused, I am confused, please just make me not confused. Also, NO TRICKS.

Jeremy santora Hire

Last changed on Tue March 21, 2023 at 9:44 AM EDT

Email for the chain: Jsantor9@binghamton.edu

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I debate at Binghamton (MS). Currently in my 6th year of policy debate. I do primarily k debate so i've probably read, or at least am familiar with, whatever literature base you choose to read. That also means i probably have some bar for good execution of the strategy. Like wise, for the more policy-oriented people, i've seen a lot of answers to Ks, some good and some bad, so that bar also exists for you as well. That means, do what you do best, don't over adapt too much to whatever I put below.

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. I tend to think that institutions/systems/entities, etc. have historical existence (for instance, "historical capitalism") which binds their coming-into-Being (past) to their Being (present). That is to say that violence isn't just an ethical choice in a vacuum, but something that accumulates through the reproduction of its existence over time and through space. that means that hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

Affs probably get a perm, theortetically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for a debate.
A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

Joe Schatz Hire

Last changed on Sat September 6, 2014 at 9:28 AM EDT

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals.

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

Katy Shonka Berkeley Preparatory School

Hannah Stafford SA Harlem West

Samuel Stiller Hire

Matthew James Stinson Hire

Last changed on Sat March 4, 2023 at 9:00 AM EDT

Dawson '21 in Houston

Tufts University '25

Debating as a Hybrid with Harvard as Tufts

Please put me in the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about debating at Tufts: mattjstinson2003@gmail.com

TLDR:

pref me Clash> Kvk > Policy and give me a card doc after the round

Please do not over adapt to my paradigm. You do you and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my ability. I always hate when judges strongly inflict their biases into decisions so I try to be as non-intervention as possible. This is just my rambling thoughts about debate.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and buddhism on the neg, but in college I am a 1A/2N reading Buddhism-based args

I want to judge Buddhism debates and if you read it in front of me and go for it guaranteed 30 regardless of W or L

I am a huge fan of argument innovation - make cool and original args and Ill reward you with extra high speaks

I like reading ev but pls do the work for me - if you frame your arguments clearly and basically write the ballot for me you will be far ahead.

Im kinda of a points fairy and reward debaters who are funny and make the debate enjoyable and educational.

Finally, please just be nice to each other. I understand debate can be competitive at times, but try your best to be respectful and kind to your opponents. Problematic behavior, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, is completely unacceptable and will result in immediate judge intervention to ensure the safety of debaters.

Specifics:

Neg Ks:

Im a middle of the road judge for these rounds. My favorite debates to judge and debate in are big stick policy affs vs ks

I default to weighing the aff vs a solvent alt or the impacts of the link unless I am convinced otherwise. The best way to get my ballot running a k is to have plan-specific links with clearly articulated impacts, applying the theory of power to attack aff solvency, and having a solvent alt that resolves the impacts of the link. Generally speaking, generic links or links of the status quo are fine but I'd prefer more.

I have experience with buddhism, settler colonialism, orientalism, and cybernetics and I am familiar with most lit bases but if you are reading some rando pomo stuff ima need some explanation.

If you go for buddhism in front of me it's an instant 30 regardless of W or L

K Affs/FW:

In an equally debated round, I slightly lean neg on fw. But rounds are never equally debated, so i find myself often voting for k affs.

Generally speaking, the closer you are to the resolution, the better. If you are reading a k of the topic or the sort, I personally believe that is reasonably predictable. On the flip, if you are reading a non-related k aff, the neg would not have to do alot to win on FW.

I think a lot of reasonably predictable K affs screw themselves by going for an unnecessarily large counter-interp - remember its not what your aff does but what your model justifies.

I believe for me personally debate is a game in which in-round education and fairness matter but I understand others view and gain different things from the activity . The most convincing FW arguments on the aff for me are clever counter interps or impact turns/k's of framework. On the neg, i tend to think education/skills/clash arguments are more strategic but i am willing to vote on procedural fairness if its impacted out.

Clash>Education/Skills> Fairness

A sad trend I see in policy is teams just refusing to engage with k affs even if they are reasonably predictable under the resolutional mechanism. Ill reward a smart strat thats not FW or Cap like Buddhism

Presumption as a strat is kinda underrated and Id be more than happy to vote for it if there isnt any clear ballot key warrant

CPs:

Some of my favorite args in debate are clever process cps or pics. At the same time, my most hated arguments are perennial troll cps like con con or consult nato

2Ns honestly get away with murder with a lot of these shady cps. 2As hold the line on theory and call out these abusive cp texts

I tend to lean neg on condo at 4 options and below, states fiat, and process cp theory and aff on international fiat, condo above 5 options, and consult/conditions cp.

I usually judge kick unless given a reason not to

Theory is usually not a voter unless the 2nr goes for the arg in question (this excludes condo)

ill vote on condo but im also a reasonable person.

DAs:

Generally speaking, the more ev the better

Impact calc and a good cp/case push is key to get my ballot on a da

Turns case is also a good idea

Case

I have a soft spot for squirrelly affs that interpret the topic in an exciting way

Case debating is underrated - 99% of affs can get destroyed if u just do more than the bare minimum to answer them

Case turns are good and you should be reading lots of them in your 1nc

a trend im noticing with policy affs is alot of them read just god awful impact scenarios - neg pls dont drop them or ill be sad

a lot of case debating is just tagline extensions with rly no argumentative interaction - pls give warrants

go for an impact turn on case :)

I tend to lean competing interps.

To easily win my ballot, treat t like a disad and have a coherent story for why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents

Im not likely to vote for bottom of the barrel args like ASPEC or disclosure

if u hide procedurals ima prob not flow it and if i do realize it ur getting a 25

Misc

I'm fine with the death K

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds or performances involving psychedelic videos

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts and ill up your speaks

I believe the ballot can only remedy who did the better debating - anything else is reflected in speaks

Nba references are much appreciated but don't say you're the Lebron of HS debate

LD:

K>Larp> T/Theory > Phil > Tricks

TBH i dont know how to give speaks in LD so ill prob default to 29.4 and go from there

generally speaking the closer your are to policy the better

I find phil and tricks debates make me want to slam my head into my desk

Ive noticed a lot of lders are borderline unflowable - do pen drills or slow down and be clear

Basically ditto my policy thoughts here

Ditto my policy thoughts - closer you are to policy the better

i have not seen a good k debate in pf and its likely i never will

I have seen some decent theory debates but they are not fun to judge

Peter Susko Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Mon September 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM EDT

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Eli T. Louis Hire

Last changed on Mon October 10, 2022 at 8:18 PM EDT

e-mail chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Heyyyy, I’m Eli! I debated for Brooklyn Tech and currently debate for Binghamton University.

Top of the line: I view everything through ethos, and/or the lack of it (this hurts you). I vote for the team who best articulates a politic that shows an understanding of the world beyond the technicalities and jargon of a space that’s often rooted in academic isolation.

Speed: If I yell clear twice, more than likely I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, if it comes down to the flow, please make sure I understand the important points. For your sake, not mine.

T/Framework: I don’t think all frameworks are bad. I think there are ways in which you can run a procedural as a proper methodology to contest the aff’s solvency mechanism. So, T-USFG: that’s fine (sometimes convincing), and I think frameworks that are about materiality and embodiment are good, valid, and the best.

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

I like Critical CPs.

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. In order to justify a win with the DA, I require a very clear and concise link story as well as impact comparison to justify the DA being a takeout to the aff's solvency. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... this feels like a huge FYI and still don't know why I should care..

-----

The K-

Aff: It honestly depends on the type of aff and the subject position defended by the 1AC (assuming there is a defense). There needs to be a link to the resolution in some way for me. If not, then you need to clearly defend why an anti-resolutional stasis point is net better for engagement. POMO: I require an advocacy that could easily be materialized or understood in a way that I can intuitively see it solving for the impacts. Identity Based-K's: to win my ballot, you have to win that your methodology is grounded in alleviating the structural violence faced by the bodies you speak of (as opposed to being an 8-minute FYI).

Affs I’m more inclined to: Black feminism, anti-Blackness, queer/transness, ableism/disability.

Neg: I think it’s important for content and form to be aligned. I require strong ethos in order to properly evaluate the impacts of the K. Judge instruction is key because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to (unless told otherwise) Examples and analogies would be best for a pomo round. Identity-based Ks: I’m probably familiar with your literature, but I will not do the work for you.

Performance: It’s interesting. Similar to what I said about K-Affs, I need some type of link to the resolution. Also, know this: just because you think your art is cool or creative, does not make it new or good. It’s important to stay on point (no. 2 pencil) as there’s a higher threshold for how the kritik can actualize (in a round) due to its deviation from normative debate. So, make sure to be consistent in each speech- because your stylistic choice in itself is also a critique. Lastly, be strategic and use your 1AC to leverage the offense from the negative.

-----

Theory: No one reads it properly for me. Divert from only using shells and apply it to the performances of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate the importance of this voter. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. I think this space is often missing on good humor. So, a good gag or laugh will boost your speaks.

Also, any rhetoric that defaults to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I have the complete right to drop you and end the round. I do not care

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down

Jacob Thomas Success Academy East Flatbush Middle

Last changed on Wed December 7, 2022 at 8:08 AM EDT

Gene Thomas

Debated at the University of Kansas 2016-2020

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

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

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

FW/K affs

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

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

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

DAs

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

CPs

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

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

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

Maddock Thomas Boston Latin Academy HS

Last changed on Wed February 22, 2023 at 9:28 AM EDT

Willkommen! And bienvenue! Welcome!

Brown '26, Decatur '22

Please add me to the email chain - maddockpublic@gmail.com ( and - debatedecatur@gmail.com)

Any questions, please ask.

~~Water~~ (NATO)Thoughts:

No topic knowledge but NATO is silly and so is technology so wadya gonna do

Some first things first:

I'll judge pretty much any debate. Anything about specific args below shouldn't weigh too heavily on your in-round strats. The most important thing is that you make your best decisions and have fun.

If anyone during the round is being rude or disrespectful to anyone else or being discriminatory then your speaks will drop like the Nasdaq and I'll probably find it harder for myself to be persuaded by your args.

If I can't understand you, I won't flow you. If you're in Novice, don't be pretending you're Maddox Gates. I'll probably yell clear a few times before I stop flowing. (But not online - it's too disruptive)

A few of my general thoughts on things:

I don't think you need a card for everything - a well-warranted and thoughtful analytic can be just as useful as cards in many cases.

I'm not terribly decided on whether fairness is or is not an impact - you can argue either side, from my view this has to be debated within round if it comes to it. (Edit: Fairness is an Impact)

If you're going for 'fairness' on a theory flow, make sure your impact calculus is more robust than just saying the word fairness, it has to be contextualized to the debate space (or outside of).

Of course I'm happy to judge another topic if both teams agree ;)

On Case:

It's good, the neg should contest it.

For the aff, please leverage it against negative positions.

Turns are great, double turns aren't.

On T:

I drink it.

Topicality can be one of the best and worst 2nr/2ar debates. I default to competing interpretations like anyone else, but you can win reasonability under the right circumstances. Creative T interps with good definitions are fun.

On the K™:

You need to defend why your approach is better.

Saying large words fast does not make you the smartest person in round.

I am very unlikely to vote on a K if:

1. You cannot explain your alt well.

2. You clearly do not understand your literature and are just reading from blocks.

3. You have not impacted out why the K means you win the debate - It means nothing to me if you just tell me the 'aff is securitising' in the 2nr.

K affs:

I think the neg underestimates the power of presumption against a lot to these affs. T-USfg is fine, but like, there are other topicality arguments out there. Much rather hear a 2NR on something I haven't heard before.

On CPs:

CPs are cool.

Please kick your own CPs. If you must - tell me I should kick yours.

I will not vote for you if the only thing you do is "solve better". Have a net benefit.

On DAs:

At this point my objection to the politics DA is mostly joking; I don't love it but it's ingrained at this point.

The more case-specific your links or the story you can tell, the better.

2As can and should meme on bad DAs by pointing out failures in the internal link chains. Smart args will be rewarded.

About Theory and so on:

I think theory args are excellent, but, especially in novice, I need your args clearly impacted and extended throughout the debate in order for me to vote on them.

Why is condo a reason to reject the team and all others a reason to reject the arg? (Just something that has become a norm and is worth thinking about for both aff and neg before you get into a theory round)

If they drop your theory argument and it was just a blippy 1nc or 2ac line, I will likely allow for a response later in the round. But if it's a decent shell and extended - don't be afraid to extend.

If your opponent drops your theory argument, you need to tell me why that matters - don't just say 'they dropped X' and move on. Extensions include warrants!!!

Some stuff generally and also from people who have influenced my debate philosophy:

If you can go the whole debate without saying something ending in ology or ism you get all of the speaks.

Jokes are great and encouraged if done correctly.

Showing me you have a great knowledge of your case or off-case position will boost your speaks

Make the top pocket purple and/or in a foreign language and I'll boost your speaks by +.2

Andrew Tinoco Hire None

Alexander Torres Hire None

Kevin Trant Whitney M. Young Magnet High School

Last changed on Sat March 11, 2023 at 2:00 AM CDT

When it comes to K versus policy, I prefer K debates. I went to graduate school for philosophy and have coached debate in CPS for 8 years, but was never a debater. As a result I am probably considerably less technical than other judges and just want to see good argumentation. I personally think this happens when we have a clear understanding of our epistemology.

I would much prefer to judge a round where there is a lot of clash on the flow and indicts on the other team's evidence than a round in which a team overwhelms the other team with lots of advantages or CPs. K debates can be equally bad for education when they involve half-understood ideas of So, if you're running a K or K Aff, please avoid relying solely on philosophical jargon. I think the best debaters are the ones who combine their technical of knowledge of debate with common sense and some semblance of rhetorical skill.

Counterplans are fine. If you run them be sure you can clearly articulate how the plan links to the net benefit. I think there are good reasons to consider theory arguments like condo and PICs bad.

I'm ok with speed, but I prefer debaters who slow down on analytics and theory arguments. Getting your arguments out in the 1AC/1NC should sound different from explaining why the perm fails or explaining why topicality should be a voter.

I think storytelling is important. I want you to be able to explain to me why you are winning the debate. I have two reasons for believing this: 1. I think this is an essential thinking and communication skill, 2. If you throw spaghetti at the wall and ask me to interpret it, I'm afraid that I won't interpret it correctly. Don't leave the round up to my interpretation; write my ballot for me.

I like a nice, tight DA with a carefully explained link story. Sometimes Ptix DAs get a little wild, but as long as you can sell the story, I'm willing to go along with it as a convention of debate, but would probably be sympathetic to an aff team that highlights the probability of the link chain or the quality of the evidence.

At heart I'm just a simple English teacher, so I will give extra speaker points for citing Shakespeare in any of your speeches. MUST FIT WITH THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING! I've also been reading the philosopher, Byung-Chul Han find a way to bring his ideas into the round and you will get all the speaks.

No tag team please!

Kjtrant@cps.edu

Arden Traynor Success Academy Harlem North Central

Last changed on Mon February 27, 2023 at 8:26 AM EDT

I coach policy debate at Success Academy Harlem North Central. arden dot traynor at saschools dot org for the chain.

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

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

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

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

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

5. I'm a New Yorker. I talk fast, and I can keep up with fast talking. That said, I can really only tolerate spreading if you keep your tags and authors s l o w. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amanda Treulich Hire

Aimee Trivino Hire

Bailey Trudell Hire

Rosie Valdez Little Rock Central

Last changed on Fri October 8, 2021 at 11:39 AM CDT

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

Michael Wahlen Boston Collegiate Charter School

William Wang Hire

Vikki Ware Success Academy Ditmas Park Middle School

Ryan Westwood SA Harlem East

Last changed on Fri March 3, 2023 at 3:50 PM EDT

I have 8 years of debate experience in total, primarily through Public Forum coaching and competition, Congress coaching and competition, and British Parliamentary competition. My college education is in public policy research methods.

Chain: ryan.westwood@saschools.org

(I probably won't look unless there are clash-relevant evidence issues at the end)

ALL DEBATE EVENTS

Debate is a privilege. Help make it more accessible. It’s concerning to me that debate is being almost universally personalized and gate-kept by absurd barriers to entry like pre-round disclosure, spreading, tricks, and exclusive identity politics.
If you are citing studies, especially to quantify stuff, I care about the methodology. I like properly represented statistics and methodological criticism.
PLEASE have an offline means of evidence-sharing (there is an ancient technology called the "flash drive" for this purpose), in case there are connection issues.
Paper-based/in-round-disclosure debating (if any of you are still out there...): Evidence must be provided to opponents on request. The requesting team's prep time starts when the requested evidence is received, and, if there is only one copy of the evidence, it must be returned to the opponent when prep time is stopped.
I have a bias toward traditional debate vs. progressive debate, especially if it centers on exclusive (and usually reductive) identity politics in a vacuum. It seems to always throw objectivity out the window. Also, debate is inherently zero-sum, so identity debates are bound to devolve into harmful ad hominem nonsense, with teams assigning identities and non-identities to each other and indicting them accordingly. I’ll do my best to objectively evaluate these debates, but you will almost always lose me if your advocacy revolves around nihilism. Please at least try to make your assigned role as Aff or Neg matter, and--if it's PF or LD--avoid advancing plans.
[TLDR: "Theory" about the rules of debate is usually nonsense to me, and I recommend you stay away from it.] The NSDA has already set evidence rules, including one which explicitly permits paraphrasing and none requiring anything beyond in-round disclosure on request. So, advocating for new evidence rules in-round is like advocating for new speech time limits in-round: it is paradoxical and unfair to opponents who acted on the official rules vs. the ones you are making up. Unless explicitly contradicted by the tournament-specific rules, the NSDA rules are what new competitors, new coaches, and local-circuit/small-school teams, at least, are presumed to look at when making decisions about whether to paraphrase, etc., so I have a difficult time seeing rules "theory" as having the impact of inclusion. AND it's almost impossible for you to stay topical, because it doesn't matter which evidence is more reputable if you aren't providing any evidence for me to compare, AND your position as Aff or Neg becomes irrelevant once you devote your entire case to off-topic rules "theory". All that being said, I think debate is fundamentally about creativity and not necessarily about winning or losing, so I will never hold a grudge or stop listening just because you are running rules "theory", especially if you acknowledge the official rules and make the argument relevant to your assigned role in the debate.

Policy:

The average intelligent voter’s Truth > Tech
I am relatively new to advanced policy. Treat me as a flay judge. If you use policy-specific jargon beyond the basics (burdens), explain plainly and briefly what it means for my flow. You can speak fast, but please do not spread (stay at or below ~300wpm). I don't want to read your evidence, I want to hear it.
I may ask to see evidence if there is unresolved clash between sources. If I find out your evidence is misrepresented, I will ignore any of your arguments that touch it. Misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair.

Public Forum:

PF is built to be an accessible debate. You can speak fast, but please do not spread (stay at or below ~300wpm). I don't want to read your evidence, I want to hear it.

The closest thing you have to fiat power is setting a relevant framework. Give me something to weigh early if you don’t have a case framework. A debate is won by the team which wins as outlined or implied by the better-justified framework/weighing.

Principles are valid impacts if well-justified and clashed appropriately against other impacts.

I may ask to see evidence if there is unresolved clash between sources. If I find out your evidence is misrepresented, I will ignore any of your arguments that touch it. Misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair.

The average intelligent voter’s Truth > Tech.

DJ Williams Berkeley Preparatory School

DavidMichael Woodward Hire

Last changed on Wed March 8, 2023 at 11:59 AM EDT

***Background***

2nd year as Assistant Director of Debate with Binghamton University, previously coached & debated at GMU. Been involved in Policy Debate in some fashion since 2009.

Conflicts- Broome County Debate Alliance/Binghamton City Schools, George Mason University, Binghamton University

If I am judging you for high school tournaments (like Harvard) know I have 0 high school topic knowledge, so explanation is very important/necessary.

***TL;DR Version (Bolded is the even more efficient version***

I prefer you do what you're best at. I will adjust accordingly. Outside of hateful/problematic rhetoric anything on my paradigm can be changed with good enough debating. But to give some context, when I debated did mostly policy, with some critical debate towards the end. Coaching wise have coached at all levels and various styles, outside of novice the past 2 years was more focused with critical teams.

Clarity > Speed but that is obvious, go as fast as you think you can continue to be clear, I'll tell you to be clear if you aren't because my hearing isn't the greatest.

I do want to be on the email chain (woodward@binghamton.edu) (It is fine to use my old email if you already have it) just let me know which you're using before the round starts.

Don't say offensive things, I reserve the right to end debates IF I think an issue has gone too far or is inappropriate for the situation at hand

Online Debate Specific - tl;dr do what makes you the most comfortable. Cameras on or off I don't care, I want whatever makes you speak at your clearest point. Likewise I will be doing what ensures my connection and clarity is at its best. This may mean my camera is off sometimes. IF it is off, wait for verbal confirmation before starting speeches. I do plan to have my camera on barring bad internet however.

Explanation >>>> More Evidence, I generally rely on the debater's words, not the evidence. I am not as grumpy about reading cards as I was a few years ago, BUT I still prefer to defer to your words, versus reading your evidence. Being even more direct; explain your arguments!

For critical teams it is because I am not super familiar with your literature bases (though this is better than in the past, a perk of being at Bing), so I appreciate real world examples and analysis.

For Policy teams this means explaining concepts/acronyms. Yes I will have done policy research on personhood, but outside of Bing novice/jv needs this will not be my main research focus during the year- assume I don't know what most acronyms mean for the topic and explain accordingly.

Thoughts after Kentucky/the various Regional tournaments in October

- I'm normally a person who's very much pro small affs/unique affs on the topic (throwback to the Single Payer/Carbon Tax topics) because I enjoy seeing what unique things people can come up with. That being said some of the affs i'm seeing seem a tiny bit ridiculous. On the other hand I would like to see a bit more specification in terms of the right or duty (or multiple) of what the aff does at a given time

- Counterplans seem a bit weird on the topic- def need more explanation or sit down time on what they actually do or how they differ from the affirmative.

Thoughts leading up to remaining end of year tournaments (Jv/Novice Nats, CEDA, NDT)

This topic is huge. I don't think this really has led me to really want to demand a smaller topic in the future, but IT does make me sympathetic to well done topicality/specification arguments- there should be some checks. Likewise I think negatives are in a weird spot because I think a lot of counterplan direction, mostly the number of them, is getting ridiculous but being neg is hard on this topic but I think there's easier ways to capitalize on these affirmatives versus reading 3-4 conditional worlds. Doesn't really change what I think since it's ultimately up to y'all but just something I wanted to throw out there.

K Wise: I'm increasingly leaning towards wanting more engagement with affs, I do think more options, or even just more of case debates or DA/CP debates (when applicable) would be nice. Maybe i'm getting tired of the same old framework debates, maybe it's something I'm missing- but while my views on framework haven't changed (it's a viable, needed argument and sometimes fairness is an impact) I feel as though this topic has shifted me in ways that I think more case debate is even more important than it already is in these debates.

***Novice Debate***

Is good and appreciated, and needs more support. I will give any/all arguments their proper weight, Thresholds may be adjusted/slightly more forgiving than in higher divisions. Try to make things fun because that is what novice debate is all about.

***Topicality***

Is a voter

Hard for me to vote aff if no we meet/counter-interpretation is extended

Hard for me to vote neg if no standards/interpretation are extended

I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability

End of/Start of Season/Core aff etc. type of arguments are not persuasive, generally technical debating will always beat out my personal feelings on what is or isn't topical.

Personhood topic takes (going into NDT/JVNov/CEDA): Topic large, I'm prob willing to vote on Subsets or some sort of brightline for topics but I think that teams having to defend some large part of nature/AI/non-human animals is more persuasive than every Role/Duty.

***Counterplans***

I reward teams punishing aff mistakes. This means exploiting things that aff authors say in the 8 sized font, or later in the article. Not there's no fed action key card in the 1AC.

Judge kick is asinine and is part of the cause of neg terrorism in policy debates. That being said IF neg says I get to judge kick and aff doesn't say no I will, but any aff pushback makes it unlikely I kick the CP for the negative.

Aff leaning on most theory questions

I like smart/specialized permutations versus generic perm do both that morphs in the 1AR.

**Important Theory Notes** - Can be persuaded that anything but perm theory = reason to reject, however the more absurd the theoretical objection the more work you'll have to do. Limited Condo is good, more than 2 condo is bad unless the aff is new (which ups this to 3). Kicking counterplan planks is always bad. New Aff/NDT/Northwestern means neg gets to do what they want is not an argument.

I am very much in the aff's corner on checking against neg ridiculousness in terms of counterplan practices. That being said I am not an auto Aff ballot on theory. Affs need to invest adequate time to win these debates. Negative teams need to invest actual time into defending 3+ worlds, or kicking planks, etc. in a counterplan. I don't vote on theory often, usually because either not enough time was spent on it or key defense/offense is dropped. But I do when the aff capitalizes on mistakes + has clearly impacted out why it means neg loses the debate.

***Disadvantages***

Are good- I enjoy a clear DA + Case debate (I don't know who wouldn't)

Up to the debater to tell me if the link or uniqueness determine each other and what that means.

I will listen to/vote on politics DAs but general args about how unlikely it is to work or happen are persuasive.

I will still vote on Midterms but full disclosure, "it's too early/can't predict IS very persuasive vs this DA carded or not in front of me.

Analytics can beat a bad DA/bad ev.

***Critiques***

I coach at Bing now that should answer this question a bit. That being said I am perfectly fine with critiques but admittedly still have a long way to go on knowing the ins/outs of what your lit says. I will always give it a fair shake. You more than likely will know the lit better than I do. That being said;

The easiest way to get my ballot is to explain your argument - Even IF I understand what you're saying the burden is on you to explain it. Teams who have won my ballot with critical arguments on the negative have done one OR more of the following

Good line by line/tech
Excellent explanation/contextualization of their argument to the affirmative
instructed me on what to do and how to evaluate rounds using your method/alt.

I don't need an alt to vote neg, I need instruction. Tell me the story of your arg, how it interacts with debate and how it impacts the aff. Give me link analysis using empirics and cx and the aff's own evidence. Tell me a story, I am very persuaded by real world impacts in these debates. BE SPECIFIC. The easier I can tie your articulation to the aff, the easier it is for me.

That being said for the policy team (or other critical team) on the aff. Don't run away from these debates. As long as it isn't unethical/offensive, defend your aff. If you are saying heg good, go for heg good. IF you say econ markets good/economic collapse bad, trying to link turn cap makes less sense than just saying Cap good. Do not run away from links, just defend your affirmative.

***Critical Affs/Clash Debates***

Aff should be in the direction of the topic and do something

Aff should explain how/what they do, the impact and why I should vote for you - remember I don't know your arg better than you

IF, as an Aff team you say in 1AC CX that X DA links to your aff, it will not bode well if that turns out to be a lie (unless the neg just doesn't read a link). Have OFFENSE that is specific to your aff to weigh vs framework/other arguments, but having some defense is never a bad thing (Impact Defense to neg standards is a big thing for me)

Defense in these debates wins debates- I see too many instances where a team drops offense or has 0 defense on a critical internal link/impact from the other side's framing. I feel that in all circumstances you need some sort of defense.

Framing is important - judge instruction/role of judge etc. can go a long way to overcoming technical drops if the other team doesn't contest them.

Neg stuff

Fairness/Ground more persuasive on framework than portable skills type of standards.

Aff specific K/DA/case arg > Framework > Generic K in terms of options

Unless it's dropped the aff gets the perm, the arguments against it haven't seemed as persuasive as simply winning a DA or link to your argument from the permutation.

Framing is important- judge instruction, role of judge arguments, etc. need to be responded to or otherwise included in impact calc, there is a world where those arguments can be presented in a way persuasive enough to have me ignore/prioritize technical drops a bit less than normal.

***Not-Policy Formats***

Treat me like a judge who flows but has done very little, usually 0 topic research, more explanation is key but is fine with faster speaking, policyesque strategies, etc..

Parli/Lincoln Douglas Debate - I know little about either of these, other than speech times. at most I have read some random articles, have judged some LD debate but have never coached OR participated myself. Just tell me how to vote, what's important and what is involved. I'm ok with Policy LD because most of my background is in policy. I will have not done topic research.

Public Forum - Spring 2021 was my last time actively being involved/researching or coaching Public Forum debate outside of helping at some summer camps/back when I was in High School. I will flow, I don't care about speed but I also am not used to what has changed about PF since 2009.

Based on my judging history I have learned 2 things.

1. I generally vote in a "lazy" way, not lazy as in i don't pay attention/flow but lazy as in the team who best tells me what to do, whether that is via a framework argument, impact analysis or simply the other team dropped x arg, this is most important thing in round, is more than likely to win. You are also likely to lose if your Final Focus is less about why you should win and more on responding to the other team. Points are usually higher in the debates where at least 1 team does the needed work versus ones where the teams do not direct me to a way to evaluate my ballot

2. in the world of online debate I do not like the trend of simply copying-pasting a link, OR a card w/o citations, etc into the online platform chat. As a result I've decided to try something new for PF.

Teams who share evidence in ways that are not simply pasting a link/unformatted card in the zoom/NSDA chat will gain bonus speaks in front of me.

.2 for using/sharing a google doc

.5 for using email chains (for the entire round)

1 full point if proof of updating your wiki/online with the round that was just judged

May keep this bonus to incentivize better evidence practices once we go offline again, stay tuned.

3. I generally am down for whatever yall can justify, just impact it well

But overall, just do what you do best.

***Misc Things that will apply regardless of debate format***

Don't troll debates- we all have invested time into being there for the period of time, would make my life easier if you wanted to forfeit/flip a coin/play a game/something vs running meme/joke args for no reason. If you do so you get a loss 15, if you do it but you're funny you get a 25 instead. Don't waste my and your opponent's time please.

Be nice

Clarity > Speed

Tech > Truth (within reason)

Should be a given but don't say racist/offensive things.

Please don't cheat, if you do and you're caught, all proper things via the tournament will be pursued. IF you accuse someone of cheating and are wrong just don't.

Long overviews that attempt to replace line by line are not it, please do not do them - need direct line by line for best results.

Explain your args- spin/analysis means a C+/B- card can beat an A card with no spin. I try not to read evidence unless I absolutely have to, OR if the work to compare the pieces is done

Bonus speaks (to my discretion) to good League of Legends, Pokemon Unite or Smash Bros references/jokes.

Lynn Yeboah Hire None

Leah Yeshitila Hire

Last changed on Fri July 8, 2022 at 8:51 AM CDT

note - this is for the odi camp tournament
hi ! my name is leah (you can call me leah or leyu, either is fine - she/her !) and i used to be a debater at garland high school. i semifinaled the TOC, accumulated 6 bids, and won TFA state.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - leahyeshitila03@gmail.com

note for nsd - keep the round education! i will evaluate anything because i know prefs dont operate in the same way as typical tournaments, however obviously consider the implications of your arguments and ensure they arent problematic. im looking forward to helping all of you!

*updated note - dont presume someone cannot read disability pess because they dont "seem disabled" - additionally asking in cx is probably bad

my experiences

i am most comfortable with LARP/K/T/Theory positions. the kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however positions like deleuze, baudrillard, grove, psychoanalysis, honestly pretty much any k lit base are positions i have learned enough to evaluate these debates well enough, just be sure to explain everything well. ive gone for t/theory alot to so do your thing : )

my favorite kinds of debate (for this specific tournament)

- short cut

1 - K

1 - theory/t

2 - LARP

2 - high theory

3 - phil/friv theory

4 - tricks v tricks (tricks other than that - 2)

LARP v K

K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework - look at patrick fox's paradigm for a good explanation of this)

LARP v LARP - im fine for this but i dont do in depth research about the political implications of the topic - largely just the kritikal ones. keep that in mind while using jargon or abbreviations.

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory however.

non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! i think these debates should be conscious about content warnings however. i expect good t-framework interactions. additionally, i appreciate the performance of these debates, but theres a fine line between being petty and embodying the literature in a good/fun way and being rude especially to younger debaters - be conscious of that line!

my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)

tricks. full stop. :)

disclosure policies

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

debate opinions (take them as you will)

2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc - all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.

3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.

5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.

5 - please weigh.

6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices!

7 - simones takes i find extremely compelling/i find myself agreeing with a lot of it in terms of the nature of being respectful to different race, genders, and socioeconomic locations of debaters. - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=77592

things i like to see/good speaks !

1 - collapsing !!

2 - GOOD 2nrs on framework

3 - making fun at the admin/instructors at ODI

4 - if you happen to be black

5 - make the round fun or interesting

notes

1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no

2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun !

3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive ! try not to be rude, as we have been having trouble with it.

4 - i personally dont appreciate the death k being read in debate

Eric Youngquist The Avery Coonley School

Last changed on Wed February 22, 2023 at 10:33 AM CDT

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for five years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last two.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the CX can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

That being said, I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need Klash.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but I much prefer to stick to the case. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and make sure the link is solid. Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

David Zhai Canyon Crest Academy

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 1:30 PM EDT

Email: djzhaistore@gmail.com

Former pf/policy k debater, judging mostly policy, other events scroll to bottom.

TLDR: do what you do, make my life judging easy and I will boost speaks/affect the ballot. I like to see good preround strategy and understanding of what arguments will win you the round. Flexibility is a double-edged sword, and I like to see debaters who comfortably commit to their strongest arguments. Open to some level of postrounding, but is intended to be productive for you debaters. I won't pretend to be a slate, but I doubt any idea I strongly hold will affect my ballot. I am not good at sugarcoating rfds, do know that I respect every debater and their efforts and wish only the best to anyone in debate seeking to improve.

Everything below is how I perceive policy debate, take the implications for your round in particular with a grain of salt, I have a bad habit of being very fluid in my judging and it's hard to extrapolate judging intuition I’ve developed to concrete overarching views. I tend to shy away from debate jargon as much as possible, I think policy has evolved lots of buzzwords that I hold my nose voting on. I think there's more interesting ways to debate beyond prewritten "fairness, clash, education" blocks. I think about interesting arguments beyond a single round etc. I dislike the norm of the burden of a judge to be a calculator of sorts.

Obligatory evidence ethics blip here. I may judgekick args dependent on egregiously read cards. It shouldn't be a burden of the other team to call out bad ev, but I will reward teams that do so. It really shouldn't be my responsibility either, if you haven't read your own cards beyond highlights, it's on you. Sad cards = sad judge :(

CPs:

I tend to think condo leans neg. the winning aff on condo sufficiently points out to how neg limits the ability of aff to have any offense anywhere. Perms test competition, group redundant ones, it makes my life easier. I think aff has much stricter burdens, probably lean towards judge kicking 90% of the time. 1NC cardless cps annoy me.

K/fw:

Link debate goes on top of K and if I don't see links in the 2ar/2nr something has probably gone quite wrong. Framework tends to be more boring to judge than link debate. Make the K do the work, not fw. The K should directly indict and answer questions typically debated on fw. Role of judge and role of ballot mostly go over my head. They usually just blanket some claims to obligatory debate ethics without addressing the other.

I get irritated by affs that are wishy washy with separating barriers in the squo from actualizing the ballot. "Debate space" "model" args have gotten quite meta but I constantly get the feeling that debaters would rather debate about that than debate in said debate spaces.

I don't judge performance affs that much, that said, I have no implicit reasons against voting for one.

Don't give me a subpar spreaded philosophy lecture posing to be relevant to the ballot please.

T/theory:

Run T like a DA, I like good T debate as much as the next guy. TVAs are fun, call out lazy K affs. That said when it comes to definition/contextual comparison please put in legwork to contextualize why I should take a certain card at face value. I dislike seeing carded definitions come out from completely irrelevant contexts (on this topic the most funny so far is citing unclos for "in the areas" when it refers to physical land) to push some abusive model to moot the aff. Theory should be a serious callout; I like efficient responses to trivial theory (E.g. running disclosure against a generic aff). I haven't yet dropped anyone on condo or disclosure absent it being completely dropped so if that's your "strats" maybe strike me.

Misc:

Terminology and jargon is the bane of persuasive debate. I’m not caught up on a lot of jargon and it is my belief that it shouldn’t matter. make the purpose of your argument clear, and anything else should be irrelevant.

I think spreading to some extent has become a necessary evil to lots of debaters. prewritten blocks/theory/T etc a lot of the time will feel like it misses the spirit of whatever type of argument. it seems to me a crutch to avoid adaptation to any round, although the better teams I’ve judged seem to have a good grasp on both. TLDR technical debate should not be treated as a crutch for understanding how to be persuasive. It is substantially easier to debate something that is true/you feel is true. I will usually not intervene on the ballot for truth level claims, but I will think about them.

Go fast if you must, but I may lose things time to time especially if things get tacked on during speeches out of order. Emphasize card transitions and which off well and I will be happy. Quality>Quantity of args.

Not timing anything unless it’s an issue and any other questions you can just ask me. CX is very flexible, partners feel free to chime in. do whatever during your prep time and if everyone is ok with it, I have no issues.

I’m not a super finicky person about particulars like sending docs on time, missing x seconds of prep, etc. I find it hard to believe that teams doing this gain real advantages, and I’ve yet to judge a round where stealing time or trying to penny pinch small advantages really changes the debate in a substantial way. that said call out ridiculous violations and I’ll be all ears.

3 cards or less sent in body are fine unless super long, probably don't need a marked copy for <2 cards. I take evidence ethics seriously, arguments that depend on questionably cut cards will probably end up dropped unless you can justify it post round. I will rely on my potential circumstantial knowledge of current events if I hear something that sounds blatantly outdated and intervene if it is critical enough.

I'm not a speaks goblin, but I think they are arbitrary. >29 and I probably really liked how you debated/spoke etc. Anything less is probably just a placeholder/vaguely relevant to presentation/execution outside of the ballot.

Remember to have fun and be nice

OTHER EVENTS:

Assume no topic knowledge, well informed overall so probably will have some biases, very few relevant hard stances so persuade me otherwise. If something sounds contradictory to what I know about current affairs, I will probably go snoop in the cards or discard relevant analysis unless I am shown otherwise.

Will probably disclose out of habit unless tab tells me not to.

Make it clear what you think wins you the round and it’s probably an easy ballot, tech is for ceremony but understand that winning an argument technically may have 0 relevance to my ballot if there isn't legwork to explode it./missed point. some stuff in Misc: may apply.

LD:

I have no idea what order and times LD speeches go, feel free to remind me where you're at, especially if there's a timeskew/related voter floating around. Simplify jargon for me, if it doesn't make sense to me I won't vote on it. LD now gives me the impression of partnerless policy with weird speech times, theory isn't run as much in policy so make it simpler for me to understand.

PF:

I used to be a pf debater. Treat it half as a speech focused event. Presentation should matter, convince me of something. In the spirit of the event, I value technical aspects of debate much less than being consistent, credible, and reasonable. Be a little creative with world-building and rhetoric and keep it traditional. Make my ballot easy and I will be happy. If you run disclosure I will probably drop you and your speaks. I know prog when I see prog. Condense for me, FF is 2 minutes, wrap everything up. Easiest way to condense is to not bring along baggage.

I probably cannot judge PF the same way a parent/layperson would, but I think that is the core of what judging in PF should look like, do not take me as some “technical judge” that you can progwalk on or have a “tech round.” I'm personally calloused to presentation/rhetoric, but I will try my best.

Card/evidence sharing in PF is a nightmare, I don't care to look at cards unless someone points it out in specific. If a card is written in bad faith enough I may just kick it straight up or drop the violating team. I think you can get by a lot with general topic knowledge/analytics>delusions about current events or outdated cards.

Skip the "order is our case their case weighing" (and variations) roadmaps.

Login to Tabroom:

49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges