Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.

For Districts (GA): it's nat-quals, big stuff, do whatever you need to do to earn a win with high marks. Won't penalize certain strategies, will penalize execution of certain strategies (i.e., if you feel the need to read truth-testing, please see my thoughts on related strategies before I miss a NIB). I consider myself a reasonably good flow, but if it's not on my flow, it does not exist.

About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior* at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)

- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding) - like pls don't

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks

- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: chansey.agler@uga.edu

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability” - though I tend to be on the higher side of speaks...

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2

Theory and Tricks: 4

Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)

*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook

TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine

Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:

- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous

- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments (would love it if my RFD echoes the 2NR/2AR)—this also means I now will factor CX into my decision-making if you completely fumble on key issues

- I won't flow arguments if I can tell that they're generated by ChatGPT - debate is about making arguments and thinking for yourself, not letting AI do work for you - very low threshold for theory against chatGPT arguments, btw

- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk

- I disclose the decision + other stuff post-round but: I don't disclose speaks (goofy), it either takes me like two seconds or 45 min to figure out the round, I try my damndest to give the "right" decision (quality decisionmaking + feedback = really really important), but I am not receptive to aggressive postrounding…

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result; I am probably more willing than other judges to consider independent voters (especially misgendering, racism, and other arguments that, intentional or not, result in exclusion in debate)

- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)

- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3

Lincoln Douglas

Kritiks

- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful

- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad

- I find material explanations of the alt and ToP more persuasive, but I understand abstract interpretations of power or identity to often be necessary, just explain it and we're good

- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L

- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)

- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good), similarly, I think the Aff should at least define what debates should look like as a departure from the squo

- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh

- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty easy to resolve imo but other debates (especially identity debates) need weighing, ToP analysis, and probably a lot of perm work

- I don't like the perm double bind - saying "either the alt is strong enough to..." is basically telling me to my face "I know perfectly well the Aff links but nonetheless I'll pretend it doesn't" - good framing wins debates, but bad framing hurts my heart

- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)

- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it

Policy/Util

- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”

- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful

- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D, especially on the JF24 topic I find that solvency is highly contestable and makes for very rewarding rounds

- I do not default to judge kick, 2NR needs to tell me to do it, low threshold for "it's a lose-lose for the Aff so don't do that"

- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic

- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t

- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)

- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts), especially on the JF '24 topic, I think one-country plans make a lot of sense semantically, but random country ACs could be abusive - doing a lot of work on "there's enough lit about Israel to make it a debate but the US doesn't even have presence in Cyprus, how am I supposed to make args here" is a good strat

Phil/FW

- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry

- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)

- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true

- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"

- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)

- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them

- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Traditional LD (Trad)

- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches

- Trad v. circuit rounds are a dilemma because every judge has different feelings here, but I tend to err on the side of circuit debater should slow a bit (70-80% speed), read an educational position like 2-3 policy off or a good but common K (setcol, security, fem, etc.), and the trad debater should be willing to adapt to tough situations - if we're in a bubble or elim round, do whatever it takes to win

- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge

- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense

- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other

- "spreading bad" is a bad arg if you have the doc and even worse if you use it to clap back after you misgendered your opponent (I cannot believe I had to put this in my paradigm)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good

- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)

- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)

Theory

- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact (aka presumption)

- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse

- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate

- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)

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

- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx

- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)

- I've voted on RVIs in the past, just not my favorite thing to evaluate bc everyone and their dog has different conceptions of "when do you get one" and "how does an RVI interact with layers" and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just go back to substance and push presumption :)

- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"

Disclosure

- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity—I lowkey really dislike disclosure theory debates so would prefer to adjudicate this only if necessary

- You don’t have to disclose performances

- Stop chronically reading disclosure against Black debaters—I don’t get why that is y’all’s go-to strat of all things

- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)

Tricks

- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)

- I've realized as of late that I find it very difficult to flow a slew of analytics made in short spans of time (which is part of why I prefer Ks and policy since cards in these debates are usually longer so I don't have to delineate as much), if you're gonna read a bunch of analytics, give me time to get em down

- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow

- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link

Misc/Defaults for LD

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence, I have no defaults on theory (make args lol)

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one

- Don’t care if you sit or stand, just make it so I can hear and understand you

- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, the fog is upon us

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS

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

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

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

Timing

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

Speed

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

Flex Prep

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

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

Evidence Ethics

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

Arguments

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

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

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

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

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

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

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

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

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

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

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

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

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

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

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging style

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

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

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

Topicality

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

Theory

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

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

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

Burden Interpretations

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

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If I have to read your case then what do I need you in the room for? Email it to me and I can judge the round at home in my jammies - if you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.

Short-pre-round version: Speech and Debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). Former high school policy debater in the mid 1980s. Since re-entry into the activity via UTNIF in 2018, I have worked hard to learn innovations in debate since my time in high school. My paradigm is still evolving. Even though I am willing to listen to anything, debaters must have clash and explanation. - following Toulmin (Claim, Warrant, Explanation). I flow, so I expect you to signpost, label, and explain.

Longer, working on prefs, version: If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I am probably not.

I expect to receive an email chain for 1A and 1N at deguirek@calhounschools.org

My team: I coach on the national and regional (Georgia) circuit. My team has transitioned from a policy only team to an LD only team. Now, the team writes most of their own arguments, but my varsity teams run a lot of Ks. Understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I will understand it without your thorough explanation of the argument.

Likes/dislikes: I teach debate because I love debate, the community, and the education it provides. I try to be extremely objective and vote for teams because I think their arguments won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give you as clear a critique as I possibly can and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.

LARPing: I can deal with LARPing as long as I can follow it. If you spread through the analytics or don't signpost or don't weigh the args, don't expect me to vote for it.

Weirdness:I do not like performance-based actions of any kind. No challenging opponents to any kind of physical altercations, especially tortilla fights (don't ask.)

My email: deguirek@calhounschools.org

Updated January 2024 for Barkley Forum

Dr. Brice Ezell – Debate Coach, The Lovett School

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

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate in California and nationally for my four years in high school, and another four years in the WUDC format at George Fox University. My PhD, though in English, centered on philosophy, so I’m comfortable and familiar with much of the critical/theoretical literature used in theory-heavy LD cases. At Lovett, I coach LD and PF, though I mostly judge the former. (For Public Forum debaters: scroll to the second-to-last section of this paradigm for PF stuff, though note that a lot of my thinking in the bulk of the paradigm applies to PF as well.)

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. The page below is long, I know, but I treat this paradigm like a running document where I put out answers to questions I get more than once, so that hopefully this page gets to a place where it'd answer basically any question before the debate happens, to save the debaters any time in asking me questions before the round. My general tip would be if your question boils down to one debate jargon term (e.g. "skep" or "RVI"), search that term on the page and -- ideally -- I'll have something written.

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed, and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts. Absent any clear standard from the debaters I will default to a post-AC utility calculus (meaning: I assume the AFF happens, and then I weigh the impacts claimed in the round by both sides) – though, hopefully, my judging doesn’t get to that point.

Tech > Truth?: Yes, though when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense, i.e. tags need to be clearly articulated and internally incoherent. So, for example, if you're running a really out-there K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. To give one example, run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what "run towards the real" means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals.

Speed?: Yes, I’m fine with it. My main request, though, is that you slow down and are very clear when reading your contention taglines and names/dates of your cards. If, however, one competitor in a round is fine with speed and the other isn't, I'd prefer that speed not be used.

Performance Cases: As it happens, my PhD specialty was in drama/theatre, so in a very real sense performance cases are, in theory, a perfect intersection of my interests. With that said, I definitely hold performance cases to a higher standard than most lines of argumentation one could take in an LD round, even the more out-there Ks. This is a category where I like to be surprised -- hell, that's part of the value of performance cases in general -- but the main thing I would stress is that a performance case should be delivered from a position of genuine and substantial critique, not merely the novelty of the performance itself. I remember back in my debating days that when people would talk about performance cases, it was almost like the critical-intellectual equivalent of shock jockery: "Oh, they'll never see this coming!" And sure, there is a surprise-based strategic value to performance argumentation, but considering the causes to which performances cases are so often put in service -- e.g. feminism, Queer rights, combating anti-Blackness, etc -- taking a performance strategy that feels solely motivated by how "surprising" it, to me, feels like a disservice to how important those causes are. So, put simply: if you want to run a performance case in front of me, you better deliver it like you're living the truth of what you're saying, not simply that you're picking something because of how avant-garde it is. A performance case should feel like a unique approach to persuasion, not an evasion of it for the sake of leaving your opponent befuddled.

Also, just a general note for those running performance cases: make sure you understand what the word "performative" means.

What Do I Not Like? (Really: What Arguments am I Skeptical Of?)

Like any judge I’m not bias-free, but I do try to keep myself as open as possible to learning new things from the debaters I judge, so I don’t really feel comfortable drawing a hard line excluding classes of arguments. That said, in the spirit of honesty, I’ll list some categories of argument for which I have a higher degree of skepticism:

*RVIs: Have never voted on one. Doesn’t mean I couldn’t vote on one, but in general I find the ones I have heard thin on face, and I tend to buy the “you don’t vote AFF based on the mere fact of their fairness” response.

*Disclosure theory arguments: This take may be a product of my debate experience, back when disclosure was less common and/or rarely practiced: I have yet to be sold on the claim that not disclosing cases withholds debate to such a pernicious degree that I’m meant to vote against the non-disclosing debater. Doesn’t mean that a particularly persuasive debater couldn’t sell me otherwise, but I think of all the theory arguments out there, disclosure’s the one where I have the highest threshold.

*Extinction:The old cliche of debate. You can run extinction in front of me, but just know that any debater with good analytic skills to sever the link chain connection between event X and extinction will probably do a good enough job to make me, at very minimum, skeptical of an extinction scenario, and most likely just not buy it. Most cards used to make the extinction claim aren't actually saying what debaters think they say, and I think the desire to try to boil down rounds to "who can save us from the end of the world?" creates a real race to the bottom argumentatively, frankly. And I just don't understand why certain impacts that could more plausibly follow from typical LD topics "aren't good enough" for the weighing: war, genocide, environmental degradation... these are all really bad things! Nuke war isn't quite as far fetched as extinction, but note that nuclear war doesn't *automatically* mean that the whole species goes extinct. Again, even in the hypothetical case of a localized nuclear conflict (i.e. between two neighboring countries), preventing that alone would be a really good impact, even if the conflict wouldn't spill over! I am more likely to buy a less "world-ending disaster" impact that's well-linked than a weaker-linked, far-fetched impact even if it's more disastrous.

*"Util because pleasure/pain are inherent" (AKA: "Moen 16: doesn't say what you think it does"): I am not anti-util – it’d be pretty hard to be in competitive debating, where utility is such a natural (and good!) weighing mechanism. But I will say I find most presentations of util by LD debaters very unsophisticated. Util comes in many shapes and sizes, and in running a util framework you should specify the type of util to which one is committing themselves, and explain why said framework makes sense for your case/the topic. (E.g. act util or rule util; specifying if your calculus is “maximizing pleasure/minimizing pain” or “greatest good for the greatest number” – these are all different things, and come with different commitments). I find the prevalence of the pleasure/pain binary in framework cards very odd; if you’re arguing, say, that China should maximize its environmental policy, “pleasure” and “pain” are weird metrics to use. Long and short of it: if you naturally default to a utilitarian-style calculus in your case writing, that’s fine, but put some actual work into it. I’ve heard so many shallow util frameworks to the point that now I’m somewhat numb to them.

*"Death good": An unusual number of debaters have asked me about this line of reasoning lately. I suppose I could vote for this argument, but just know that different kinds of arguments have different sorts of evidentiary burdens baked into them. Meaning: while I am open to most arguments one could make in a round, I do not have to treat “actually, death good” as equally plausible a line of reasoning as, “We should pass single-payer healthcare so that we can increase the number of insured people.” “Death good” or “actually we’re in the matrix” are bolder arguments to make, and bolder arguments require more robust proofs. That doesn’t mean I dislike these arguments; far from it, I really enjoy it when debaters take big swings, especially in out-rounds. But just know that ambitious cases require a higher degree of intellectual sophistication to run, meaning you can’t just cut the “death good” case the way you would, say, a stock plan-based case.

*Time skew arguments: In contrast to my generally "I'll vote on whatever's warranted" stance, here's maybe one place I'll be curmudgeonly: time skew arguments (e.g. "1AR's only four minutes!" "As the NEG I only speak twice!") are incredibly corny, and I can basically imagine no case where I'd vote on one. To be fair to the people who have run this in front of me, most of the time this is just an additional piece of warranting under a theory arg, so it's not as if this line of thinking is replete in most cases I'm hearing now. But this kind of complaint, to me, is pretty whiny. Debate, like any game, has rules and regulations, and the trade-off in LD's pretty basic: AFF gets more speeches, but NEG's speeches are longer. Given how many people continue to participate in this activity, I find it pretty dubious to say that the speech times are so unfair as to be a theoretical warrant in-round, especially given spreading.

*Presumption: In keeping with time skew, since that's so often used in this line of argument: I do not have a default presumption standard. I'm willing to hear arguments about presumption, but I'm of the belief that these are unnecessarily defensive arguments to include in constructive speeches, as they signal to me, "Judge, if this round is a total mess, and you can't possibly adjudicate what you have on the flow, vote AFF/NEG for x, y, and z reasons." Rhetorically, this does not instill much confidence in what you're doing with the constructive. Where I could see presumption making more sense is in refutation, if clash between arguments has reached a point of total murkiness. With that said, though, I'd rather there be big, clearly defined clash rather than pre-fiat discussions of the positionality of the AFF and NEG in an LD round. Put more directly, if it seems like your strategy is first and foremost togo for presumption, I'm definitely going to be annoyed.

A Note on "Tricks"

I am not entirely clear on what constitutes a "trick"; the contents of that set are somewhat ambiguous to me. (A consequence, perhaps, of never having gone to debate camp.) I've heard ordinary truth-testing cases described as "tricks" even though they strike me as just normal truth-testing-style cases. Same for some skep arguments as well; depending on how one runs it, I don't automatically see skep as inherently abusive/"tricksy," but when people have described tricks to me skep often features. (As someone who very much enjoys reading skeptical philosophy, I'd like to think that skep, run well in the right context, might actually be rewarding.)

If by "tricks," however, you mean "some ultra-fine technicality argument that squirrels the round to the point that my definitions basically say it's impossible for the other side of the debate to win categorically," then I will say: yes, I find such strategy annoying. As a comment about debate more broadly rather than just about tricks specifically: I reward debaters for going toward the debate, rather than running away from it. Debates, almost by definition, are best when two robustly presented sides clash with/weigh against each other, so any move to make the debate hopelessly stacked for one side will put you on my bad side.

This doesn't mean that I prefer, say, whole-res affs uniformly, as I also am likely to give high speaks to debaters who showcase quality topic research, which very often involves degrees of narrowing for case-writing (especially on Policy-esque topics like the 2024 Jan/Feb topic on West Asia/North Africa). To shamelessly plagiarize Potter Stewart, when it comes to cases that narrow for the sake of a richer debate versus narrowing to give the opposing side as little ground as possible, "I know it when I see it."

Evidence/A Brief “Old Man Yells at Cloud” Rant on Case Writing

My general policy is that unless I know a card that's being used and it sounds off in the round, or if the evidence is cut in such a way as to be unclear, I won't comb through all the evidence when making my RFD, barring a dispute in-round about a piece of evidence's validity or cutting. Put shortly, unless you give me reasons to doubt your handling of your evidence, I will honor the arguments in-round as presented. I ask to be added to the chain/Speechdrop just so that I have a record in case of such an aforementioned dispute.

There has long been a trend in debate of treating a cut card as automatic "evidence" for something. The important thing to remember is that the cards are not your case; your case should be making its own argument(s), for which the cards are support. I would hope that in constructing cases that debaters are taking as much time on their contention taglines, framework warrants, and overall structure as they are cutting their evidence. Thin case-writing (that is, little time on contention/subpoint tags and overall argument structure) has been a problem for as long as I’ve been in debate, but it does seem to have gotten worse. The framework, contentions, plan texts, etc – meaning, all the stuff that the debater themselves creates – should shine, as that’s where the debater’s personality can most come through. The cards just demonstrate how well you do (or don’t) make the argument that you yourself are writing.

Stray Things

*I prefer immediate post-round disclosure of result if possible. If for some reason it isn't depending on tournament rules (thankfully these instances seem rare now), know you can find me after the round to ask about an RFD, but if you wish to do so, make sure you find me ASAP, as I'll be less detailed if I'm several rounds removed from your debate. Should you want an oral RFD post-round in the event where I can't give one immediately, find your opponent from the round so I can speak to you both at the same time.

*I don't disclose speaks. Do not ask in-round for higher speaks for doing X, Y, Z, etc. Speaks are my own consideration.

*I expect that debaters keep their own time, but I will time during the round to ensure everyone's honest.

*I'm cool with flex prep.

*I am not anti-theory by any means -- some people really do be breaking the rules (such as the "rules" are) -- but I would call myself a "minimum theory" judge, meaning that the theory should not come across as a way of avoiding the resolutional debate. I know debate topics can be imperfect (no disrepect, NSDA), but theory, to me, exists to ensure debaters are being truly fair and educational. An overabundance of theory, to me, can often come across as a refusal to engage with the substance afforded by the resolution.

*I am not a fan of the strategy wherein a debater takes a stray line from an AC or NC card and tries to blow it up in the rebuttals if it isn't directly refuted by the opposing speaker. Even if I can technically flow it as a drop, I'm generally of the belief that if you're going to make a big deal out of a specific argument/detail, you need to flag it as such in your constructive. I like clash between clearly presented, bold arguments; I'm less inclined to trickery for trickery's sake, even if you're technically extending arguments fairly.

*Don't just say "my opponent dropped this argument, so extend it"; impact all arguments, even drops. I do not immediately think to myself, "By gum, they've given up the debate!" the moment I hear that an argument has been dropped.

*Cross-x is binding. Use it well.

*Nothing is more boring than a debate that collapses into the most generic version of the "utilitarianism/consequentialism vs. deontology/principles" discussion. Avoid these, please. If a framework debate gets into this territory naturally, try to make a case for why your specific version of util or deontology holds up best, rather than relitigate the broad debate that we all know and hate.

*I am not terribly persuaded by arguments that feel so stock/generic that you have no investment in them. Even conventional T shells should be presented like they are specially applicable to the debate that's happening in the room.

*The only things that will make me drop you outright are things like: egregious card-cutting which leads to misrepresentation/distortion of sources (having competed myself, I know what some will try to get away with) and morally outrageous arguments like "genocide/racism/sexism/homophobia good." Even though debate is about clash, it is an activity that must include all, so I view any arguments that aim to exclude people from the activity as a massive problem.

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

And to reiterate something I said above, but in a PF-specific fashion: the crossfires, especially the grand crossfires, should be the most electric part of the round. Please don't turn cross-x into a back-and-forth of basic fact-finding questions: really get into the debate there!

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

Note on Speaks: Unless a specific tournament specifies a house preference for its speaker point allocations, here's how I award speaks:

30: You changed my mind about what's possible in the activity of debating, or did something truly revelatory with the topic. Your speaking style exhibits a sophistication that would get an attention of a full theatre.

29-29.9: You're a top-tier speaker and thinker, one I'd expect to be in late elims at the tournament. You are thinking about the topic at a very high level.

28-28.9: You gave a speech that put considerably more thought into the topic than the stock cases I'm likely to hear on any given topic. Your speaking style shows confidence and elegance.

27-27.9: This is what I call the "perfect average;" to be specific, perfectly average for me is 27.5. You did good work in presenting and constructing your case, even if the presentation wasn't particularly flashy.

26-26.9: You generally presented a coherent case, but with not much sophistication either in delivery or in quality of argumentation.

25-25.9: Your case and/or delivery were unclear, and your arguments poorly warranted.

Under 25: You did something profoundly offensive.

Things that Help or Harm Speaks

Things that Help Speaks

*Confidence! Especially in CX. Using CX to put your opponent on the defensive is a must.
*Knowing your case. You should be able to state the warrants/theses of your cards as if they were your own words.
*Using really good analytics arguments in rebuttals. Debate shouldn't just be "AFF reads card, NEG reads card to counter."
*Eye contact. Doesn't need to be constant, of course, but it should feel like you're addressing a person, not a computer screen.
*Writing a case where your words principally, not your sources, do the talking.
*Tasteful use of humor that rhetorically enhances your argument.
*Coming up with angles on the topic that are unique and genuinely thoughtful (meaning: not novel for novelty's sake).
*Similarly: a really well-written and detailed "stock" case can be just as impressive depending on how it's wielded. To give one example: for me, at tournaments at the highest level, a really artful whole-res AFF done well is arguably more impressive than a more niche plan AFF, as it shows the debater's willingness to take on a bigger burden and do so persuasively.
*Rebuttal that shows that you have done topic research outside of just your immediate casework.

Things that Harm Speaks

*Using cross-x solely for fact-finding (e.g. "What was your contention 1 again?")
*In rebuttal, saying "I have a card" or "my card says so" when your opponent challenges the claim being made in a card. (Meaning: the fact that you have a card is not automatically proof of the card's rightness.)
*Rudeness/condescension, especially if it is unearned.
*Contention taglines that are barely developed, no matter how good the cards below them are. (E.g. Just saying "Nuke war" for a tag.)
*Running an argument that it feels like you haven't put any thought behind. (Classic example: the NEG running T just because you can. If you kick out of it under the lightest pressure [or none at all] in the 1NR, I will probably roll my eyes.)
*While I am not opposed to speed, if you spread for the purpose of a bunch of thin argumentation, I'm going to be less inclined to give high speaks. To put it simply: justify your speed.
*Unironically saying "market solves" with no elaboration or evidence.

Hi, my name is John. I use any pronouns, and I debated for 4 years in LD and congress at Cherokee HS, 45 minutes north of Atlanta.

If there's anything in this paradigm that you don't understand or that wasn't covered, let me know before the round in person, by texting me (+1 470 232-4546), or by sending an email (johntpeterson355@gmail.com). good luck!

If you send a doc, cc me: johntpeterson355@gmail.com. I'm going to delete your doc at the end of the round.

I'm gonna keep it real with you, i've gotten a lot dumber since I stopped debating. i've regressed. you need to explain complicated stuff really slowly. treat me like a parent judge if you run advanced phil. i need to understand and hear your argument in order to flow it. my ability to understand speed is... a lot worse now than it was. that being said i'll flow most things as long as they're done well. being racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/etc. is penalized with an L. **this includes the sources you use! i will notice if you cite a hate group or hate publication. also flex prep is cool

do lots of weighing and talk at a reasonable speed ????

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, i want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations: Ivy Bridge Academy, Georgia State University, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

+.2 speaker points for gender minorities