Sequoyahs Autumn Argument
2022 — Canton, GA/US
V/JV LD Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideUpdated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.
For locals: not lay. Please read the "traditional" section regarding my thoughts on lay rounds. If you have experience with progressive debate, go off. Few notes: a) learn to flow, asking what was/n't read starts CX/prep, b)be responsive, clash, engage w/ your opp (stop sending the 1NC before the 1AC has been read,contest the Aff in the 1NC), c) if you are sending a doc, I need it formatted similarly tocircuit standards.If you aren't sure what this means, ask your coach or myself before the round, but I prefer no email for lay rounds (flowing is important).
About: 4 years of LD at a GA HS, currently a master’s student at UGA (’24, ’24), have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. I coach LD—will be familiar with the rez.
- Pronouns: they/she.
- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable
- Fine w flex prep
- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD
Speaks:
- Speed is fine if you’re clear, but if it’s the first round of the tournament or the day, pls start at like 60-70% speed and work up from there
- I appreciate slowing down on advocacy texts, interp texts, criterion/standard texts…basically anything you want me to get as close to verbatim as possible
- Similarly, I often find that I need more signposting and slight time to switch between flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second, etc. is extremely helpful in rebuttal speeches
- I base speaker points off efficiency, strategy, and clarity foremost—I don’t base these off arbitrary/ableist/historically sexist and racist metrics—will play behind the scenes to balance historic marginalization of women, gender minorities, POCs, and otherwise marginalized voices in speaks, will often lower speaks for split 2NRs
- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, no I do not disclose speaks
Prefs Cheat Sheet:
Ks, Policy: 1
Traditional: 2
Philosophy*: 2
Theory: 4
Tricks: 4
TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work
Autumn Argument update:to illustrate that you have read my paradigm, give the "horns down" symbol before your first speech to receive +.1 speaks; reading paradigms is important and I'm rewarding those who do so.
Top-level/must knows:
1. I will vote on most arguments. I am probably better for policy and K arguments (method debates are fine). I’m experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution isn’t great. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments, not ad homs, and have real warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good. Hail marys are inadvisable regardless of stylistic decisions.
2. Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions between things, not just telling me “x matters before y” if your opponent is telling me “y matters before x.” Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on judge instruction (aka the flow), am open to many args and lit bases, but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there. Weighing relies on good args. If I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.
3. A lot of judges give awful RFDs. I think there is an ongoing problem in debate of not paying attention to the round. I am trying my damndest not to be that, but there’s greater uncertainty in my decision when there’s more work I must do—explaining arguments, doing link weighing (not just impx), and carving a path to the ballot will influence my decision. Best RFDs come when the 2NR/2AR writes my ballot for me. Questions afterwards are fine, but aggression/postrounding = nonstarters.
4. Debate is obsessed with ‘tabula rasa’ nonsense, which has genuine consequences. Not a fan of frivolous arguments (in any style, from the resolved NIB to riders DAs), and the closer an arg is to morally abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth” or other nonsense), the likelier it is I won’t flow it.
5. Won’t vote on any -isms (extremely likely to give an L20). I will not flow args from known hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will, however, evaluate impact turns, and am willing to vote on things like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving future value) arguments. Won’t vote on ‘warming good.’ My threshold for responses is lower the worse/edging on morally abhorrent the argument is.
6. AI rule:loud incorrect buzzer.
7. More receptive to independent voters/voting issues over time for a few reasons: a) debaters are reading off docs blindly, not doing research, and thus more prone to saying something problematic, b) ideological gaps are widening and this has implications in speech acts, c) debaters in general should be held accountable for problematic speech.
8. For accessibility stuff: lmk any needed accommodations before the round—I will say that it is probably best to tell me directly bc a lot of debaters’ emails go to my spam, misgendering/being racist/other shenanigans in-round will lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot even without an argument—my tolerance for homophobia, transphobia, etc. is increasingly low—it’s not that hard to adapt.
9. weigh <3
Lincoln-Douglas
Kritiks
- These rounds can either be amazing or borderline terrible depending on your knowledge of the lit base and engagement with the opposition—don’t just talk past the Aff (or Neg if it’s a K Aff), actually engage with the lit, and know what you’re talking about—good K debate takes reading, determination, and dedication—you cannot sidestep all three of these, pull a K off the wiki, and expect good results
- I can’t always promise I know the intricate details of your specific lit, but I am familiar with a decent variety of lit (most familiar with queer theory and settler colonialism), and you should still explain arguments as if I don’t have base understanding—I’ve voted for arguments ranging from simple critiques of capitalism to psychoanalysis and back again, you do you if you explain it
- I will however admit that I need a lot more explanation in fields like cybernetics and dense criticisms of IR
- I have devoted a lot of focus to queer, trans, and feminist literature—some thoughts you should know: a) these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in terms of resistance strategies inside and outside of debate, b) pls don’t just go for this stuff bc I’m in the back, c) slightly higher threshold if “state bad” is the only link in the 1NC
- Use reasonable judgment for kritiks of discourse—much more than willing to buy links into things like “no, this is absolutely racist, reject it” (i.e., “illegal aliens” on the open borders topic…), but it can feel like policing (“queer” to “kweer” comes to mind), especially against K affs (this applies mostly to word PIKs)
- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)
- On a similar note, creative visions of affirmation are fantastic
- However, presumption is underutilized against K affs (more than just two short analytics)—I find a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does and especially its impacts—isolating what the Aff endorses, why the ballot is key, etc. are all important—explaining to me what these components are is also meaningful since I take a very “you do you” approach here—examples of what the Aff method looks like in motion can be very useful
- I’ve judged a few K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty straightforward imo but otherwise, do more weighing and framing work than you otherwise think—“root cause” debates rarely do resolving work that I need, and the two Ks in play are rarely a criticism of the same thing—perms must demonstrate interactions between lit bases, but “no perms in a methods debate” isn’t intuitive until you explain why it’s true—K Affs are still Affs (clash on case pls)
- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”
- While all debates are performances in their own right, unique forms of engagement are highly enjoyable to witness—explain to me what the purpose is
Independent Voters
- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are sometimes too quick to throw out "auto-drop" without explaining DTD, but I also think that problematic discourse is terrible; I'm very receptive to things like misgendering being independent voters, less so to things like "this is independent" if it's just a reps turn or something that should be resolved on substance; an example would be the 1NC reading Tuck and Yang, but fumbling hard in CX (I'd rather you make that a turn or use it as sufficient defense)
- Theory arguments (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) are not independent voters
Framework (Policy v. K)
- Spending time on “this method is key on this issue” can matter, “just pls engage with the state and read a plan” is less persuasive—I think policy teams need to be willing to bite the bullet on “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods to answer the complexity of the world” and K teams should be willing to contest case and/or plan focus
- Aff FW v. K: a) not a win condition independently, b) ‘extinction outweighs’ is an overused response, usually links into the K, and avoids clash, c) most ‘procedural fairness’ warrants do not make sense to me on their own—spending more time warranting and impacting the deficit to fairness is highly advisable
- T-FW—a) not great for this if the Aff is affirming through an alternate method to “a plan” (esp philosophy or grassroots), b) good for teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movements and solving Aff impacts, or why the rez should be debated, d) fine with 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering case, theory of power, doing relevant impact turns, and pushing presumption (depth of clash is great)
Policy
- One of the easier styles for me to judge, fair game for most things from soft-left to agenda politics, will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on topics like “standardized tests?”)
- Fine w/ specific plans and PICs, just be willing to beat back theory/T, not fantastic for both extremes of the nebel T debate
- Ev quality matters—you don’t get credit for incoherent args (highlights must form complete thoughts/sentences), contest ev quality and do ev weighing
- Can insert re-highlighting if it’s from portions of evidence already read in the round—just be vocal about where you’re inserting
- Zero risk is a thing
- Good impact turns are great, stale impact turns are less so, don’t double-turn yourself, ev quality is crucial on impact turns, you should do work in CX to frame it as a viable strategy
- More internal link weighing pls, contesting probability is great, teams that don’t go for impact and internal link weighing almost always lose to those that do
- I need more competition established in the 1NC, I love good perm debates but 10 "perm do both" analytics with no warrant isn't it
- Judge kick is bad.
- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)
- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case
- Idk if “you get ptx” or “we want ptx” makes an interp genuinely viable, other than that, better for T interps that make a clear model of debate and go for topic lit/lit controversy; 2AR must extend case if the 2NR only went for T, I probably do not want to hear “X school’s AC is the TVA”
- I'm not very moved by "norms" or "it's early in the topic" for T, even an Aff that is popular is not immune to T as a germane criticism
- Do more work in the 2NR both to resolve competing interpretations and to impact the T shell
- I probably do not want to judge plan flaw unless the Aff’s plan is written in a way that is meaningfully different from actual implementation
Philosophy
- I studied social and political philosophy for some of undergrad, but it’s been a minute since I’ve been in any kind of ethics class; I’m probably quick to understand analytical ethical philosophy, but haven’t touched continental philosophy in a while, and execution in LD is often dreadful—good philosophy debates are fine, bad ones hurt my head—weighing justifications or doing hijacks is probably more useful than preclusion claims with no warrant or “extinction always first”
- LDers tend to be ineffective in explaining their theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics rather than just “that’s coercive so you can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case
- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level
- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky
- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are big culprits here
- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps you should revise the AC/NC
- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide
- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad
- AFC/ACC = :(
Traditional LD
- I started trad, been in the loop here for a while, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”)—if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of argument styles—this doesn’t mean I want to hear poorly conceived args or cheap shots. Unless definitions of words matter for the rez at hand (aka topicality), I would prefer that you just shelve that and debate substance. Also, while the Aff is never bound to defend a "plan," you can't just sidestep questions of solvency with "it's LD." Not an argument.
- The 1NC must engage with the Affirmative. It is, in fact, a rebuttal speech. My RFDs lately seem to include some variance of "didn't engage with the Aff at all."
- I probably do not want to hear cases that read like an essay
- Yes, I disclose. Will try to be as thorough as possible. If you have questions about my decision-making process, you should ask in-person if possible.
- Evidence comparison, weighing, and analysis are crucial—regardless of your experience, you need to tell me how to vote, what matters most—it’s not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x matters more than y; don’t just restate things, explain why it’s true; grandstanding is unhelpful
- Not a fan of “value is morality, criterion is util, contention one” with zero explanation of either (threshold for response is zero), FWs that are just “upholding my side of the rez” are even worse
- On that same note, unless there is clash at the FW level (i.e., Kant v. Util), I don’t mind if FW is conceded—two people can agree on a metric for impacts but disagree on what action is more ethically justified under said metric—never be afraid to just move on if there’s no clash at the FW level (I guarantee I will probably be happier)
- Trad v. circuit: it’s a learning moment, I think circuit teams should be willing to explain whatever they’re reading (esp in CX—if you’re a jerk in CX and won’t explain your args, the odds are good that you will lose speaker points and possibly THE ROUND) and simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/ no procedurals for policy = good), won’t penalize trad debaters for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, won’t penalize circuit debaters for playing the game (ex: if it’s late prelims/bubbles/elims and you need to go 5-off, I’m more sympathetic than in early prelims)
- Please say the name of the card before its content (i.e., “Jones 22: card content”), do not paraphrase evidence (that’s bad), made up evidence is an auto-L, brackets to inflate strength of warrant are almost definitely an auto-L
- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)
- Tell me how I should rectify abuse if you’re trying to call your opp out for being abusive—what is abusive? Do I drop the argument? Them? Why do I care that they were abusive?
- Follow norms on in-round safety—even traditional debaters should do things like respecting pronouns, this can and will cost ballots (debaters are starting to get overtly racist and antiqueer in rounds again, will penalize this even if your opponent doesn’t make an argument about it)
- No set perspective on the resolution (I don’t think the Aff has a burden to defend the topic as it is), so debaters’ dismissal of arguments isn’t a reason to reject it on my flow—if you think the Aff should debate the topic, for example, you must argue that they should debate the topic—read topicality and not an NC that doesn’t engage with a non-T aff
- Yes, I am fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” read in lay debate don’t make sense to me—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action with actual evidence that explains why the CP solves the Aff (aka a solvency advocate), not an abstract counter-claim—I am unlikely to vote on CPs that I don’t understand
Theory
- Have judged a reasonable amount of these, I think these rounds are highly dependent on execution and need more weighing between standards, more framing, and more i/l weighing to fairness/education—the less resolvability work done by debaters, the more I probably look to substance and/or presumption; fairness might be an impact but deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: how do I reconcile PICs stealing Aff offense AND the need for Neg flex)
- Most 1NCs/1ARs in policy rounds involve theory, fine here, make the abuse story and model of debate clearer earlier in the debate (how many condo good? why does dispo solve? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line between speeches, unlikely to vote on it (this means a 10 second condo arg that gets made into a 3 min 2AR)
- Beating back paradigm issues can make theory easy to resolve; generally good for DTA + reasonability, can be persuaded fairness and education are not voters
- I am not the ideal judge for friv/abstract theory, clear and specific interps are always easier for me to resolve; will not eval stuff about your opponent's appearance or similar, use common sense here pls
- Combo shells could be arbitrary, could also be true if a certain combination of arguments uniquely skews strategizing, decide this for me
- I prefer that you do extend paradigm issues/voters on theory even if uncontested, but that you not be annoying abt it—treat it like a DA or something and this should hopefully make what I mean more obvious
- Not a fan of theory to shut out tough convos—this makes debate violent and reinforces systems of oppression
- I’m not a huge fan of “must include links to circuit debater on your wiki” or the like
- Reading more than 2 shells on either side will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions
- Won’t flow new 2AR theory arguments unless the 2NR was super abusive; similarly, paradigm issues, etc. need to be in the 1AR
- Not entirely against voting on RVIs, not great for throwing substance away and going for 6 min of the RVI when you could’ve won substance either
- Misdisclosure is really difficult for me to evaluate—I need: a) slow down. tell me exactly what was asked for and what was given—I will evaluate screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference (e.g., prep skew), c) why it’s DTD (one analytic seems more like DTA, entirely different adv/plan is reasonably DTD)
Disclosure
- I do think that, on balance, disclosure has improved CX and LD, but reading disclosure theory seems like a mandate for equality when equity is the concern—as of late, I think that the reading of disclosure is often violent and am much more receptive to the idea that many groups have good reasons not to disclose—policy v. policy seems ripe for disclosure theory, but reading it against a K aff is not a good look
- Performances and similar materials do not need to be disclosed (you do you)
- Don't read disclosure at locals unless you're like both going hard circuit-style (even then, figure this stuff out yourselves pls)
- New Affs Bad: not my favorite argument, but I understand that it’s necessary as a procedural/possible 2NR out—go for better warrants over more, poorly explained standards, and skip “can’t engage with the Aff” if you put a lot of answers on case (relatively low threshold for identity-based responses here, just a heads up); the joke "I prepped for "it's new"" was maybe funny once in like 2019
Tricks
- Not the best judge for truth-testing as a ROB, okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and some epistemic paradoxes (one-card “skep Ks” are awful, gettier problems are kinda cool and not read enough), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—I really dislike arguments that say “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature
- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot
- Paradoxes can be cool but you have to devote more time to them if you want them to take out an entire framework
- I am not the right judge for crazy logic paradoxes, there just isn't enough time for me to flow these or understand an equation in the context of an LD round
- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded
- I evaluate all speeches in a given round
Evidence Ethics (all events)
- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets lowest speaks I can give
- If it's an ev ethics challenge, I'll allow both teams to make a written defense of their practice and we go from there
- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)
Misc Stuff
- Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments)
- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility
- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear
CONFLICTS:
All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)
I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm
What I Like
I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.
Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.
Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.
Disclosure
I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.
Timing
You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.
Speed
I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.
Flex Prep
No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.
LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.
Evidence Ethics
I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.
Arguments
Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.
Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.
Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.
Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.
Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".
Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.
Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.
Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.
Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.
Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.
Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.
Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.
Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.
Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.
Speaker Points
Since I've gotten some questions about this..
I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.
28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.
30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.
Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.
Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.
Judging style
If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.
Public Forum Paradigm
Frameworks
I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.
Topicality
I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".
Theory
Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.
Counterplans
No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.
Kritiks
No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.
Burden Interpretations
The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.
- 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 2024, following Greenhill
Dr. Brice Ezell – The Lovett School, Debate Coach (he/his)
Bakersfield Christian High School, 2006-10 (LD, competed mostly in local CA tournaments and at NSDAs; broke in LD in 2009)
George Fox University, BA, 2010-2014 (WUDC, competed nationally and at Worlds twice)
University of Texas, PhD and MA, 2015-21 (involved sporadically in judging, but was not on UT's college teams; my PhD subject matter involved a lot of reading in phil/K lit, however)
Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org.
The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks.
TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts.
Prefs: Though I hesitated to do this at first, as I don’t want debaters to get the sense that they have to run one kind of argument in front of me to succeed, below is how I’d categorize my preferences when it comes to LD. I recognize there is value to being transparent about this as a judge, though I really try to be tabula rasa in-round as this is an activity whose practices are created by its participants. Debate is as much a creative as it is an academic activity.
I Like These and Vote on Them Regularly - Run Truly Whatever
Philosophy
Policy (LOVE plan/CP debates)
Post-fiat K debates
Theory
Truth-testing
Skep (moral or epistemological - big fan of args involving the latter, actually)
I Could Definitely Vote on these But My Threshold is Higher
Pre-fiat Ks
Performance (though I stress one thing: make sure you know what the word "performative"actually means)
Serious gaming
I Can't Imagine Voting On These Ever
Tricks* [see note below]
Frivolous theory (e.g. "URL theory," font sizes, etc)
*I know there may be some confusion in having tricks ranked at the bottom here and skep/truth testing in a higher level of willingness to adjudicate. To put it frankly, I’m not totally clear on what constitutes a “trick” – it’s a confusing set. If by “tricks” one means what this definition on Circuit Debater tells us, wherein a trick is an argument that’s meant to be abusive, then I will say without reservation I will vote these kinds of arguments down.As a general practice, irrespective of the style of case one runs in front of me, I reward debaters for running toward the debate, rather than trying to win on the narrowest grounds possible. Go for clash! With that in mind, I’m not clear why truth testing and skep cases *must* constitute some kind of trick or attempt to be abusive to your opponent. Truth-testing is a flavor of old-school LD, and done well is hardly abusive, certainly not in a way where an opponent couldn’t sufficiently respond to it.
Stray Things
Speed: No problem! But be especially clear with your tags and author attributions. If I have to say "clear" more than once some of your args might not end up on my flow.
Tech>Truth?: Yes. But this bears saying: when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense. So if you're running a K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument with its own jargon, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. An example: feel free to run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what that means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals. The strategy of obfuscating in the 1AC/NC and then in rebuttals being articulate in the way you should have been in the constructives will bode poorly for speaks in front of me.
Cross-x: Is binding. I flow it and think it’s one of the most important parts of the debate.
Flex-prep: I’m cool with it.
Timing: I trust debaters to keep their own time but note that I will keep time as well (a) as an extra accountability measure in case there’s a dispute, and (b) because I like to make note on my ballot of how speakers allocate their time strategically.
RVIS?: Probably not.
Speaks: Here's how I allocate speaks unless a tournament gives me a bespoke speaker point scale:
30: No notes. If I were a betting kind of person I'd bet you're going to win the tournament.
29.6 - 29.9: Near-flawless strategy and delivery. If this kind of performance is repeated, I'd expect you to get to late elims at this tournament, if not win the tournament altogether.
29.2 - 29.5: Your strategy and delivery mark you as a debater I'd expect, assuming consistent performance at this level, to get solidly far into elims.
28.8 - 29.1: I'd expect you to break based on how you executed strategy and delivery in this round, assuming consistent performance at this level.
28.4 - 28.7: I'd award in this range if I thought you'd break or be on the bubble for breaking, but there are strategic or delivery issues that I could see being an issue in other rounds.
28.0 - 28.3: This is where I start my adjudicating of a round. A debater who stays at this score level is merely "fine" -- nothing too bad, but nothing too flashy either. I would not expect a debater consistently competing at this point level to break.
27.0 - 27.9: You've got a lot of work to do, either in strategy or delivery.
26.0 - 26.9: You've got a lot of work to do in both strategy and delivery.
25: You did something profoundly offensive.
One sure way to get good speaks from me: quality on-case argumentation and engagement with the opponent's cards and tags. I too often feel that even good debaters hear the tag of the AC (e.g. "oh they're running X policy case"), and then rather than engage the substance (or maybe lack thereof) in the AC, will go only for off arguments and weighing, leaving little time for direct arguments on case. Go for your offense, of course, but show me that you're engaging your opponent's case in detail! Put most succinctly, debaters that get good speaks for me eagerly go for clash,and to me part of good clash is getting into your opponent's case and saying how and why they're wrong.
What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.
One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format, the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, on a topic like "The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt," the CON is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in "the rulebook" for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.
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 ????
Excited to judge you if you are reading this! Debate is super cool and it is my life, I hope that it is a big part of your life too and this is a learning experience for both you all and me as even people in the position of educators have new things to learn from these debates. Feel free to introduce yourself and talk to me like a person because
joshuasp.debate@gmail.com
---
Recent Affiliations:
Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy (PF), Thomas Kelly College Prep (Policy)
Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)
I prefer to be called "jsp" or "Josh" to judge.
---
AI Rule: auto loss.
---
PF:
Frontlining is good, line by line is good, weighing is good, weighing should start by the summary at the latest. Uniqueness and Internal Links matter just as much as the link/impact. If any of these terms are new to you talk to your coach or I before/after the round. Defense isn't sticky it's slippery.
---
Policy:
I adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.
I am 50/50 for framework, flow on paper and don't look at the doc. Just like... make good arguments. Use what you are good at, don't use what you are not. I am more of a clash girly though.
I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear, my laptop will likely be closed till the rebuttals, I will yell "clear" or "loud" as much as needed but I would rather not have to and I will just stop if I get tired of saying it - speed will always be fine - clarity though is just as important
Inserting rehighlighting is okay, I will read it during prep, please explain what the recutting means though
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
It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)
I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)
My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption
Tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle