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 Thu November 21, 2024 at 7:02 AM CST

Coach at Edina 22-current. I also help out a handful of critical teams across the country.

College policy debater at Iowa 23-26, (formerly Minnesota 21-23), HS Policy debater at Edina (2016-21).

he/him

Yes, I want to be on the chain - umnakdebate [at] gmail [dot] com.

Per Truf post: I do not and will not flow off the doc, and I will not use the doc to correct my flow. In most debates, I don't open a single doc the entire debate. I will flow the words I hear you say, including warrants in the body of cards. I'm fine to be on the email chain and I'll read cards that I'm instructed to read in the 2NR/2AR. I do this because I believe it minimizes intervention - there is no other way to guarantee neither team gets an advantage over the other.

There's no record of me on the wiki from 2021-23 (edit: but there is from 23-25). If you're interested in reading trans/queer stuff, email me or find me at a tournament and I can send you lit recs, affs I've read in the past, and/or good Youtube videos of high quality debates in this corner of the library.

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!

I also carry things like Advil, masks and bandaids at tournaments, especially when coaching - if you need anything, come find me, even if I am not judging you!

TL;DR - Prefs

When judging high school, I see my primary role as that of an educator. I take seriously the responsibility that comes with being entrusted with someone else's students. Making the activity accessible for minoritized students matters very much to me. I therefore aim to give decision and comments in line with this.

I think that you will be happiest with the quality of my judging, comments, suggestions, ideas, and feedback when I am in the back of a KvK debate. That is simply because this is where I spend the most of my time, thought and energy in debate.

That doesn't mean I haven't voted on framework before. It also doesn't mean I haven't judged policy debates. However, I will be transparent: I have judged ZERO high-level policy debates on this topic. I worked at an LD camp this summer, and most of my coaching is with teams that lean to the critical side of things.

I want to hear you read what you want to read, but your debating will probably require more judge instruction and more explanation of the content of your argumentation if you choose to read a policy strategy against a policy aff.

General

Speaks challenge:

Specific extensions: if you, at some point during a debate, identify a card, extend it by quoting a line from the card that contains a warrant for why the claim the card is making is true, and explain how that warrant interacts with the answer that the other team has made to your argument and why I should prefer your warrant, I will give you +0.2 speaks.
Final rebuttal overview: if the first thing out of your mouth in the 2NR or 2AR makes a good-faith attempt to fill in the following sentence template by identifying why you win the debate, **regardless of if you actually win the debate**, I will give you +0.2 speaks. "We win the debate because [X argument] [OUTWEIGHS or TURNS THEIR OFFENSE or whatever else applies]. Their best argument is [Y argument], but even if they win that, we still win because [explanation]."
Rebuttal off the flow: If you flow the debate on paper and give your final rebuttal (2NR/2AR) entirely off your paper flow, without a computer open where you're speaking, your floor (minimum) speaks will be a 28.5. If you do this and win the debate, your minimum speaks will be a 29.

Speaks anti-challenge:
High school debate has a block reliance problem. Obviously the 2AC and 2NC/1NR are speeches that are conducive to reading lots of blocks - that's totally fine! I understand that blocks are useful tools that have strategic applicability!

That said, I can also tell when blocks have no applicability to the debate at hand and are a substitution for reactive and critical thinking. If you are simply reading from a backfile at the expense of reactive and critical thinking, with no contextualization to the debate, particularly in final rebuttals, this saddens me, and will impact your speaks.

Argumentative choices:

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 am increasingly disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a core strategy. This issue is probably too complex to adequately express in a paradigm. One thing that I can convey clearly: I am even more disturbed by non-black debaters with non-black coaches reading afropessimism as a timeskew or throwaway. If you choose to do this in front of me, you will get a 25 and I will initiate a discussion about why you have made a violent and harmful choice.

Speed/Clarity:

Current high school debate has a spreading clarity problem. If I can't hear you, I will clear you three times, and then I will put my hands in the air to signal that I am not flowing because I cannot hear you.

Judge instruction:

Always good. I will flow and follow uncontested judge instruction, which includes sentences like "all we have to win is X", "we don't have to win that X", "start evaluating the debate with X", "prioritize empirics/card recency/etc". It would behoove you to flow and answer the judge instruction your opponents make if you think their instruction bodes poorly for you winning the debate.

Sneaky behavior:

I've noticed a trend where debaters are worried to be straight-up because they believe there is a competitive edge to being sneaky. A non-exhaustive list of what this might look 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 - think, personal content in a performance)
lying in disclosure of past 2NRs to trick the other team into thinking you'll read something that you have no intention of reading.

This does not make for good and high quality debates. Please do what you can to make the community better - in other words, do not do this.

Some of these things - misdisclosure in particular - come across as mean; it's hurtful to feel like another team is running circles around you and laughing at you while they do it.

Finally, sneaky behavior does not go unnoticed by judges. It makes it seem like you're unconfident that you will win the debate and need every possible, which lends itself to low speaks.

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.

Evidence ethics:

Evidence ethics challenges are round-ending - if you initiate one, I will ask if you intend to stake the debate on it. If you say yes, I will use either the tournament rules (if they outline a process), or NSDA guidelines (if tournament rules do not outline a process) to adjudicate the challenge. If you say no, I'll strike the argument and the debate can continue as normal.

LD:

Do what you're good at and I will vote for who wins the flow.

I have led lab at NSD Philly/Flagship for the past two years. I dabble in coaching national-circuit LD.

That said, I am from the policy world, so I spend less time thinking about LD specific arguments (phil, tricks).

If I'm judging you and that's your jam, 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.

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. If you are reading TRICKS or THEORY, you would do very well to spread through at a pace that is flowable so that I flow the shell. If you choose not to slow down, and I don't flow the shell, you will be sadly disappointed when I don't vote on the shell.

Two miscellaneous, LD-specific things:

1. If you read critical disabilities studies, awesome. I'm here for it. On the other hand, I find that DebateDrills backfile Mollow aff to be extremely offensive. Don't read that aff in front of me or anyone else - instead, reach out to me for lit recommendations in disability studies. If you don't know what this means, it doesn't apply to you.

2. New affs. When you disclose an aff as "new", that means that every single card in the affirmative has literally never been read by you, teammates, or prepgroupmates before. Things that "new" does not mean:

this aff has not been read on this topic, but has otherwise been read by me or teammates/prepgroupmates on other topics
this aff has one new card, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
this aff has new tags or new highlighting, but has otherwise been read by me in the past (ever)
this aff has been read by others who have access to the same files like teammates/prepgroupmates (ever), even if I have never read it.

The practice of disclosing "new" gives large schools and people with the privilege of hiring private coaching or joining prep groups an even larger advantage.

Therefore, if I am judging a round where the aff was disclosed as "new" and I am given proof of someone disclosing as "new", as well as proof that the aff is not truly new but instead one of the four categories above, I will give the aff team a 25 regardless of who wins the debate.

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 (-0.5 per debater) and give them to the card-sending team (+0.5 per debater).

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 Sat April 15, 2023 at 1:47 PM EST

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: Will reward kind debaters who are enjoying themselves in the activity. Will reward speeches given off flow / not reading blocks in late rebuttals.

Please don't hide aspec in the 1nc.

Ian Bass Hire None

Silma Bathily Hire

Dana Bell Bronx Middle School

Last changed on Thu October 31, 2024 at 12:52 AM EST

I coach policy and public forum debate as well as most speech events in American and Chinese circuits. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and just as many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

danabellcontact@gmail.com 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 (voting issues) 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. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: 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.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" 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.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

14. Have fun XD

Sohan Bellam Calvert Hall College High School

Matthew Berhe Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 12:56 PM EST

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

harvard update - opposite of Rishi’s paradigm.

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 Sat February 10, 2024 at 10:31 AM EST

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 CST

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.

I cannot stress this enough: 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.

I have not debated in awhile. This means two things: (1) I am okay at following fast spreading, but do be aware that I only judge one tournament a year, so slowing down and explaining things clearly, especially in rebuttals, is a good idea; (2) my RFD might not be what you are used to. I tend to reference specific things each team said as opposed to using proper debate terminology.

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.

I enjoy good T debates but keep in mind that it's about more than just fairness. Make sure to link your fairness argument to a more concrete impact.

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 Tue October 22, 2024 at 6:52 PM EST

Hi! I am your judge :) I would like to be on the email chain at BrandyCarboneDebate@gmail.com

Background:

I was a pretty successful high school policy debater (carried my banker boxes 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 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. Time yourself.

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 when I debated (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.

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 am more easily convinced by arguments when the framework is clear, addressed and refuted. I am more persuaded by arguments that are debatable. If there are no arguments against yours unless they are racist, sexists, etc, then the position is not debatable its just a fact and makes the round unwinnable for the other side. I am still tech > truth so take that as you will.

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. Signpost please.

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 Sat January 6, 2024 at 8:14 AM CST

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 Wed September 25, 2024 at 4:00 AM CST

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 currently debate at Harvard. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc I will vote you down, end of story. Your rhetoric and how you treat your opponents matter.

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain: annadean13@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.

Don't clip cards.

If you're unclear I won't yell "clear" I just won't flow well...

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. In college, I've done Afropess, SetCol, and Fem stuff. I evaluate method v. method.

*I study Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. I have knowledge about gender/ feminism/ race 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 7+ 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.

PF:

Send your docs and create an email chain from the get-go! Every other debate style has managed to learn this. Stop asking for evd without taking prep, just send everything and be fair.

I'm not flowing off the doc and probably won't look at it unless I have to.

Act as if I don't know the topic

I'm good for speed/ more policy like args BUT I do think that PF is changing in a negative way, if you want to do policy why are you in PF...

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 Wed February 21, 2024 at 2:28 AM EST

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

Kyujin Derradji Cai Zhao Independent

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 11:21 AM CST

STANFORD & BERKELEY 24: Very thin working knowledge of the topic. Proceed assuming I know almost nothing, ESPECIALLY in heavy econ debates

my name is kyujin (pronounced Q-jin) – he/him, toc elim debater & il state champion @ northside from 2017-21, coaching @ interlake since 2021. email chain: kyujinderradji@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com.

trying to update this once or twice a year every year that I’m active; debaters spend thousands of hours researching and preparing for tournaments, and the least i can do to maximize the benefits that come from that is to let you know how i will approach evaluating the things you prepared to say.

TLDR: no hard and fast rules except that I will not evaluate death good, and i am heavily biased against strategies that eschew line-by-line debating. if you read a planless aff i would put me lower than “k-friendly” judges but not at the bottom of your pref sheet.

LONGER:

top level –

· i have substantive preferences (of course, everyone does even if they don’t say so) BUT those should not change the way you debate. debates are best when debaters are not just Saying The Words They Were Told To Say, but rather when all the debaters have evidently been thinking about their position and making refined and clear arguments that are not intended to confuse but instead to persuade. while, of course, you will not persuade me that we should kill social security to prevent the Hat Man from haunting your dreams, my role is to evaluate the effectiveness of your communication in attempting to prove that such is true.

· additionally, i will exclude arguments prefaced off events that happened outside of what i have witnessed in the debate, ad homs, or otherwise accusatory statements. i will err towards facilitating the continuation of the debate unless it becomes clear that is no longer possible, in which case i will follow tabroom procedure and maximize opportunities to ensure the well-being of the debaters directly affected by malicious and/or harmful behavior.

· do not attempt to pander to me!! there’s obviously a level of comfortability and camaraderie that i think is good and appropriate in the setting of a debate, but ultimately i am almost out of college. many older people in debate lack boundaries when engaging with high schoolers that honestly makes me very uncomfortable. i appreciate being friendly/relaxed etc, and i encourage that, but please do not act like we are old buddies or make comments that you wouldn’t make to a teacher.

· 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

pet peeves –

· clarity. i will not clear you. it's up to you to be as clear as possible even if that means sacrificing speed. having to give an rfd where i tell you that i couldn't understand a third of what you were saying is frustrating annoying for me and embarrassing for you.

· kicking stuff. not kicking out of stuff correctly, even if it doesn’t do you any strategic harm, is a very bad look and your speaks will suffer.

· cx. 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.

speaker points –

· 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.

· doing my best to accommodate new trends in speaker points even if i might disagree with them. i understand how frustrating it is to have stingy judges give low speaks and jeopardize seeding/breaking.

decision calc –

· tech over truth. BUT! that requires you extend a claim, warrant, and impact. a 2nr should extend an impact and do impact comparison, not something like “they dropped impact #3 in the 1nr, extinction, don’t make me reinvent the wheel” – bad bad bad. setting yourself up for failure at the hands of a smart 2a.

· i need your arguments to make sense – that’s really really crucial. seems like a truism but unfortunately it is not.

evidence –

· i care a lot about evidence quality – i'd say more than the average judge. research is the largest/most valuable portable skill from debate and i will look for ways to reward teams who have clearly conducted original, innovative, and/or high-quality research and can demonstrate the knowledge that research has imparted them with.

· i do read evidence (not every time, but if I feel so compelled) but i will not include that into my decision unless evidence is a subject of disagreement.

· I will read more than the highlighting, but I will only evaluate the un-highlighted portion if I think that you have misrepresented it in a way that makes the evidence read better than it is i.e. you selectively highlight words or ignore paragraphs to make your evidence look more conclusive. I will not include warrants from ev in my decision that you have not read obviously.

· rehighlightings are obvi great, you can insert them, as long as it’s not egregious. You can’t insert cards from other articles that an author has written in order to indict them – you have to read that. the point of inserting recuttings is just to point to the other team’s own evidence and provide direction as to what specifically is at issue with it. introducing other articles obviously requires you read them, because that is not evidence read by the other team.

· caveat to the above – please! make sure you are not mis-recutting evidence. It will look like you didn’t actually read the evidence and assumed it was miscut. Your speaks will suffer.

the rest of this paradigm are my opinions on various positions, but matter much less than what was just said above.

planless affs/framework –

· 70-30 neg. one of the two hardest things for the aff in these debates are when the aff does not have a meaningful reason why debates over the resolution are bad, as opposed to the resolution itself. this usually requires some kind of exclusionary critique of the idea of debating the topic entirely, which is a pretty high bar to clear imo. the other barrier to an aff ballot in my mind is the role of debate. what is the ballot’s function? what does it mean if i vote aff or neg? why is debating the 1ac valuable fro the neg? all of these are questions I think the aff must be able to answer, and often they cannot to a satisfactory degree. given the aff is choosing to forego a traditional defense of the resolution, i think the burden of proof is set significantly higher because the aff must then establish a new set of criteria by which to evaluate the debate – which also often lends to the neg’s predictability offense on framework.

· i heavily prefer impacts pertinent to the process of debate rather than its substance (paraphrased from holland <3). topic education and the like tend to ignore the way that competition/resolutional wording distorts how we approach the topic – and lend themselves to internal link turns absent substantive defense to the 1ac’s thesis claims.

· all good for a da/pic against a planless aff – my favorite debates v k affs senior year were going for tech good against a “zoom bad” aff and heg good against a mao aff.

· NOT good for k v k debates. i will likely be confused and you will likely be unhappy with my decision.

counterplans –

· :thumbs-up:

· fine for intricate competition debates BUT i will need arguments to be warranted – saying “their interp justifies x” is sometimes not immediately intuitive for me, so just err on the side of explaining things more.

· agree with like everyone else that counterplans can’t simply identify an aff internal link and write a plank to the effect of “solve x impact”. it’s like making an alt cause argument that explains no alt causes.

· i won’t automatically judge kick a counterplan.

· i am neg leaning on basically all theory. most theory is better articulated as a competition argument. i am not a good judge for teams who shotgun 1ar extensions of conditionality and make it 5 minutes of the 2ar – obviously can be a legitimate strategy but it feels like it has recently become a safety net for teams who are afraid of debating substance. also, please slow down in heavy theory debates.

disads –

· :thumbs-up:

· comparison and narrative-telling are the most important. telling me why I should care about your thing and using examples/common threads from evidence is very helpful and demonstrates a lot of skill.

t v plans –

· :thumbs-up:

· there should only really be two kinds of t debates to me: one that gets to the core of a topic disagreement (i.e. t-enact on CJR or t-AOS on immigration) and one that points out an egregious instance of a violation. outside of these two instances, i’ll tend to err aff.

· i prefer t debates with lots of evidence, warrants, and little repetition. limits is the best neg impact and (usually) precision or aff ground are the best aff impacts.

k’s vs. plans –

· yes for most. i think these are best executed when they function as an impact turn to core ideological assumptions of the plan. the more the k is [insert theory – no perm because footnote DA] or reps k of [one of your 9 impacts], the less I will be a fan.

· ideally, the function of your framework argument should be to ratchet down the importance of having a coherent alternative.

· i generally quite dislike "you link, you lose", and i have a pretty low threshold for voting aff on framework in these debates. 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.

Said Dibinga Chota New Designs Charter School-University Park

Last changed on Thu August 22, 2024 at 2:09 AM PST

Hello and greetings! I hope you're doing well.

I respect the dedication and sacrifices you make to excel in debate. I'm honored to hold the Donus D. Roberts Coaching Excellence Award and the First Diamond Award. My journey in Policy Debate began in middle school, and now I coach and judge various competition styles, including CX, Policy, BQ, PF, moot court, mock trial, and High School Shark Tank. This experience has given me valuable insights into the demands of this activity.

My background spans finance, law, technology, film, and a passion for history. I've been involved in debate since 6th grade and have been coaching since 2012, maintaining a deep love for this pursuit. You’ve chosen a challenging path, and I admire your commitment.

Lastly, I'm not responsible for your feelings. Win graciously, lose graciously. I'm happy to provide feedback to your coach, and my email is included in the RFD for further contact if needed. I insist that the communication be via your coach or with your coach's written permission. I'll use Sharedocs on the NSDA platform, so there's no need to exchange personal emails among participants, and I will not ask you for your email.

-----

As a judge, I adhere to a traditional policy debate framework, with a strong focus on topicality, evidence, and clash. Here are specific points that guide my decision-making:

1. Topicality and Relevance: I prioritize arguments that directly engage with the resolution. I expect debates to be centered on the proposed policy and its implications.

2. No Race, Systemic Oppression, or Anti- Arguments: I do not vote on arguments that are primarily focused on race, systemic oppression, or any form of "anti-" argument (e.g., anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism). My focus is on the debate as it relates to the resolution and the specific policy issues at hand.

3. Theory Arguments and Multiple Worlds: I do not consider theory arguments or multiple worlds as voting issues. Debaters should focus on substantive, resolution-centered arguments.

4. Clash and Direct Engagement: I value debates where teams directly address each other's arguments, staying within the bounds of the resolution. Rebuttals should focus on engaging with the substance of the opposing team’s case.

5. Evidence and Analysis: Strong evidence and logical reasoning are crucial in my evaluation. I expect debaters to present and explain evidence that directly supports their case and is relevant to the resolution.

6. Moderate Speed and Clarity: While I’m comfortable with fast-paced debates, clarity is essential. I prefer a pace that ensures arguments are clearly articulated and easily understood.

7. Behavior and Conduct: I do not tolerate personal attacks or profanity. I will issue one warning for such behavior. If it continues, I will disqualify the team responsible.

In summary, I approach debates with a focus on traditional policy arguments, staying on topic, and engaging in direct clash. I do not vote on arguments related to race, systemic oppression, theory, multiple worlds, or similar critical arguments. My judging style is best suited for debaters who engage with the resolution in a clear, evidence-based, and topic-centered manner.

With the exception of elimination rounds, I don't disclose the rounds winner.

---

Let's dive into my judging philosophy by sharing how I look at the components of a debate:

1. Framework (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A set of rules and principles that define the scope of the debate.

- What it is not: A case-specific argument or evidence.

2. Role of the Ballot (ROB):

- What it is: A statement explaining what the judge should prioritize when making their decision.

- What it is not: An argument against the opponent's case.

3. Plan (Affirmative):

- What it is: The proposed policy or action the affirmative team advocates for.

- What it is not: The entirety of the affirmative case; it's just one element.

4. Counterplan (Negative):

- What it is: An alternative proposal presented by the negative team.

- What it is not: A critique or disadvantage argument.

5. Topicality (Negative):

- What it is: An argument challenging the affirmative's compliance with the debate topic.

- What it is not: A critique of the affirmative's content.

6. Disadvantage (Negative):

- What it is: An argument showing the negative consequences of the affirmative's plan.

- What it is not: A counterplan or a critique.

7. Critique/Kritik (Negative):

- What it is: A critical analysis of the assumptions or ideology underlying the affirmative case.

- What it is not: A traditional argument based on evidence and impacts.

8. Cross-Examination (CX):

- What it is: A period during the debate where one team questions the other to gather information and make arguments.

- What it is not: A time for making speeches or presenting new arguments.

9. Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Speeches aimed at refuting the opponent's arguments and reinforcing your own.

- What it is not: A time for introducing entirely new content.

10. Evidence/Contentions (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Factual information and arguments that support your case.

- What it is not: Personal opinions or unsupported assertions.

11. Flowing (Judge's Role):

- What it is: Taking detailed notes of the debate to track arguments and make an informed decision.

- What it is not: Making decisions based on personal biases or emotions.

12. Time Limits:

- What it is: Strictly enforced limits for speeches and cross-examinations.

- What it is not: Flexible or arbitrary timekeeping.

13. Case Overview (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A brief summary of your main arguments at the beginning of your speech.

- What it is not: A replacement for in-depth analysis.

14. Permutation (Affirmative):

- What it is: An argument that combines the affirmative and negative positions to demonstrate compatibility.

- What it is not: A standalone argument; it relies on other contentions.

15. Voting Issues (Judge's Decision):

- What it is: The key points or arguments the judge should consider when rendering a decision.

- What it is not: An exhaustive review of every argument made in the debate.

16. Cap-K (Capitalism Kritik) in Policy Debate:

- What it is: A critical argument challenging the fundamental assumptions and impacts of capitalism as a social and economic system.
- What it is not: A traditional policy argument focused on specific policy proposals or impacts.

17. Settler Colonialism in Policy Debate:

- What it is: An argument that critiques the historical and ongoing processes of colonization and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or a traditional policy debate contention.

As your judge, this represents my approach to evaluating debate rounds and how I assess arguments within them. The following offers further insight into my judging philosophy and perspective.

---

1. Communication Rule: No communication is allowed between teammates or judges during the debate round. Violations result in immediate removal from the room; failure to comply leads to team disqualification. This rule ensures fairness and integrity.

2. Focus During Rounds: I take judging seriously and maintain complete focus during rounds—no social media or phone distractions.

3. Debate Strategy: Address your arguments to me, not your opponent. I appreciate well-structured, respectful arguments. I do not tolerate profanity, yelling, or personal attacks. One warning will be given; continued violations will end the round, and I will discuss the matter with your coach. If your strategy is divisive or disrespectful, I'm not the right judge for you.

4. Role of the Aff: Remember, the Aff plan is not you; address your opponents as "Neg," "Aff," or "Opponent" to maintain professionalism.

5. Counterplans and Solvency: I prefer the Neg to run a Counterplan (CP). Attacking solvency without proposing a solution is unconvincing and weakens the Neg's position.

6. Flowing: I meticulously flow the round by hand and encourage teams to maintain their own flow sheets. This helps ensure that no critical arguments are overlooked, and I also flow cross-examinations.

7. Engagement: Engage directly with me as you present your arguments. While spreading is allowed, I prefer clear and effective communication. If you're spreading just to overwhelm your opponent, you’re not making a genuine argument. I don't vote based on dropped arguments alone.

8. Questions in Cross-X:Meaningful questions are more valuable than questions for the sake of it. Avoid open-ended queries and be respectful.

9. Clash:

- Central Role: Clash is the core of policy debate, where teams directly engage in argumentative confrontation.
- Importance: Effective clash shows your ability to challenge opponent arguments, influencing my decision more than exploiting dropped points. Win through strong clash, not just on dropped arguments.
- Strategy: Use clash strategically by presenting solid arguments, addressing your opponent's contentions, and exposing weaknesses. This demonstrates your argumentative skill and critical thinking.
- Outcome: The quality of clash heavily impacts my decision, making it a key factor in winning the debate.

10. Defense versus Offence: In policy debate, "defense" challenges the opponent's case, while "offense" advances the negative's position. Winning the debate requires strong defense to undermine the affirmative and effective offense to persuade me. Debaters balance these elements, adapting to my preferences for a strategic advantage.

11. Debating Off-Topic in Policy Debate:

- Warning: Please stick to the resolution's scope for meaningful debates. If your strategy is to not debate the topic outside of a K-Aff, I'd advise that you stay on the resolution and or the topic.
- Issue: A problem arises when debaters go off-topic, using unrelated strategies and tactics.
- Concerns: This hinders the educational value of debates, straying from the critical analysis of policy proposals within the resolution.

12. Non-Voting Issues Clarification:

My primary focus in evaluating the debate is on the affirmative plan’s ability to address the specific problem outlined in the resolution. I do not consider arguments related to race, bias, or social issues unrelated to the resolution as voting issues. The use of racial slurs will result in the immediate end of the round, with a vote against the offending team.

For instance, in the 2022-2023 Fracking resolution, while discussions about marginalized communities were common, banning fracking does not inherently resolve marginalization. The affirmative must demonstrate how their plan directly alleviates the issues presented; otherwise, such arguments will not influence my decision.

This approach is about maintaining relevance to the resolution, not censorship. Remember to treat the subjects of your arguments as real people, not just as props to win a round. If you need clarification, feel free to ask before the round.

I do not favor theory arguments, as I vote based on facts, not theories.

Ultimately, my decision hinges on which side better solves the problem addressed by the resolution—the Affirmative Plan or the Status Quo.

13. Perm Do Both: "Perm Do Both" must be supported by a clear explanation of how the affirmative plan and negative counterplan can work together without conflict. Simply stating "Perm do both" isn't enough—you need to demonstrate how the actions complement each other and why this integrated approach is the best solution.

14. Evidence and Warrants: In debate, assessing an author’s credibility goes beyond their qualifications; it’s about ensuring their expertise is relevant to the specific argument. Debaters must evaluate qualifications, relevance, and consistency to ensure evidence directly supports the warrant. Demonstrating how the author backs your team's position increases your chances of winning.

15. Falsifying information: Please refrain from fabricating information during a round, especially financial figures, historical facts, or legal details. I will notice.

16. Prep Time: I don't allow prep time for cross-X. If the tournament allows time for tech issues, I will enforce it strictly to the second.

17. Selling Your Position: Persuasion is key. Convince me; speed isn't everything.

18. Speakers' Points: I base these on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, good clash, and respectful conduct.

20. A Respectful Environment: I expect respect from all participants. No profanity, personal attacks, or disrespect will be tolerated. One warning will be given; continued violations result in automatic disqualification, with the reason noted in my RFD and communicated to the coach.

21. No Direct Messaging During Rounds: If I suspect messaging, I'll ask to see your computer screen. Messaging during rounds is grounds for an immediate disqualification.

22. No Bias: I judge impartially.

23. Reason for Decision (RFD):

I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve, highlighting both strengths and areas for growth. I've seen debaters apply my feedback in subsequent rounds, and I'm available for questions and discussions during the tournament (after the round). Taking notes during feedback can be very beneficial.

Thank you for the privilege of judging your round. As debaters, you are part of an exceptional community dedicated to meaningful and thought-provoking discourse. Let's make this tournament memorable and engaging for all involved. Best of luck on your journey in speech and debate!

Thank you very kindly,

Mr. Dibinga - Chota

Zion Dixon Hire

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 6:57 AM CST

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

Strake Jesuit '22 and I debated at Harvard as a 2A and got a first round to the NDT & made it to octas

Add me to email chain: zionjd@gmail.com

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

Churchill Update

this is probably the longest i’ve gone without thinking about debate (almost a year) so clarity and warrants are a must

Tab Shortcuts

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. I STRONGLY prefer that nonblack debaters do not read ontological arguments about black life in front of me, call it afropess or not.

IDK WHY PPL KEEP READING AFROPESS CARDS OUT OF CONTEXT IN FRONT OF ME?? If you aren't Black don't and if your opponent does it pleaseeee call them out. To you youngins here is an article written by myself and peers. https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/. If you are unsure if it's "too pessimistic about blackness" then eer on the side of caution. Now that this is as clear as can be in my paradigm I will be a lot more belligerent about it because its happened more than a few times already

Tricks and friv theory are funny and honestly I'd say I am quite familar with them but if you read it against a performance aff, id pol position, or novice I hope you get clowned and i'll likely give grumpy speaks. If you extempt things it is not my fault if I miss it and 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.

Disclosure - I will vote on it but I believe it is infinitely regressive and am compelled by reasonability arguments if the debater at least has first 3 and last 3. I believe that Black debaters do not have to disclose, but you need to make and extend this argument. Norm setting args are probably true for these debates so have a response to the kind of model of debate you defend

T - idk what a bare plural is and nebel is unnecessarily confusing to me. Not to say I won't vote on it but you have to explain it well enough for me to know why I voted for it.

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.

PIC/PIK/Kritikal CPs: My thing - will love innovation, especially if well executed. Pretty open to floating piks as well.

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.

Phil: I know Kant decently especially well against Ks. I know the general premise of most frameworks and philosophies and spent a lot of time thinking about their interaction vs Ks. If you are having a phil v phil debate just explain and give judge instruction.

Policy (larp v larp) - 2nr/2ar I need a lot of judge instruction because I was pretty removed from the high level debates that occured with this style

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
I don't care about sending all analytics for a speech and honestly unless you have an accessibility concern I think it's a silly model of debate and don't mind people saying no to this

For High Speaks

- be clear

- be strategic

- 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 or inaccessible 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 Thu November 21, 2024 at 10:53 AM EST

TOP-LEVEL:

1. If you come from a big debate program with a lot of resources and you DO NOT have your cards cut properly, I will drop you immediately with the lowest speaks possible. If I just described you or you even remotely think this may be you, please just strike me. This DOES NOT apply if you are from a smaller debate program or if you are newer to the circuit.

2. Please enjoy your rounds. I understand that debate is a competitive activity and that winning is great, but just relax. I am not saying that you should take this activity as a joke and play around, but just have fun!

For evidence exchange, questions, or anything else, please use this email: timdodebate@gmail.com.

I competed mainly in PF as the second speaker as well as some speech events during high school. Due to limited funding, my high school team mainly competed on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards.

I graduated from Johns Hopkins University (Class of 2024), where I participated in American Parli, broke, and received speaker awards. I majored in neuroscience on the pre-med track, so if you have any questions about what the pre-med track is like or have any questions about college, please let me know!

Even though I have taken a step back from debate, I judge 10+ tournaments every season, mainly in PF and CX. I am not going to lie to you guys about my skillset because you guys spend so much time preparing your cases, and you all deserve a judge that you know about and want. There are too many judges who are adjudicating and evaluating rounds that they should not be because they are not transparent about their skill levels (like saying that they are a tech judge when they really aren't), which in turn affects you guys.

With that in mind, I am an experienced judge in PF and in Parli, an average judge in CX and LD. Take that however you want.

General:

Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I do not flow cross-ex. Responses or arguments that you find important and relevant must be in your speeches.

I can, and will, follow speed. However, if you start to speak at a pace that is incomprehensible, 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.

I will not time you, so please time yourselves. This does not mean that you should use that to your advantage and try to steal extra speech or prep time; don't even think about it and, especially, don't even try it.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible.

Please do not post-round me in bad faith. My decision never changes, I promise you.

Evidence:

A lot of debaters a) misrepresent evidence, b) do not have their cards cut properly, or c) do all of the above. If this happens in your round, I will not intervene but I am more than happy, even excited, to hear arguments about this.

Evidence analysis is great. Evidence comparison is even more great.

Speech docs must be sent. If asked, analytics must also be sent.

Sending evidence or marked docs should not take more than one minute. If it takes more than one minute, I will run your prep time. This does not apply if there are computer or internet problems.

PF:

I can be both a lay or a tech judge.

I am open to any argument, minus any egregious offenses, that you want to run. Do I believe there are dumb arguments? Yes. Do I believe there are certain arguments that are inherently better to win the round? Yes. However, at the end of the day, I will evaluate you the way you want me to evaluate you.

I thoroughly enjoy and am more than happy to evaluate K and theory rounds; however, if you are abusing these things because you believe that it will give you a competitive edge in the round, then I will not be happy.

You can expect me to have topic knowledge.

You need to over-emphasize your links/mechanisms.

Tagging your responses is important.

I love analytics, especially if they are well executed.

Saying that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently doing nothing with it will do you more harm than good.

Saying that "this is frontline" or telling me to "extend this" and then subsequently doing nothing will likewise do you more harm than good. You need to explain why what you are frontlining or extending matters in the round.

I prefer weighing to come out in the 2AC/2NC. At the latest, weighing must be in the 1AR/1NR.

Think about whether or not your arguments make logical sense. If they don't make logical sense to you, I can promise you that they will also not make any logical sense to me.

Also, ask yourself why you are saying what you are saying. This makes your rounds much cleaner because you start to understand the importance of your arguments and how they interact with your opponents' arguments.

The best debaters are going to be comparative; they are going to be able to internalize what happened in the round, think about what your opponents' best arguments are, know what your best arguments are, and how these all compare.

How do you win my ballot? Be good, and do not ever make me do extra work.

CX:

Average CX judge, unlike Sim, who is an exceptional CX judge.

Best at evaluating straight, policy arguments.

Decent at evaluating Ks and other progressive arguments.

If I am your judge, please go a bit slower and over-explain things.

LD:

Average LD judge.

I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes.

If I am your judge, please go a bit slower and over-explain things.

Speaks:

Average speaks: 28.5.

29.5 - 30.0: You impressed me, and I expect you to break.

29.0 - 29.5: You did well, and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble.

27 - 28.9: You performed as expected.

<27: You did something absolutely egregious and I had no qualms docking you.

No speaks theory.

Julian Erdmann Melissa High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:15 AM CST

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 Sat October 19, 2024 at 7:09 AM EST

she/her

Washington Urban Debate League '22 Yale '26

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

Debate through middle and high school, double 2. Currently coach middle and high school UDL teams. Almost exclusively read Ks—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.

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

Coming from a UDL, accessibility is really important to me. Explain your stuff in cross-ex in a digestible way. I will reward your speaks accordingly.

Language matters. Genocide is not a buzzword.

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

**College Policy Note**

Haven't debated/ judged on the topic, so I don't have any familiarity with your acronyms/ topic specific terms - it's your job to make sure I do by the end of round.

Kritiks

My fav. 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 additional 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.

If you are a non-Black team reading afro-pess, I will hold the opposing team to an extremely low-threshold to win.

K Affs v FW

Aff

Leverage your 1AC more. Yes, the blocks you prepped are probably great, but the purpose of crafting and refining kritikal 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. Explain how you solve for the aff, and if not in its entirety, then why your net-benefit outweighs.

T v policy affs

Not my favorite debate but will 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. If your going for this, I need really clear judge direction and impact articulation. 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. I usually will think of education as the biggest impact in round with fairness and the like as internal links, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

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

Have fun!!

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 Wed April 17, 2024 at 7:10 AM EST

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 on the antitrust topic (2021-2022) 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. Winning framework for either side makes the debate substantially easier but it hasn’t been game over if a team loses it either. I would prefer if there aren't super long overviews that require a new sheet of paper. If the k is a floating pik please make it clear in the block

Kaff:

The stuff I said about K's applies here, except the framework section, obviously if a team reading a kaff can’t beat framework they lose but that feels obvious. I probably won't understand your aff that well and I probably haven't read most of the literature, but the more time I spend in college the more I have read in an academic sense. 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 that half a sentence that I can’t really give as a full argument but the 2ar makes it seem like THE thing.

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, but 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. A lot of the aff path to victory was covered above in the kaff section.

k v k:

I have never debated in one of these, but I have found myself in the back of a few. Here are just some basic thoughts I have developed. 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, but do not think this should be a reason to win the ballot and instead a reason for the round to end immediately. Luckily, I have never been in a round where this happens, but I understand that it does which is why tournaments have policies for it.

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, please don’t do this it takes so long to remove the cards.

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 where I outlined nonnegotiables.

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 Dillon Fox Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 9:45 AM CST

Update: Harvard-Westlake '25 - i'm judging from the University of Houston debate room this weekend because my apartment was broken into and my desktop computer + wi-fi router were stolen. all the usual e-debate caveats apply, but historically i judge online with a much better headphone/mic setup than is currently available to me - focus a bit more on clarity than usual.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

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

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

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

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - I am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. on average, happiest in debates with lots of cards for a disad or K + case vs aff with a plan, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates, but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

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

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). subpointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned. solvency can be zero with smart CX and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given arg. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i've coached this with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem. good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1AC more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (includes states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably not drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. conditionality is a divine right bestowed by heavenly mandate, so i defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. LD-esque theory shenanigans: total non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud).

procedural notes

- pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus) + don’t flow off the doc. still quite good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow.

- terrible poker face. treat facial expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - fire cards get fire speaks, but only when i'm told.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing additional prep time penalties for excessive dead time while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the cut cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself. flow.

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

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speech.

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

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice on anything else, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person, and i hope it can do the same for you. i am very lucky i found it.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

i like music. i listen to a very wide range of it. HS debaters can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - enjoyable music gives everyone in the room +0.1. music i dislike receives no penalty.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Sakshi Garg Little Rock Central

Jesse Garrett James Logan High School

Forrest Gertin Forest Park

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:39 AM EST

Please add to email chain: fjgertin@bcps.k12.md.us

Overall:

I vote based on my understanding of the round. That being said, speed is fine, but I enjoy having some differentiation in tone. I do believe that there is value in remembering that this is a speech activity. Performing your speech reminds me that you are talking about something very important. There is a limit to useful speed.

I like good debates, and I reward debaters that have intelligent affirmatives with specific internal link stories and introduce impact stories. I also like debates where the negative creates crafty negative strategies that demonstrate a grasp of the case and how to beat the case specifically having a link story that shows the inherent problems specific to that affirmative. Performance/alternative debates that really teach and demonstrate impact are welcome!

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.

DA, CP, Case- The evidence is key. Good evidence had better actually be good if you are calling on me to read it at the end of the round. Having a super power tagged card that isn't warranted could cost you the debate.

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

Colton Gilbert Little Rock Central

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2024 at 7:07 AM CST

Background

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

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

Randoms

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

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

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

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

Judge Commitments

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

- parent judges

- lay judges

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

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

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

Update for Online Debate

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

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

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

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

Short Version

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

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

T-USfg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parting Thoughts

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

Christian Gines Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:31 AM CST

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 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 - judge instruction

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.

Gerard Grigsby Brophy College Prep

Robert Groven Eagan High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:44 AM CST

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 Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:44 AM CST

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.

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 the state of disadvantages 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 humor.

Marion Hart Hire None

Kevin Hirn Walter Payton College Prep

Last changed on Wed August 28, 2024 at 3:41 PM EST

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

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan (2015-)

Debate Coach, Westwood HS (2024-)

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23), University of Chicago Lab Schools (2023-24).

Last updated: August, 2024

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. 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 energy topic and the HS intellectual property rights topic. For intellectual property rights, I wrote the topicality file and delivered the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp.

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).

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 few allegedly "dropped" arguments can accurately be 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.

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 extremely 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/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. 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. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--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.

Admittedly, these don't exclude a ton of counterplans, but they're extremely powerful when they apply. 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 if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). 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. There are obvious and reasonable disadvantages to textual competition, and there is something inelegant about combining two models together, but I don't think there's a clear and preferable alterantive template when it comes to affs going for competition/theory against new or random process CPs.

And to be clear about my views: "functional-only" is an extremely defensible model, although I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is extremely 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 generally coach my teams to 2NC CP out of straight turned DAs, read 5+ conditional advocacies in the 1NC, etc.

I don't default to the status quo ("judge kick") if there's zero judge instruction to that effect, but I default to the least interventionist approach possible. If the neg says the CP is conditional, never qualifies that "2nr checks: we'll only go for one world," and aff accedes, I will default to judge kick. One side dropping "yes/no judge kick" at some point in the debate obviously wins the issue for their opponent.

I've led a strong group of debaters in a summer institute lab every year for over a decade, and I think some of the lectures or discussions I've led on various theoretical subjects (in which I often express very strong or exaggerated defenses of one or more of the above arguments, for educational purposes), have influenced some to interpret my views on some aspect of competition as extremely strongly-held. In truth, 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 probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed 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). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

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.

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 "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

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 an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

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. 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.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "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). Second, "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) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) 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 for Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

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.

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 Fri September 27, 2024 at 2:36 PM CST

Evidence Ethics:

I am adding this to the top because it has had an effect on some of my students recently. I generally follow along on speech docs when they are sent to me. If I notice during the round that you are reading a card that is egregiously misrepresenting what the evidence actually says, I will stop the round and give you an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I am allowed to give. This doesn't apply to things that are simply "power-tagged." I am talking about evidence that has like 10 words highlighted to make a claim or argument not intended by the author. I don't judge PF that much, so this probably won't be an issue in whatever round I am judging you in, but be forewarned.

Harvard update (2/12/2024):

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

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

Some info about me:

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

Observations for all debate events:

-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.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

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.

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

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Speech: I have judged a lot more speech over the past couple years. I like students to demonstrate a personal connection to their topic or material.

Gagandeep Kang McDowell HS

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

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 September 17, 2024 at 3:11 PM CST

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive. Please be clear.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

4) You fully explain your perms/responses to perms. I am less persuaded by blippy arguments (especially the perms), and I am more persuaded when perms and are either: explained in detail or carded.

5) "Be mindful of your maximum rate of efficiency" (AT). Speed isn't typically a problem, but do be realistic about how fast you think I can type your responses that you want me to flow verbatim (perms, blippy disads, etc.) and not reconstruct.

Debate has changed the way that I believe about certain policies and policymaking. I believe that debate can do this for other people too.

I value persuasive judge instruction, and I would like my RFD to reflect key moments/lines in the 2AR and 2NR. Line by line is important.

Ruby Klein Hire

Gabriel Koo Hire

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 4:35 AM EST

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 fare 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 (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's 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 can exist and then 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 well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
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.
Final rebuttals being given from the flow without a computer.

Things:

K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar 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, or playing defense on the case flow, 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 I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit 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 vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established 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 case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards 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. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as 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 T/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 not done enough by Affirmative teams.
Debaters whispering to their partner after their 2A/NR "that was terrible". Be confident or at least pretend. If you don't think you won the debate, why should I try convincing myself that you did?
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 to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. 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! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

Keryk Kuiper Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:53 PM CST

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 Wed January 17, 2024 at 7:54 AM EST

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 Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM EST

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 Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:35 PM CST

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

I will evaluate offense and defense to make my decision unless you tell me to do otherwise.

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 Tue January 30, 2024 at 9:57 AM EST

Policy Debate Coach - North Star High School, Newark, NJ

email: tlatta27@gmail.com

Former policy debater and now second year policy-focused coach with some summer lab instruction experience. Comfortable with policy and critical approaches.

General Preferences

Depth > breadth: spread has rapidly diminishing returns with me. Warrant quality will win out so...compare warrants.

I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernible, 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.

If you want your arguments reflected in my flow, I STRONGLY suggest you DO NOT spread analytics, particularly those not reflected in distributed speech docs or those related to T's and/or Frameworks.

Disads: Uniqueness argument is usually the determinant in my view.

Counterplans: Throw-away cps with no solvency warrants can be defeated by the Aff with much less time than the Neg spends in the block but don't be sloppy in the 2AC. I am receptive to theory here. See remarks on theory below.

Receptive to condo bad. I'm not your best judge for 5+ off-case

Kritiks: Receptive to aff or neg but not as a shield to not engage with the arguments the other team is making. Not clashing will put you behind. The link debate is important to me and you have a much better chance if you compare warrants effectively in this area. Thoughtful Alts, particularly with analytics referencing history/examples are meaningful to me. I do not (yet) have a lot of direct experience with the literature of many areas of kritiks, hence you need to slow down and make them clear

Theory: Given my experience level, I encounter new theory all the time and that is sometimes a challenge. If you want to have an impact on the ballot in these areas, slow down and make your argument clear. Blasting through theory will leave a void on my flow.

Speaker points…28.5 is average clarity, most clear-thinking and focus. More and less of those qualities will be reflected by divergences from that point but will generally not go below 27.

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 Tue January 16, 2024 at 6:37 AM EST

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 probably not a voter. 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/PF: I have judged very little of either of these events; 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 November 14, 2024 at 4:07 PM EST

Jake Lee (He/Him)

Math Teacher and Director of Debate at Mamaroneck High School

For Email Chain: jakemlee@umich.edu

Also add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

A more in-depth view of my judging record: View this Spreadsheet

General:

Tech > Truth, will let the flow dictate what I vote on. Will leave personal biases on things outside. Only exceptions: I will not vote on Death Good (Ligotti style) or anything that is blatant hate speech

I won't vote on arguments that pertain to issues outside a debate round or ad homs

No "inserting" rehighlightings. You must read your re-highlighting.

The NEG really does not need more than 6 offcase to win a debate. Yes I know I coach Mamo FC...

Vertical Proliferation of arguments is better than a horizontal proliferation of arguments. You can definitely ask me what this means.

Case/Plan specific strategies with good evidence are substantially better than spamming a ton of incomplete, generic, cheap shot arguments. So far only Carrollton and New Trier have done that so far in front of me.

I judge a lot of K rounds. I really have become less persuaded by the K lately in terms of the framework debate. If your strategy is to kick the alt and go for framework, I'm more likely to end up voting AFF then you actually going for the K with the alt.

I really do not understand why plan text in a vacuum makes sense. I think it genuinely makes T debates pointless and incentives vague plan text writing. I'll still vote on it though if debated well.

Respect your opponents

I flow on paper. I hate flowing on my computer. I do not look at the doc. My computer is away. If I have to flow on my computer, I will never look at a doc. I try to flow down the line and create line-by-line. I will not reward unclarity. If you are unclear in speeches, I am not sympathetic to "dropped" arguments because the other team could not flow you since you were unclear. Your job is to CLEARLY communicate your arguments, that is the whole point of debate. If you cannot do that, I am not flowing anything or just evaluate it as a totally incomplete argument.

IPR Specific:

T-Subsets should not be your 2NR strategy unless the AFF has MASSIVELY screwed up

Stolen from Forslund: Stop reading the Uncooperative Federalism CP

Case Specific Cards and impact D in the 1NC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1NCs with just impact D. I will reward debaters who do not just spam impact D on the case debate.

The Do Nots in Debate:

CX time has been wasted on arguments that were not read because you assumed it was read because it being on the doc. I am going to start docking speaker points for debaters that are obviously not flowing the speech and only flowing the speech doc.

If you ask the speaker to remove the cards they did not read, I will run prep time, and the speaker has the right to run your prep time down to 0 because it is your job to listen and flow

If you answer arguments that were in the speech doc but not read,

If it is clear you are are reading a prepped out backfile from another teammate

Hiding ASPEC or other theory arguments = cowardly

Stop asking for a 30 in rounds.

Simon Lee Miami Beach Independent

Elizabeth Li Hire

Vincent H. Li Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:36 AM EST

Email Chain: vli40@binghamton.edu (I might not read your docs, but I should still have them in case).

Background: I debated at the University of Georgia for four years as their lone K debater reading Baudrillard and various pomo theories. I've been coaching at Bing for 4 years where I also primarily coach Baudrillard and various pomo theories. I think that debate is an incredible activity and equally value the potential for creativity and education. I tend to think of myself as an educator, and I generally prefer to let people read the arguments that they want to read.

1) Important Note about Adaptation: I have asymmetrical hearing loss. That means that I generally don't hear as clearly as some, which is an issue compounded by the fact that I was a slow K debater and am a slow K judge. I generally don't have an issue catching K and clash debate unless you're spreading quickly or incoherently through prewritten blocks. I do have an issue following fast policy vs. policy debate especially because I rarely know the nuances of any particular topic (certainly not high school). To adapt, you should make sure a) there is an obstacle free line between me and you, so that I can see and hear you, b) slow down if necessary if it seems like I'm flipping through my flows a lot or look annoyed, c) focus on explanation and judge instruction; smart debating can easily overcome tech for me because it will help me organize what is going on.

2) Conduct If you're in high school, college novice, or college junior varsity, don't be excessively mean to your opponents. If you are in college varsity, you should be funny.

Arguments:

Kvk

1) Explain methodologies. Why am I voting for you? How do I know that your argument is true? Because I don't generally have the same stable default of rational, utilitarian policy-maker, it is extremely important for you to tell me how to think about the round and that means defending your methods and presuppositions. If you don't have a reason why a particular framing is good or should be adopted, then that's the equivalent of making a warrantless claim for me.

2) Perms. I don't generally assume that there are no perms in a method debate, but I do think that the current state of debating perms is abusive. It is important that you explain what it is that I am voting for with respect to both the permutation and/or an alternative. If the alt is largely not-mitigated, then it is much harder for you to win the permutation because I am willing to weigh a risk of the perm being worse than the alt against the alt itself.

3) You should try to be as specific as possible and try to contextualize your Theory of Power to the aff. It is literally possible to win neg debates on Theory of Power alone, but I think it's easy for the non-pess team to beat back totalization in which case you will be losing Theory of Power. You can certainly still win debates where you lose Theory of Power as the pess team, and this will usually be through winning links, solvency indicts, or an alternative. This is true for all psychoanalysis arguments and Baudrillard.

4) I will hack for novelty. It's incredible to me how much critical theory we don't use in debate because it fails to meet the bar for what we think is the correct way to execute a Kritik. There's too little incentive for rethinking familiar arguments. If you go equal against a team that is reading something weird and new while you are reading old blocks and recycled 2nrs, then you did the worse debating.

Clash

1) Framework is boring. There are so many things that I would rather hear besides or in addition to framework such as impact turns/disads, cap, topical counterplans, indicts of authors, and other kritiks. If you read framework in front of me me, here are somethings that matter to me

A) Tell a story about actual abuse. I much prefer that framework be read with arguments that you expect your opponents to spike out of. Conversely, if you are the K team and you don't spike disads, then it is much more likely that you will win framework. Winning actual abuse will always legitimate whining about models.

B) Know that I think that fairness is an impact, but I don't think that it can easily be outweighed by structural injustice or the reproduction of violence. It is certainly a tie-breaker when the K team loses that voting for them does nothing or the TVA.

C) Clash is generally an internal link, not an impact. If you win that you have more detailed discussions of something that we shouldn't be talking about, you haven't won anything good.

2) Doing good is good, but you still have to explain buzzwords like utilitarianism and pragmatism. You don't win these arguments by just repeating the word because that's equivalent to a claim without a warrant.

3) Theory usually comes before topic education because it is assumed that we don't need to read conditional offcase or pics to access kritikal education. Again if you can tell me an abuse story, I'm more willing to buy the violation. I also really like 'x justifies y' arguments.

Policy vs. Policy

1) Ideally, I wouldn't be in these rounds, but it happens.

2) I will assume a utilitarian cost benefit analysis unless told otherwise. This means that I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for. I've voted for first-strike russia, curbing counterplans, and condo.

3) Slow down and don't assume I read and understand what your aff does. Even if I do, I still believe that debate is a communicative activity and expect you to explain your arguments to me.

Geordano Liriano Hire

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 8:54 PM EST

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 the claimant provides evidence otherwise I will be stuck piecing together what I believe 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 Mon November 11, 2024 at 8:38 AM EST

Emory ’26. Calvert Hall ’22. Yes, email chain: lcsrlobo@gmail.com. Chain should be named “Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team.”

Important:
1. I have zero knowledge about the IP topic. Didn't work at a camp, haven't done any topic research, and have taken very few classes that overlap with any content. Please do not assume I know any acronyms or legalese.
2. The following is a general set of ways I view debate that can VERY easily be modified depending on quality of arguments and quality of debating.
3. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t objectively false (i.e. elections disad after it happened), death good (if you are unsure your argument qualifies as this, it probably does), or clearly problematic.
4. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. Expect low speaks if this is the case.
5. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it.

T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big. “Good is good enough” alone doesn’t make much sense. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp. It matters a lot to me that every word is counter defined but it matters more that a non-counter defined word has a concrete limits/ground case attached to it.

CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Evidence quality and impacted deficits matter lots. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo: numerical interps are arbitrary, logic + risk aversion make sense to me, and fairness by default outweighs education. Substance > theory.

DAs: Relative risk precedes and determines turns case. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. Love the politics DA.

Ks: I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate. My favorite K debates to judge are those where framework is not super relevant, but alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are. I will obviously evaluate framework, especially if large swaths of offense are un/misanswered, but unique and contextualized links are far better. I am fundamentally unpersuaded to one-sentence 'role of the judge' and 'role of the ballot' arguments other than deciding who did the better debating and submitting it to tabroom, respectively. These arguments are often better explained as pieces of framework offense.

Planless: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) depending on impact explanation, comparison, turns case, and solves case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense.

Brian Loo Sidwell

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 8:22 AM EST

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.

I tend to be tech over truth, i.e. I judge you based on what you argue and how effectively you defend it rather than judging you based on my own knowledge and assumptions about how the world works. But like most people, I will be annoyed if you say things that I know to be factually wrong (even if I end up voting for you).

I was an LD debater in high school and did various forms of legislative debate in both high school and college; I am now a high school English teacher.

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 am okay at flowing debates but definitely not the best.)

That being said, I very much enjoy seeing a technically sound round of PF and I will almost always vote for the team that wins the flow.

Speech Events

I did OO and Extemp in high school. I have a good sense of what makes a strong DI, HI, Duo, OPP, Expos, OA, and Impromptu, events that were part of my local and state circuits back in the day. I am a lot less familiar with other events.

Policy Debate

I'm still relatively new to judging Policy. I have judged about a dozen rounds of CX at this point, but mostly JV/Novice and local league.

Progressive Debate: I'm open to whatever - K's, framework, theory, etc. You can argue anything. Just don't expect me to be an expert. Be sure to link, explain significance, convince me of your approach. Usually progressive debate involves some sort of paradigm shift in how we think about debate or the warrants and impacts of a debate.

Cards and Evidence: 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. You also need to explain the significance of a card (or series of cards) in the flow of the debate. Do not expect me to do this for you. 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.

Speed: I am okay with spreading in Policy because I know it is part of the event, but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to follow. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. I'll do my best to flow the debate and I make my decision based on what I was able to flow and understand.

Dropped Arguments: 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, all you automatically win is the dropped argument. You have to convince me why the argument wins you the debate.

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 extemporaneous 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. A winning speech is one that significantly influences the overall flow of the debate in the chamber through clash and new arguments. 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.

Timothy Lopreiato Long Branch High School

Jake LoRocco Prospect Hill Academy Charter School

sim low Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 10:49 AM EST

simdebates@gmail.com for the email chain and any other inquiries

the asian debate collective is a community of debaters across all platforms and skill levels. we offer active programming during the summer that includes academic guest speakers, debate lectures, and drill/practice round opportunities. outside of that, we also offer pre professional/college application assistance and as always, emotional support! if you are interested in joining, email me.

i’m a johns hopkins graduate where i studied public health and Black studies. my academic research focuses on transnational (anti)Asian/American studies.

i was most recently the head policy coach at georgetown day school until 2024. since then, i have taken a million steps back from the activity. i am now a grumpy old person, assume i know nothing about the topic! unlike tim, who is very friendly and a great judge :3

i mostly coached k debate and i am mostly preferred for k and clash rounds. i think i am capable of judging other arguments, but not as well. meaning, the bar for explanations is higher. i am argument-agnostic and will always prefer technical and clear debating. warrants, comprehensive extensions, and explicit argument interaction is key to winning in front of me. i am very comfortable voting on presumption or pretending an argument doesn’t exist if you do not extend it because i will not do it for you.

quirks:

inserting highlighting is not a thing, read it out loud.
you need to extend your interpretation. i cannot believe i have to say this. if you are slaying and winning the line-by-line on that flow it doesn’t matter if there isn’t an interpretation to hinge on.
dropped arguments need to be explicitly flagged and implicated. going “they dropped it” and moving on does not mean anything.

the round starts at start time. 1ac is sent out by then and you start speaking on the dot. the team that delays the start time will be punished through speaker points. rounds take far too long because of dilly dallying and i shall not have it.

tim is my league of legends partner :^)

Ian Lowery Calvert Hall College High School

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 9:19 AM EST

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 at James Madison University (2020 - 2022).

Former Head Coach of Speech & Debate at Centreville High School (2018-2019)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 best experience is with the K.

Tech over Truth - I believe in voting on the flow, and unless I am more than 95% 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 the argument, but you're rolling the dice.

I will evaluate arguments which suggest that I should not flow or not decide the round based on traditional policy argumentation standards - but I need to be given a clear alternative method of evaluating the truth-value of competing arguments. Otherwise, I don't see how I won't just end up voting for whoever I think was more technical or voting for whichever team I vibed with more (which might be the point... I guess. But trying to predict my vibes without knowing me very well is a dangerous game imo).

Conduct - Don't be a jerk. It's aight to be aggressive, if there's a point/reason 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

If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

Cesar Luevano Hire None

Emmanuel Makinde Stuyvesant High School

kate Marin Hire

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 6:52 AM EST

The briefest background info ever:

former 2A at Binghamton - I did a lot of K debate.

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 will flow shared speeches, please do not feed lines to your partner, just say them yourself

- If you're reading Schmitt or Heidegger your speaks are capped at 26 regardless of whether or not you win

- if you are reading afro pess blocks to answer a position that's not afro pess I am subtracting 1 point from your speaks

- Brownie points in the form of speaks for a well-executed phil strat in any event (that includes util if you do it right)

- if you spread your unsent analytics at card speed im only going to evaluate what i was able to flow so be careful

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 recently graduated college debater who majored 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

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

3. Who solves which impacts and how do I evaluate/compare them?

- I start my evaluation with framework/framing

- discourse/education matter (ie. I would rather you just go for liberalism good than argue that your reps aren't important)

more detailed takes for people who want them:

K's:

I have probably read your lit base, 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

There are probably no perms in a methods debate, but you still have to win that

DAs:

Love them (and never get to judge them lmao)

Don't be afraid to go for a DA and case just don't forget presumption

CPs:

Solvency advocate theory is probably true

These are a solid and underutilized strategy against k affs

Theory/T:

think of this as like a break glass in case of emergency option in front of me; if you can demonstrate and impact out in round abuse then do it

I am very persuaded by perf con

Disclosure theory means I need screenshots with a timestamp

if you're a circuit debater and your opponent has no idea what's going on I will deck your speaks

affs

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 ???? - tell me how the aff solves your extinction scenario

Joshua Martin Sonoma Academy

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 8:01 AM EST

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, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. 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 October 18, 2024 at 1:35 PM EST

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! 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. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impact calc in my decision-making.

3. 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.

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 enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. 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.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war/extinction impact, but it's getting a little old. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war/leads to extinction, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

Brendon Morris Lexington HS

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 7:03 PM EST

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 I will make the decision that requires no work from me unless neither team has a ballot which requires zero 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.

Flowing Practices

I flow 1AC and 1NC cross-x just in case it becomes important to the debate. For 2AC and 2NC cross-x I am mostly listening and writing feedback about the constructive. I will flow 1AC & 1NC with the speech doc open next to the flow. I am reading along with the speech and will catch if you do things like hide aspec so don't worry about that. For the other 6 speeches I am probably not looking at the speech doc. and just flowing what I hear. Don't read into it if I close my eyes or look up and away; I'm just trying to increase my focus to flow better.

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. "Reject the argument solves all their offense" is an unwarranted claim and teams should capitalize on this more. 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 holistically.

DA:

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.

CP:

For the neg I prefer that you have a solvency advocate. For the aff I think solvency deficits to the CP probably win most in front of me. I'm alright for competition debates if you are good at them. Spreading one liner standards in the 1ar and then exploding on them in the 2ar will make me have a very low threshold for 2nr answers look like. Similar for the 2nr, but I think the 2nr needs to flag the analysis as new and tell me it justifies new 2ar answers.

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. Please leave the cards in the file and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points. For aff v K perm is probably your best weapon, answer the theory of power especially if there is an ontology claim, and FW which outright excludes the K is probably weaker than a FW which just says the aff gets to weigh their impacts.

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. I'll vote on framework/topicality, for negs running it I think the "role of negation" is particular convincing and I need an offensive reason to vote, but defense on each aff standard/impact is just as important.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise. Perms test mutual exclusivity and I normally think they do this by resolving links through the perm. Multiple perms good/bad is a question to be debated on 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
- Complete line by line in the order that the opponents made the arguments
- 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 Mon November 11, 2024 at 10:07 PM EST

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

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

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gonzaga 2025 Update:

first time judging IP topic i don't know nor care about camp T norms

in a k debate you are better off generating ofdense than winning impact calc. imo the timesplit should be 85/15. i see many of you split your time 50/50 explaining why fairness comes first or why k offense comes first for half your speech and not nearly enough time actually winning the offense, explaining a turn to the other teams offense, or explaining defense. like in a policy debate would you spend half your time explaining why timeframe outweighs magnitude? feels like a waste of time and its a bit mind numbing. now for me judge instruction and impact calc does matter as i like to pretend im biasless but in fact i think other judges are likely to just bias to their personal preference of what impact should come first.

i don't want to listen to you complaining about arguments being stupid, i don't believe that policy debate should shame automatically exclude frivolous theory like aspec, random LD philosophy and tricks, process cps, fiat ks etc etc pick your hated argument. if an argument is stupid then it should be easy to refute.

i have a bit of time and im willing to coach one team willing to read the asian/buddhism k arguments primarily. email or messenger me if interested. sorry rates are nonnegotiable and im careful with my time, please only reach out if you're seriously interested and can commit to at least 1 hour a week.

Wake 2024 Update:

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

Michigan 2024 Update:

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

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

Luca Musk The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 4:16 PM EST

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 Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:32 AM CST

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 Wed September 11, 2024 at 5:54 AM PST

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. Explain your theory of power. I am familiar with all theories. 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 EST

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

Jackson Owen Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:55 AM EST

please put me on email chain

jaxrowen@gmail.com

former 2A/1N for Mamaroneck BO (2018-2022); UPenn Class of 2026

General Stuff

Not very familiar with this year's topic discourse, but I have a basic understanding of social programs and advanced sense of the current political system.

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 Thu January 11, 2024 at 4:22 AM EST

Email: simonpark101@gmail.com
Conflicts: Centennial, McDonogh, Atholton, River Hill, Reservoir, Capitol Debate, Georgetown Day

2024 Update (Random thoughts from recently judging, read this if time is limited)

Everyone, it is now 2024. You ALL have the responsibility of making paperless debate run EFFICIENTLY. PLEASE learn/know how to reply to an email chain with an attachment.
PLEASE FLOW. I'll say again: PLEASE FLOW. And I mean flow the SPEECHES, NOT the SPEECH DOCS. There is definitely a difference. My biggest pet peeve is when I see a debater get up and yell "we win because they dropped XYZ," when I saw you the past 3 speeches staring off into space and/or barely paying attention. I PAY ATTENTION TO EVERYTHING. As unfair as it is, from my time talking to judges from all backgrounds and ranges of debate knowledge, how you come across and are perceived IN THE ROUND play an enormous psychological component to judges when they give their decision and speaker points.
Depth > Breadth. I love debate. However, I am a little disappointed that the popular negative strategy now is to read 8+ contradictory off-case positions with 3+ conditional advocacies. It is NOT the shear NUMBER of arguments that gets me disappointed, but rather the strategy of reading 1-3 positions that you know you can/will go for and reading 5-7 positions you know you will NEVER go for and reading them SOLEY for the purpose of SKEWING the 2A. So this goes without saying, but I highly encourage affirmative teams to go for conditionality/performative contradictions and/or to straight-turn half of the 1NC and I highly encourage negative teams to focus more on the DEPTH of GOOD arguments that are VIABLE 2NR options rather than ways to contrive the 1NC to "trick" the 2A. Do not get me wrong: I have seen very impressive speeches and voted for very good debaters that employ this strategy. I am writing this point more for affirmative teams that can use the lack of depth of the negative's arguments to their advantage.
An extension of an argument requires a claim, warrant, and reference to author/date (if applicable). I am not reading any evidence post-round if final rebuttals do not reach this threshold of explanation.
The best speeches I have seen are where the debater 1) uses their flow to guide their line by line , 2) has ethos/pathos, 3) connects and communicates to the judge in the speeches AND CX, 4) articulate the warrants of their main arguments embedded within the opponent's arguments/warrants, and 5) give smart framing and meta-level explanation (impact calculus, CP solvency framing, how FW on the K implicates the rest of the debate etc.)
Please have fun and be competitive!

Top-Level

Don’t clip/cross-read/cheat in any way
Tech > Truth. However, the worse your argument is, the more explanation is needed even though it may be dropped.
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?"

"Clash" Debate

I have read an affirmative without a traditional plan text and also have been negative reading only Framework
To me, these debates are won by the side that best argues their interpretation creates the best model for debate while solving for all, if not most, of the opposing side's offense.
The case debate MUST be relevant to the debate, unless the negative team is WAYYYYY ahead on the Framework proper debate (I have yet to see this).
There are typically two routes for the negative. 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.

Theory and where I lean

3+ Conditional Advocacies/Conditions CPs/Word PICs/Process CPs/Object Fiat/Contradictions Bad – Aff
1 Conditional Advocacy/Topical CPs/Unconditionality/Intrinsic & Severance Perms – Neg
2 Conditional Advocacies/International Fiat/50 State Fiat/Agent CPs/Floating PIKs – Middle

Counterplans

the 2NR has to explicitly say the judge has to kick the CP
Solvency advocates are necessary
Well-researched process-based CPs/PICs are my favorite

Disadvantages/Impact Turns

Top-level disad impact calculus and straight impact turns I feel like almost became a lost art
Smart and analytical "turns case" arguments are underrated
Politics is cool

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 like 1:30 or 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
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. Each side needs to win why their framework is a better model for debate that can also solve the opposing side's offense.
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

This is where anything goes. Do you and do what you do well.
Most of these debates I have judged primarily came down to whether the affirmative gets a permutation. I am right down the middle and can be persuaded either way.

Kimo Peluso Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 6:10 PM EST

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 Thu November 21, 2024 at 10:09 AM EST

Before we begin

Debate is hard, treat yourself kindly. If you are a debater: Have you had water today? Have you eaten? Take care of yourself and those around you. Good luck, you are going to do great! Remember that debate can be fun, and that you are powerful for choosing to speak a world into being. If you are a coach/debate adult: Treat the debaters you judge, coach, and prep against with kindness and respect. They are not you, and that's a good thing. Your callousness is contagious.

Debate means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and that's okay. Don't be ashamed about caring a lot. Don't be ashamed about not really caring at all. I hold my profound appreciation of debate in one hand, and my deep frustration toward it in the other. I hold my role as an educator in one part of my heart, and my role as an adjudicator in the other. Unite the two, and the ballot is yours.

If you are ever in a position where you face an argument that you have no idea to answer and the round doesn't feel worth debating, you can forfit the round and we can talk about effective strategies for answering it and I will give you helpful cards and suggestions. I would give you a 28.9 and the winning debaters a 29.5. I would make both teams give a speech at the end of the round and we can use it as an opportunity for individual guided learning.

The Basics

Hi! I debated at SUNY Binghamton and was a semi and quarter finalist at the CEDA National tournament, and won the West Point Tournament. I also debated for Brooklyn Tech, and got some bids. 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. Being 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 will listen either way.

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 in the context of the specific round you are in. But if you convince me that what you have to say outweighs whatever argument you dropped, then you will win. I am a very flow centric judge, but the optics and social dynamics of what is happening texture my flow and my willingness to prioritize certain arguments over others. 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 will have my undying love and support !!!! <3 But not necessarily my ballot. That being said, please email me or bug me after round/in the hallway about ways to improve. For those who dare to think otherwise, I want to see you grow.

Debate is an oratory activity!!! I try my hardest to flow solely based on what I hear, and am very willing to "clear" you. If I have to spend my time chasing where you are on the document I will be sad and probably give up, which will lower your speaks and mean my RFD may frustrate you. Also, I care much more about well warrented analytics and historical analysis than a super fire card.

I think "US Hegemony good" is a more disgusting argument than "death good". I will vote on either. What does this say about me? Who's to say.

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. That being said, I take claims about "safety" in round very seriously. The only argument that I will be transparent about apriori not voting on is "well if what we did made you unsafe, why don't you call tabroom". Tabroom isn't in the room, I am. If the team claiming that certain behavior is unsafe decides to debate it out, I will assume that my ballot then becomes a referendum on the permissibility of certain behaviors in debate. I am fine with that, I think those debates are important to have, but if you want to stop the round you have to explicitly say "can we stop the round, I do not feel safe in this environment" and then we will proceed from there. Questions of what the ballot entails could then come after.

Who I am

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 !

I am an educator who is currently getting certified to teach english in the DOE, but studied philosophy in undergrad. Much of my experience in debate outside of competing is volunteering at local 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. Debate is a game, but one with the capacity for intense transformation and trauma due to the social implications that undergird every aspect of the activity. 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 small school debate grow.

In debate rounds I did 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 site of creation and expression!

I am a K debater at heart, but in any debate round I am looking for engagement. With the exception of arguments that are actively bigoted (and if you have to ask yourself "would Sonnie think this is bigoted" the answer is probably yes) I will vote on anything. My heart is full of joy but my pen is jaded, connect the two and the world is yours. In high school I debated """"high theory"""", and in college I focused more on arguments relating to the black radical tradition. My favorite rounds are one where different disciplines/school of thoughts interact with each other in interesting and intuitive ways. I enjoy clash rounds and K v K rounds equally.

If you are a K debater at a small school I would be happy to throw some files your way and answer any questions :)

Thoughts on arguments

Plan based aff’s: Remember that the aff is not just a set of moving parts, it is an action that you are trying to prove to me is valuable. The better you explain your affirmative in relation to your impacts and the opponents offense, the better. Case takeouts are very important in my decision calculus.

K Affs: By the end of the round I would like a good idea of what the aff does and how. I like it when K Affs solve things and if yours doesnt it would be smart to have a very robust explanation of your affs relationship to presumption and why you don't have the burden of doing things. Using examples and historical understanding to contextualize your solvency to the world is wonderful. 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 that means I vote for you.

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.

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: I think T is underutilized against plan based affirmatives. To win T you need to be as specific as possible, highlighting unique moments where the aff utilized the violation to put the negative into an unwinable position that limits the values of the activity. That isn't particularly hard to do given the ways that a lot of policy aff's are written. That being said, go slow and be thorough as I am not caught up on the T lingo/topic jargon.

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. Similar to T, contextualize it to the round as much as possible and apply it to the line by line to explain to me what your opponent can and cannot weigh under your and their interpretation.

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.

The most common scenario where I vote aff is when the negative has done no work on the case page, as the 2ar gets to stand up and explain how the entire 1ac is a critique of framework and then weigh the entirety of the case against FW, which means their impacts outweigh. The most common scenario where I vote neg is when Framework (and other parallel arguments like "state engagement good" or "roleplaying good") is contextualized to the 1ac and resolves aff offense while still showing that playing the game of policy debate is good and cool.
While I do not think that fairness is an impact (I see it as an internal link towards other impacts, insofar as participation in an unfair activity discourages people from participating in it and is thus more of an impact magnifier for other impacts) I do think that the most compelling FW impacts are ones based around the question of competitive incentives and clash. Questions I find myself asking in FW rounds are "what is the role of the negative?", "what types of debates are incentived under the aff model, and are those debates more or valuable than plan focused debate?" and "what is the value of bringing this thought into debate?" Kritikal aff's dont neccesarily need to defend a model of debate, but these questions will still linger in my head.
I see Switch Side Debate and Topical Versions of the Aff very similarly to the way one would view a DA and CP. You have presented an alternative model of debate that avoids the impacts of a DA (limits, ground, etc) while also resolving aff offense. This means the aff conceding SSD or the TVA is not an instant neg ballot if you arent winning any offense against the aff OR why SSD/TVA is better than the affs model (in the same way that in the case where a CP is presented presumption flows aff).

LD Specific

I am relatively new to LD, but don't have the cynicism towards tricks, and theory that many Policy debaters transitioning into LD have. An argument is an argument, and as long as you have a claim, warrant, and impact I will evaluate it. That being said, if you do not contextualize your offense to your opponents offense I won't see why it matters, and the more disingenuous the argument the less work I am willing to do for you. Also, education and clash outweighs is a very persuasive answer to tricks for me. "Even if they win this on the line by line, you should still evaluate X because Y" is something that will make me vote for you even if you concede some smaller phil or tricky argument. Does that make sense?

I will approach phil debates with my background knowledge of having studied analytic philosophy in college. I think they are fun, but I won't know why dropping your small sub-point is an instant win, you still have to do judge instruction and articulate your arguments.

The fact that using personal cellphone numbers has become a disclosure norms is disgusting and wildly inappropriate given debates less than stellar reputation for student-teacher boundaries. There are very few situations I will straight up vote for disclosure on, but it is a good thing to mention when going for other procedurals insofar as it textures other arguments about in-round abuse. All the time and energy you are spending trying to get disclosure is better spent prepping.

Things That Will Get You Good 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: 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: 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. It is very easy to tell when you are and are not reading off a block

Shameless plugs

I think about debate more than I would care to admit. Here I write about what the radical potential of debate actually is. Here I write about what debate rounds could look like if we move towards a model that sees conversation as a modality of competition.

I will put my spotify here because I often played music in rounds I debated in so if u wanted to see what my vibes were here u go. https://open.spotify.com/user/calypsocan?si=XMTWgaD3TdOMsDKfL80cHg

I make music sometimes. This is a band I was in in college that was good I think, and if you want to hear my current musical endeavors follow DenpaDollhouse on instagram (the CEDA 2024 champion is also in this band).

Thanks for reading!! Hope u have a nice day/tournament :0

Maddie Pieropan Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 8:05 AM CST

Maddie or Mads, not "judge"

any pronouns

maddiepieropandebate@gmail.com

Background/Affiliations: BVSW 2020, current KU debater; Coaching at the Berkeley preparatory school

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.

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 CST

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 Wed January 10, 2024 at 3:05 PM EST

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 queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. 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 Fri November 3, 2023 at 8:59 PM EST

*** PF ****

A good chunk of what I note below for how I adjudicate policy rounds applies to PF rounds, so read that if you want a general understanding of how I view debate, but there are a couple PF-specific things I should emphasize.

don't spread analytics or generally be unclear. this sucks in policy, but it sucks extra in PF because arguments are less dependent on evidence.
final focus speeches should not just be line by line, but rather picking the specific parts of the line by line that you think matter the most and telling me why
I have a high risk/reward bar for friv theory, tricks, Ks, etc. Do it well, and I'm very down. Do it poorly and I'm very not.

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 Sat January 20, 2024 at 9:17 AM PST

(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 Sun September 15, 2024 at 6:09 AM EST

Suffolk SW

Northview IS, MS

Assistant Coach - Suffolk University

b2.kingofnato@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.

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

**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

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 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

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 Fri November 8, 2024 at 10:21 AM EST

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Updates:

—I find impact turns increasingly strategic and persuasive.

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. 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, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for 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 Mon January 8, 2024 at 10:26 AM EST

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

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 2:08 PM CST

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its a LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

Samuel Stiller Hire

Matthew James Stinson Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 12:57 PM EST

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 KvK>Clash> 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. But inevitably, I have some preconceptions and biases about debate so look through before rounds.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and daoism on the neg, but in college I am a 1N/2A reading primarily flex args from across the library

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.

Im not the type of judge if your debate style is bullying your opponents or being outright aggressive to them.

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:

Policy Aff vs K:

I have no strong leanings either way. These are my favorite type of debates to watch and judge. Kinda weird flow choice by me but in one off debates I prefer to flow different parts ie. FW, ontology, perms and links on different sheets so pls give me pen time

I think top level: both teams need to win an instructive claim on what the role of the ballot is and how I should weigh the aff vs the alt or the squo. Framework debating is often underutilized on the high school level and I think in a lot of debates it becomes a wash, which isnt good for both teams

I prefer for links to be to the consequences of the plan, generally, i find links of omission and reps links to not be super strategic. They are winnable but I would like some aff-specific contextualization with fleshed-out impacts and turns case analysis.

I find in a lot of fiat K ontology debates are really reductive and their isnt really explanations from either side about what the implications of their examples are and why is this the case.

I find 2AC shotgunning perms to be annoying and I give the 2NR leeway for new answers if a shotgunned perm suddenly takes on a new meaning in the 1AR. I prefer perms beyond PDB to be explained in the 2ac in like a sentence

Im not the judge for vague alt theory, use it as a solvency takeout instead

I think alt debating is usually pretty bad and isnt explained enough how the alt solves the links. Both teams need to pay heed to this and do more work on this part of the debate

Clash:

I believe FW is a legitimate form of rejoinder against non-topical advocacy. Having read a K-aff and FW consistently in college I find myself to be middle of the road in these debates with no strong leanings either way

Generally speaking, I view FW as a sliding scale. We meet affs will have an easier time while affs that dont engage with the topic theme at all will have a harder time.

My best advice is to choose an angle against FW and stick to it rather than going for a we meet, counter interp, and Impact turn all in the same 2AR.

I believe for me personally debate is a game that has some value outside of debate. I believe fairness is an external impact, but I find clash or skills to usually be more strategic against most K affs

I think for a winning 2NR in these debates I need clear impact explanation, offense on their CI/IT, and a bit on the case page to minimize case cross apps

I am also quite sympathetic to presumption and rejoinder bad arguments and I think sometimes going for case in the 2NR is quite strategic

For the 2AR to get my ballot explain your theory of power, its offensive applications on framework, and win either a counter-interp that is a better model, we meet, or an impact turn to FW

My final thoughts are I appreciate solid case debating. I think a coherent 4-5 minutes on case with both offense and defense to central claims will be way more strategic than a generic cap K

KvK

I lean on the side that the aff gets the perm, but the burden for explanation is higher than we sorta mention x or we would work in solidarity with y. Treat the perm like independent advocacy and explain why it resolves the links and explain how it would function.

I prefer as specific link contextualization as you can get, I think ontology without contextualization arent the best in front of me

Id like more impact comparison on both sides and explain how your theory of power interacts and supersedes your opponents

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 for the death K, wipeout, spark etc.

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts

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 Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:09 AM EST

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

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

I judge around 2-3 performance debates a year. 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

Notes

Prep time continues until 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 Sat November 9, 2024 at 5:31 AM EST

Hey, I’m Eli! Binghamton University (Bing TC)

email chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Personal thoughts (on debate): Debate is a business. To debate is work. Yes, enjoy the activity, but also have a plan for how you interact with this space.

Do what you want, but let me not feel about your arguments how Grace Jones felt about Lady Gaga:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/grace-jones-on-meeting-lady-gaga-i-just-didnt-feel-a-soul-2015510/

For PF: you can read this paradigm to understand how I engage arguments in general, but the threshold is MUCH lower (except for everything I wrote after the Theory section). Do you, have fun. I don't particularly care.

Speed: If I yell clear twice, I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, make sure you emphasize and are clear on what's important. For your sake, not mine.

Policy Affs- I need a clear framework for how I am to evaluate the plan (and round) beyond a reactionary response to the negative. I require a clear link story to the impact(s), and discussion of how the plan secures a resolution to the harms of the 1AC.

Prep out for T. That seems to be a lot of policy teams' weakness when Affirmative.

T/Framework: It's fine. Strategic. And honestly, they're easy outs when judging. HOWEVER, you're not gonna go far if the block is surface level on questions of YOUR wants. Get nuanced and specific. Actually implicate the Affirmative

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. Just have a very clear and concise link story and impact comparison to justify why the DA outweighs (and/or turns) case. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... 'this feels like a huge FYI and I don't know why I should care (judge instruction)...'

-----

The K-(however it so comes about)

Aff: Be in discussion of the topic. If not, I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: Content and form must be aligned. I require strong judge instruction because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to. This applies to Affs as well, but I specified here as the Neg has the burden to rejoin.

POMO: I require an advocacy/alt that could easily be materialized or understood to resolve specified harms. Examples and analogies would be best.

"Identity": Win your Theory of Power and that your method best resolves (as opposed to being an 8/9-minute FYI). I'm familiar with many and live in the intersections of many (Black Fem args have my heart).

-----

Theory: Divert from only reading unspecified shells. Apply it to the actual performances and actions of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate its importance. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

Any default to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I will drop you and end the round. Auto-loss.

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down

////

I (still) flow on paper.

/////

Add on to previous: I primarily flow from speech. Clarity please.

//////

I vote fast because I am actively thinking about the round. My written RFD will be short, but the verbal RFD will be plentiful. Take notes and ask questions.

///////

I'm a 'let the debaters debate' type of person. In other words: debate is what *you* choose to make of it. My time to be in y'all's position is over. So, you all determine the tone by which y'all engage each other, I just have to submit the ballot by the end.

Point 1 is my boundary and only intervention

////////

I cuss, but only to emphasize certain points. Do not be surprised if I say a curse here or there, it is what it is (not applicable to Nov/JV)

Jacob Thomas Success Academy East Flatbush Middle

Last changed on Thu August 10, 2023 at 11:44 AM EST

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

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 Sun February 11, 2024 at 4:49 PM EST

Welcome!

Brown '26, Decatur '22

Please add me to the email chain - maddockpublic@gmail.com

Also add:

(debatedecatur@gmail.com)

Any questions, please ask.

~~Water~~ ~~(NATO) (~~Economic Inequality) Thoughts:

I have judged rather little on this topic. I have a pretty good understanding of the general topic though as a reader of much about economic redistribution.

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 9, 2024 at 5:02 AM CST

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'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 an English teacher, so I will give an extra .1 spear poi if you cite some poetry in your rebuttal speech (in context) .2 if I really like the poem.

Tag team is fine; however, I think the speaker should be the one primarily responsible for answering. I don't want to see one partner dominating.

Kjtrant@cps.edu

Arden Traynor Success Academy Harlem North Central

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 12:36 PM EST

I coach speech at Loyola School. My pronouns are they/them.

My speech paradigm is simple. Don’t be ableist/homophobic/racist/etc when choosing your material, and be a respectful audience member. Otherwise do you. When I was a competitor, I performed the seminal teen vampire romance Twilight as an HI, a DI, and a duo in the same season. Truly anything goes.

_________________

The following is my debate paradigm from my days coaching policy at SA Harlem North Central:

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 recognize that spreading is a necessary evil of this activity. I’d prefer if you wouldn’t for accessibility reasons. If I cannot hear your arguments, I cannot weigh them.

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 (and for the record, I'm on team limited condo good).

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 flow tabs 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.

12. If you're not taking notes during my RFD I'll stop talking and leave :) I know that sounds really aggressive but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend time and effort parsing through my notes and giving detailed feedback if you're not going to write it down somewhere.

Amanda Treulich Hire

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 9:53 PM EST

Hello! I'm Amanda Treulich, I use she/her pronouns.

Please add me to the email chain! My email is atreuli1@binghamton.edu

Background:

I'm a junior majoring in integrative neuroscience at Binghamton University, and I joined the world of Policy Debate in Fall 2022. I'm currently a JV/Varsity debater, and it's my third year of policy. In high school I did four years of Ethics Bowl - if you know what that is, come talk to me about it! :)

Past arguments I've used include (in no particular order) cap, biopolitics, psychoanalysis, and anthro/speciesism. For authors, I'm at least somewhat familiar with Foucault, Agamben, Mbembe, and Baudrillard.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate clearly organized and labeled arguments. Make it clear to me what your advantages, impacts, links, etc. are, and I'll be more likely to vote on it. I'm unfamiliar with the high school policy debate topic for this year, so make sure you clearly explain everything and don't assume I know the common arguments already. Some other things to keep in mind:

Clarity over speed, especially for analytics to make sure I don't miss any of your points while flowing
I appreciate good line by line work, and I will be voting on the flow
A few good cards with detailed explanation are better than many cards that aren't described well
As a K-debater, I enjoy hearing critiques as well as critical affs. When arguing the critique on the neg, having a clear link is important, and make sure you explain the alt to me if you're going for it.
Please time your own speeches and prep, it helps the process go by smoother
This goes without saying, but don't be rude or disrespectful at any point during the round

Ultimately, I believe policy debate should be a pleasant experience for all, so don't take yourselves too seriously - make sure to have fun and enjoy the moment! For novice debate especially, this is a learning experience and ought to be an enjoyable one.

Aimee Trivino Hire

Bailey Trudell Hire

Rosie Valdez Little Rock Central

Last changed on Thu September 5, 2024 at 6:05 PM CST

-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 EST

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

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 7:04 AM EST

Last Updated: November 6, 2024

Assistant Policy Debate Coach @ Berkeley Prep & Northwestern University.Debated at Little Rock Central High School (TOC Finalist '16) and Wake Forest University (NDT 1st round '19).

Put me on the email chain:williamsd.j.jr@gmail.com

General/TLDR:

Tech over truth. Only caveat, I won't vote on a unwarranted claim without an impact. For example, if a team drops "X is a microaggression," but you fail to explain why, I will not check out for you.

Please be CLEAR. If I can't understand you, then I WON'T flow it. Speed great, just want clarity (Slow down + enunciate on tags). If your strategy is to outspread the other team then name and number offense and don't forget my caveat to tech over truth

No argument preference. I primarily read Ks/K affs; however, I started my career only reading plans, T, DAs, and CPs. Lately, I have found myself in many policy v. policy debates, and I am fan.

I will not evaluate personal attacks against debater's, UNLESS I am a first hand witness to it in a debate round.

"One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument.But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it." -- Sam Gustavson

Framework:

1. Debate is a game. My sole concern when I competed and now coach as a coach is winning. However, I don't think this means competition is inherently adversarial or that there isn't value to debate outside of competitive incentives.

2. Fairness is an impact. Games require rules, but what those rules should be is up for debate. I don't start from the presupposition that anything is inherently fair/unfair. The onus is on you to explain why your interpretation of how the game should be played is preferrable.

3. Clash is an underutilized impact. I believe in-depth research/argumentation is something both policy and K teams fundamentally agree is good. I am sympathetic towards arguments that clash turns the affirmative's impacts and/or is necessary to develop certain skills (e.g. advocacy/activism, critical thinking, etc.). Additionally, I think the best models of debate, whether plan focused or not, should ensure some level of predictable ground for both sides. I am less convinced that clash solves dogmatism because I don't believe debaters 1) necessarily believe the arguments they read or 2) determine the validity of their arguments after engaging in SSD/researching both sides.

4. I don't think FW is inherently violent, but it is complicit in legacy and pathos of exclusion. That being said, I dislike the argument that purely reading FW is a microaggression unless there is a specific link to the way it has been deployed in that round. FW/T is exclusionary by nature, so is any counter-interp that imposes a limit on what arguments should/shouldn't be read. The team that best justifies their exclusion or inclusion will earn my ballot.

5. I prefer K-affs be in the direction of the topic. A-topical affs are fine, but I am probably more neg leaning if FW is well developed or the debate is close.

6. These are my personal feelings not a metric for how I evaluate these arguments in debate:

- Fairness paradox misses the forest for the trees. There is no universal notion of fairness everyone agrees to in debate rounds. This is why judges have paradigms outlining their dispositions/preferences and why debater's get a pref sheet to strike judges who are predisposed to their arguments. Debate is a subjective activity and judges aren't provided a formula for making decision

- Alt causes to subjectivities + Double down are silly. Yes, family, friends, school, etc. shape who you are, but 1) those things are involuntary, 2) doesn't disprove the claim that debate also influences subject formation and 3) you're admitting to being easily influenced by people and institutions.

Topicality:

1. I default to competing interpretations. The negative must 1) offer an interp, 2) win the aff clearly violates that interp, and 3) prove the superiority their interp to the affirmative. I can be persuaded to use a reasonability standard, but competing interps is decisively less arbitrary.

2. Plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but how effective it is for determining whether an aff is topical depends on the resolutional wording.

Counterplans:

1. I'll judge kick the CP unless the aff tells me not to.

2. Multi-plank CPs are fine, but if the planks are conditional then the aff gets to permute as many random plank combos as they desire.

3. Process CPs are fine as long as there is a clear internal net benefit. Competition debates are cool, but it'll probably go over my head at times/require more in-depth explanation.

4. Condo is good. I am easily persuaded on conditionality being good (at least 1 CP/ 1 K is fine), but I am willing to vote on conditionality bad, especially when the neg has multiple contradicting positions.

5. Don't make a sufficiency framing argument without doing the work to explain why the CP does not need to solve the entire aff or why I should prefer it as long as it solves most/certain parts of the aff. You have to instruct me on what is "sufficient" and how that influences the way I should evaluate impacts.

Kritiks:

1. Links don't have to be to the plan, but the more specific the better.

2. K v. K - No preferences

Disadvantages:

1. Good impact calc is usually what tips the scales for me if the rest of the debate is fairly even.

2. Evidence quality matters. I will not evaluate links/link turns not grounded in evidence.

DavidMichael Woodward Hire

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 11:36 AM EST

Background:

Head Coach, Binghamton University (2021-current)
Debated + coached GMU (2009-2019)

-----Super short version 10 min before round-----

Yes Email Chain - add woodward@binghamton.edu

I am down for any argument, just win it + a reason I should vote for you

Am a sucker for judge instruction -> If you tell me to evaluate in a certain way and the other team doesn't rebut it then I'm going to.

I prefer explanation to card dumps- I vote on what you say not what the cards say, so the more you break things down and are clear the easier it is for me to vote for you. This matters for critical debates and policy rounds in different ways.

In K rounds- Don't assume I get the tricks/ideas behind your affirmative, or negative arguments especially if it's the first time I've heard your argument. I'm down for it of course but I do tend to look at debates very big picture, so nuances, or hyperspecific literature focused type of things WILL pass me by, but if you can break those arguments down then you'll go far with me.

In Policy rounds- Don't assume I know all acronyms or the most up to date negative/affirmative trends. Bing doesn't read policy affs usually in JV or Open. I cut our policy cards but outside of novice there's not a lot of DA/CP debates happening here. I expect to judge plenty of policy debates this season but I'm not as up to date on things as the season goes on, just because that's not our focus as a squad. So explanation is going to be important the more nuanced/specific a counterplan or DA is to an affirmative.

Be Polite- that's different from being nice.

Would prefer that people slow down/go to about 90% of top speed. I don't think this matters for most debates but it would be appreciative. I will yell slow/clear as applicable.

----Thoughts After 1st Semester/Wake---

1. I'm very much on the let affs cook side. Doesn't mean I won't vote on T-MBI is only Carbon Tax/Cap & Trade, but mileage varies depending on the mech, some of the areas I can see being fine, others not so sure.

2. I miss case debates, regardless of the aff or neg I do get a little sad seeing so little actual case debating on this topic. something something maybe speaker point increases etc. I like those a lot more than the counterplan prolif i've seen on various wikis

-----You have time to read/more specific things-----

---Novice/JV---

Is the most important division. We should be doing what we can to help the division grow and new debaters to improve and feel welcome- the community depends on it.

I'm fine with novices reading whatever arguments they wish. I would prefer if novices defend the topic, or if they took alternate routes to the topic they still defended topic DAs and were in a topical direction.

I am not a fan of misinformation type arguments in novice. This doesn't mean hiding DAs or case turns on case, or an extra definition on T (because those promote better flow practices) This means arguments that are obtuse to be obtuse for no reason.

---Topicality---

Is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

I am not persuaded by "norms" or "it's 1st/last tournament etc." style arguments. I do not need abuse to vote on topicality.

---Disadvantages---

They are good and should be read- turns case arguments are persuasive to me, Uniqueness vs Link questions don't super matter to me- tell me what to prioritize.

Politics and Elections DAs are strategic. But the current political system is so flawed it is hard to take the arguments seriously. I am very persuaded by arguments about why radicalism in our government has doomed the ability for it to function.

Elections/Midterms DAs, the closer we get to November, the better the DA sounds in front of me. Interpret this as you wish.

---Counterplans---

I reward teams for more specific reasons why the CP solves the aff vs no federal/xyz process good key warrant. I'm not a fan of no solvency advocate + just the CP text in the 1NC. I think the states counterplan may be a mistake on this topic.

I don't judge kick for the negative if a counterplan is extended in the 2NR barring exceptional justifications for doing so by a negative team.

I default to reject the argument on theory. I can be persuaded most things could be a reason to reject the team, or gives leeway on other arguments. My standards for voting on theory even with this are high. Affs should go for more theory, negatives do too much these days.

Conditionality in limited instances is good. That being said I get suspicious if the negative presents more than 2 conditional worlds. It's still debatable, but more than 3 seems excessive to me

---Critiques (When you are neg) ---

Judge instruction + framework is your friend. I usually compare the aff vs the alt in a vacuum, but when one team is telling me what to do, and one is not with this information this goes a long way into deciding my ballot. Sometimes good judge instruction can overcome technical drops. "Weigh the aff" is not an aff interp on framework. I think it does you a disservice unless the neg's interp is legitimately you don't get the aff without jumping through multiple hoops. I would prefer interps based on something more specific, whether it's extinction/impact based, or even better education towards an issue, or even the self serving ROB = best at fighting nuke weapons.

I require a bit of explanation. My critical knowledge is better than it was in the past but you are more likely to know your argument more than me. Empiric examples, applications to the affirmative, etc are all useful and persuasive.

Go for tricks, if the aff messes them up then it's a valid strategy, I don't think you need the alt alone if you're winning a sizeable enough impact + link for a case turn type of argument

--- Critiques (When you are aff) ---

I prefer affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic and do something, or if they do neither have a good justification for doing so.

Defend your arguments and be strategic. IF your 1AC is saying Heg + Prolif, it does not make sense to go for the link turns. This doesn't mean don't make the arguments if it's what you've prepped for but think about what your aff is designed to do and don't shy away from impact turns or offense.

Framework is viable and a decent strategy in front of me. I default to Limits > Fairness > Skills based arguments. Another thing from being at Bing is I am slowly leaning towards Fairness is more of an internal link vs an impact alone BUT I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also fine with impact turn debates but not having defense on neg framework standards (Or case defense to the aff) is pretty devastating and a problem for the team without said defense.

Something I have noticed as a pattern for lots of the framework rounds I judge is that not having defense, or at least references/cross applications that can be clear to answer terminal impacts on either side is usually something that can be a round ender. I find that I am somewhat persuaded by 2NR/2ARs that go for conceded impact scenarios on framework/affirmative answers to framework. Outside of heavy framing articulations this is usually hard to overcome.

Critical teams should think hard about if they want to defend DAs or not. I give negative teams lots of leeway if the 2AC says they'll defend the DA, but the 1AR/2AR immediately spikes the link/does some shenanigans (unless the neg did not actually read a link)

---Misc---

Speaker points: My guidelines end up looking like this for varsity debates. This may adjust due to trends at all levels. JV/Novice will usually be lower than this.

Nationals

Speaker award - 29.3

should/can clear - 28.7

Regional

Speaker Award -29

Should clear - 28.6

I adjust for division, but IF I give a student in JV or Novice a 29+ I believe they could debate a division up and succeed.

I don't like trolling - if you do not want to debate, simply forfeit, or have a discussion/pursue other methods of debating. IF you read an argument with the sole plan of being disruptive or trolling a debate you get a 15. IF you're funny you get a 25.

Don't cheat- if you accuse someone, round ends and will not restart. We don't have that many rules in debate, we should follow them, especially the rules about academic honesty/evidence.

Be polite- doesn't have to be "nice" but generally we shouldn't make rounds overly hostile for 0 reason. We will see each other multiple times over the next few years. There is a cutoff for being snarky and being a jerk.

"Inserting" Highlighting is silly, if you want to say the other team's ev goes neg/sets you up for an argument you have to read it for me to give you credit

---Other Events---

I am a policy coach. I have spent the vast majority of my time coaching and preparing things in policy formats. I will flow, I evaluate my decisions based on that flow. I believe the best debaters are ones who both prove their side of an issue is the most effective, and have combatted the opposing side effectively. I will never determine a round solely based on presentation, decorum or speaking style unless something problematic happened to where coaches/tab have to be involved.

Lynn Yeboah Hire None

Leah Yeshitila Hire

Eric Youngquist The Avery Coonley School

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 4:19 AM CST

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven 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 and am starting to judge Congressional this year. 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 four.

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 cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-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.

Congressional:

Outside of the sponsor speech, you are not getting a 5 or 6 unless your speech is DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE to the arguments already raised. I want to hear you call them out and directly compare your points against theirs. If you are the fifth speaker on a point and don't even mention the arguments raised before you, you are going to get a 3. And no, just mentioning their names doesn't count as being responsive...This is debate, not speech. I should hear some actual debate being done.

I'd also like to see some passion in the speeches- please work on being expressive (and loud enough I can hear you in the back of the room). Use the hands, the facial expressions, etc. Eye contact is good too.

Public Forum:

Please make sure you lay out your contentions clearly, add some emphasis on your claims, and make sure you are doing the work to analyze your sources. Much like my policy statement below, I'm evaluating you on your ability to clash with your opponents. Make sure you are matching them argument for argument in your rebuttals. I'm going to be convinced by your weighing of the evidence, not just reading the evidence to me (or just repeating your points... I took notes, I know what you said in the first speech...)

Policy

Ok, after my last tournament, I have to add this. If you don't argue or signpost the name of your off-case argument, I'm immediately lowering your speaks. I don't want to try and figure out what is the point of your argument from poorly labelled cards. Also, label your uniqueness, net benefit, alt, role of the ballot, etc. Please don't make me try and guess while you are going full varsity speed. This is my new pet peeve. It would also be nice if you tell me what they are in your off-time road map rather than just giving me "nine off, then case" and hoping i can figure it all out.

Two other 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 CLASH.

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. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. 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 (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid. If I feel like you are running a K so that you can not engage with the topic and deliver the same same thing every round (or possibly every year you have debated), I'm not going to be inclined to vote for you. You better prove that you did more than switch out a link card before the start of the match.

David Zhai Canyon Crest Academy

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 2:55 PM EST

Email: djzhaistore@gmail.com

Was an average pf/policy k debater, non policy scroll to bottom

2023-24 season note: assume little to no topic knowledge especially regarding the meta/common args. Might change as season goes on. Have mercy… I spend very little time thinking about debate now…

Update: I think this topic is making me into a policy hack… I think k on this topic is not very strategic unless you cook up something insane… sry

You can probably ignore the stuff below, just keeping it for potential reference. I shouldn’t need to do mental gymnastics to judge rounds well. Good luck have fun ride the wave!

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 fully commit to their strongest arguments. Open to some level of postrounding, but is intended to be productive for growth. I won't pretend to be a blank slate, but I doubt any reservations I strongly hold will affect my ballot. I am not good at sugarcoating rfds and I’m not a fan of inflation, sorry…

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 metas 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 trend of judges going out of their way to be neutral/the perfect judge, a lot of what I find annoying in debate now seems to have evolved from this trend.

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.

CPs:

I tend to think condo good. the winning aff on condo sufficiently points out to how neg limits the ability of aff to have any offense anywhere. This is a pretty high threshold to meet and usually aff teams seem to put out a 2ac that just responds anyways? Perms test competition, group redundant ones, it makes my life easier. I think the role of aff teams is distinct from neg teams, probably lean towards judge kicking 90% of the time. 1NC cardless cps annoy me.

K/fw:

I find the idea of judging k rounds less and less appealing now… I think aff and neg should actually be differentiable in some way and not just speech orders…

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 tbh… I think I rarely hear one that does not come off as redundant/self serving because debate is inherently competitive…

I get irritated by affs that are wishy washy with 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 space. Ok! you want me to vote for you so you can debate this way? debate it then…

I don't judge performance affs that much, that said, I have no implicit reasons against voting for one. I don’t know if I would say the ones I’ve judged were particularly good, so impress me!

Don't give me a subpar 1000wpm philosophy lecture posing to be relevant to the ballot please. Keep it classy

T/theory:

My views towards T and theory are probably idealistic but bite me ig.

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 personally spend too much time thinking about Wittgenstein/philosophy of language so I have strong notions on T. If you plan on reading theory ideally I should be able to just write my rfd then and there; 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. Sorry if I miss blippy theory args in later speeches…

Misc:

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. More and more I get the feeling that policy debaters are some of the least persuasive people…

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. I like to feel like my flowing is productive, I love seeing debaters make strategic decisions early and decisively.

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. Regarding kritikal args/theory/philosophy based arguments I am leaning more and more towards just evaluating arguments/logical flow. I see too many miscut cards and misunderstood theory so just putting it out there that my threshold for what counts as an adequate response has been getting lower and lower.

I'm not a speaks goblin, but I think they are arbitrary. >29 and I probably really liked how you debated in round. Anything less is probably just a placeholder/vaguely relevant to presentation/execution outside of the ballot. Differences of 0.1 are arbitrary and mostly bc I can’t input ties. 0.5 probably matters more. Usually winning team will also have higher speaks unless there was a tragic mistake somewhere.

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. I also don’t judge theory much in Policy and also usually never vote on it so for your sake please make my life easy and convince me to vote on it…

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