No circuit debate or spreading. Mostly judged LD for the last 7 years. I look at LD as a value-based debate, if participants are debating on totally different value/VC, I would expect debtors to clarify why their VC is better than the opponents. Also expect to weigh in how your contentions are reflecting on VC. In the final speech, please clarify, why should I vote for you. Please be polite and genuine. If you are making a statement of dropping arguments, please make sure you believe in it. Speaker points are based on how effectively you are articulating your arguments with out repeating/waisting any time/statements.

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon.

Wish you all the BEST !!

I've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!

I prefer a logical argument with voice that is understandable. Your ability to present convincingly your structure, arguments and cross will earn you speaker points. 

TL;DR mostly trad flow judge. Can judge circuit stuff, rankings go phil (NOT TRICKS PHIL)>LARP=K’s>theory>tricks, i did some PF in HS u can trust me for that as well

I do college debate (BP) which has increased my appreciation for reasonable debate (still tabula rasa tho).

I DO NOT KNOW THE TOPIC LITERATURE OR ANYTHING PLEASE DO NOT TREAT ME LIKE I DO

I don’t want to HAVE to flow off of the doc but put me on the email chain. It is emblem@stanford.edu

I have adhd and thus some auditory processing problems so if you are a fast spreader go about 80% of full speed especially if it isn’t on the doc. If you’re a clear spreader a lot of problems go away lol.

Hey! I go by she/her pronouns. I’m an FYO who did pretty well at traditional debate and qualified to the TOC my senior year. Not gonna make my paradigm a list of accomplishments because that is lame, just know that I know how debate works.

General stuff (pls read at least this before you have me as a judge):

• Round safety is a first priority for me. I had a really traumatizing situation in a final round because of the lack of trigger warnings. If it's a very egregious violation I don’t care if your opponent runs theory or not, your speaks are getting tanked and I may stop the round. This is stolen from my past debate coach’s paradigm (Eva Lamberson), who many of my debate opinions are stolen from, “If you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.”

• I like snarky and relaxed debate. If you make me laugh, that's a win. People need to be less afraid to add some spice to the round. Just don’t be mean. This includes being aware of societal imbalances in debate rounds, the level of snarkiness can feel very different based on different power dynamics.

• I don’t care what type of argument you run as long as it isn’t offensive.

• I try my best to be tabula rasa and tech>truth. Let me be tech by explaining why you win. To do the whole tech thing I want to do I need to know what the warrant is how it functions and why I care.

• One more stolen thing from Eva here because I am too lazy to type my own version “Rounds should be accessible to your opponent. This means that you should, of course, use inclusionary language, correct pronouns, content warnings if necessary, etc. but also means that you should not spread complex Ks or tricks or anything otherwise unnecessarily high level against novices, lay debaters, etc. If you do this I will be supremely annoyed and you will be very unhappy with your speaks. What is the point of winning a debate round if your opponent never has a chance to compete?”

Circuit stuff:

Tricks - They annoy me and I probably won’t catch them

Policy/LARP - Go ahead I understand it and like it. Please just do it well. Give me evidence AND give me warrants. If there isn’t analysis or reasoning and you spit cards at me I won’t be happy. I have no strong opinions on condo when it’s small amounts of cp’s but once it gets to like 5 I start thinking it’s defintely bad.

Kritiks - I actually quite enjoy K’s. BUT, I am not super well versed in them. I probably won’t know the nuances of your literature. I will happily vote off of basically any K if you explain it well. I still need the same things as for every argument, warrants and why I care. Performance and non-t stuff is on the table just be very clear about how it functions in the round. Don’t use non-t stuff as an excuse to not have warrants, use it as an excuse to be even clearer.

Phil - I ran some heavier frameworks in high school and feel pretty comfortable with a range of philosophy. Just don’t run it wrong, it will annoy me. Even though I will know a fair amount of philosophies, please still explain clearly to me how I’m supposed to use it to weigh the round. People apply things differently, if you just say your philosophy without explaining you can’t be mad when I don’t use it to weigh exactly how you want me to. So just tell me.

Theory/T - Use sparingly and be very clear. I have very minimal experience with theory and will get confused very easily. I will mess up judging complicated theory. I am not a good judge for you if this is your strat. I know and understand TW and disclosure theory well so those you can definitely feel comfortable running in front of me. If you are running any theory (it most often is disclosure…) as a time suck I will be very very very unhappy. This does not mean I won’t vote off of theory besides those two I listed. I just am not the best judge for evaluating the nuances of those types of rounds.

Traditional

• I find myself to be as flow as it gets for traditional rounds. I care about the warrants and interactions on individual arguments but make sure you tell me why I care at the end. Give me the claim warrant impact and why that impact matters the most under the framework of the round. If you give me those things you are on track for a win as so many traditional debaters are missing one of those things.

• On framework, you can run any traditional framework in front of me. Call it like it is though. Don’t give some fake name to util that makes it sound like a completely different framework. Also don’t forget that framework is a lens to view the arguments in the round through, link your arguments back to framework please. I’m always extra happy to watch a traditional debater run an interesting framework in a smart and strategic manner!

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

I follow the flay pattern. I like to focus on the flow of the argument and also place emphasis on the presentation of the content.

Ideally, each contention should be called out before you deep-dive into it so that I can correlate the substance/examples of your argument to your contention.

If the above is taken care of, I can easily make out what you are presenting, regardless of whether you speak fast or slow.

In CX, please be courteous to your opponent and allow them to finish responding to your question(s).

I am a parent judge. I focus on speech clarity, content, clarity of thoughts and delivery.

I don't have a preference as to philosophy or economic arguments, but I have to be able to understand them. I would prefer a slower speaking speed.

I am a parent judge and have been judging since September 2019. I have primarily judged LD but in the last 2 years I have judged PF, Parli Policy and Congress too. I do flow and take copious notes. I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at moderate speed so that I can understand your arguments. Please make sure you are polite to your opponent. Please provide sufficient evidence to substantiate your contentions and be able to provide evidence when asked by your opponent. Do not introduce new evidence in your final speeches or lie that arguments were dropped when they weren't. It will definitely count against you as I do flow. Overall enjoy the debate and have fun!

This paradigm is a little outdated in that I haven't gotten around to adding my prefs for other events so you can ask me in round. It hasn't changed much as far as LD or PF though.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

I competed for 4 years in LD debate during high school at both a lay and circuit level, but predominantly in lay debate. I also competed in 2 years of collegiate NPDA parli, predominantly at a circuit level. I generally prefer a lay style of debate but can accommodate circuit type arguments and some speed. I am generally not fluent in many critical positions, though I understand how kritik structures work. You are welcome to run them but clarity is important as I won't necessarily understand the author's arguments unless well-explained.

Last updated 2/12/24

As a judge, I view competitive academic debate as an educational rhetoric game. I want you to have the debate you want to have; I try not to intervene if your debate meets two *principles:

1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my personal interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to reconciling interpretations, but I'd rather do it prior to the first speech. I am less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” I believe maintaining stable competitive parameters is necessary to maintain fairness.

2. I deeply value access to speech and debate. By default, I will do my best to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity.

If you’re unclear on these points, please ask. I'm happy to chat about it.

* While these personal value principles are strongly-held, unless a "violation" seems especially egregious - and in the absence of in-round articulation - I'll be reluctant to intervene. Again, I want you to have the debate you want to have.

My preferences:

I like strong logic. I like it when debaters are considerate of one another and bring good will. I love good humor. I love creative, nuanced, and uncommon arguments.

Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific theory questions, ask me before the round.

Speaker points:
I see speaker points as an opportunity to reward individual oration. Things I value: strong verbal and nonverbal performance, audience/judge adaptation, round vision, and clarity & consistency of structure, content, and presentation.

My limitations:
I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of middle school, high school, and college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I have some difficulty flowing and comprehending top-speed arguments. If you're unsure what my threshold is, look for visual cues or simply ask. Spread at your own risk. If you’ve been doing Policy debate since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Run what you want, but bring me with you. Don't assume I'm deep in the lit.

Rebuttals:
I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new; If an argument is brand new and the opponent doesn't have a chance to respond to the argument, I will not consider the argument in my decision. If it's Parli, call the point of order.

Speech-y Debate Events (ie SPAR and IPDA):
While the guidelines above apply to my approach to SPAR and IPDA, I will not be strictly a "flow judge." I'll take a more holistic approach in my evaluation. This is a public speaking event, so I'll take the role of more of a lay audience member and less of a panopticon than in other forms of debate. I will still flow the debate.

Discretionary information about me:I'm a night owl. I love vintage motorcycles and guitar amps, karaoke, Mario Kart 64, waterfalls, and podcasts. I've been sorted into House Slytherin.

Stanford 2023 Update

Paradigm below is still accurate for parli, but I’m judging CA LD. Feel free to skim/read the whole paradigm below to get a sense of my general views on debate if you want to. Not opposed to speed or a more circuit style of debate, but will roll with whatever you feel good doing (which will probably be what’s most persuasive). I have literally no topic exposure. Please send the speech doc if you have one.

=====

About this Paradigm

• Elements of this paradigm are inspired by the (what I found to be very helpful) paradigms of Khamani Griffin, Meera Keskar, and Jon Telebrico among others.

• The highlights are at the top (the rest is under specifics). The 2 minute version of the whole paradigm is bolded.

• This paradigm is written with parli as its primary focus. I outline some specifics for other events at the bottom.

• Last updated 04/27/2021.

About Me

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Dougherty Valley ‘20

• 4 years of debate (3.5 years in open).

• Primarily parli with a little bit of extemp, impromptu, and world schools.

  • Parli was a mix of circuit/lay. I personally preferred circuit debate, but I did well with both.

UCLA ‘24

• BP and NPDA

Lay Presentation/Clothing/Standing/Etc.

None of this will affect my ballot in any way whatsoever as long as it doesn’t make the debate space exclusionary for others.

General Judging Philosophy

I want to judge rounds where the debaters control the round and do their best debate. As a judge, I see my primary role as finding the path of least resistance to the ballot. These statements lead me to the two main rules of my paradigm:

• I will avoid intervening as much as possible.

  • This pretty obviously leads to me being tech > truth.

• The preferences I list below are defaults - designed to minimize intervention in the absence of explicit argumentation - that are highly malleable.

A few qualifiers on those statements:

• I reserve the right to drop debaters that choose to use morally abhorrent advocacies, arguments, and/or verbiage (keep in mind that morally abhorrent is a pretty high bar: if you need to ask yourself if your advocacy/argument/verbiage choice is morally abhorrent then please just don’t run it).

• I will not vote on out-of-round issues (that’s an issue that is far better handled by coaches, tab staff, equity officers, etc.), but I will gladly be a conduit for bringing them to the appropriate tournament officials / coaches if you want me to be.

• I protect the flow.

  • Sorry, winning off of arguments snuck into a rebuttal ruins the integrity of debate as either a game or as an educational experience.

• I have preferences, and I am obviously biased towards them. I do my best to minimize this bias when presented with argumentation, but I’m only human.

• I will not actively fact check UNLESS:

  • I am specifically asked to on a specific fact AND

  • Fact-checking that fact is the path of least intervention to the ballot.

  • Just use CHSSA evidence challenges please. That makes life a lot easier for all of us, and it's the technically correct way to do things.

Specifics

Questions/Clarification

In the interest of transparency and making flow debate more inclusive, feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm (especially if my paradigm doesn’t address your question) and/or about rounds that I have judged you in (please include your name, team name, the tournament, the round number, and the round flight). I am down to answer questions face to face at in-person tournaments, or you can email me at mrfinn (finish the last name) @gmail.com .

I am always willing to give an RFD and be post-rounded, time permitting. If possible, I will try to do this immediately after the round, but, depending on specific circumstances, this might have to take place after breaks / elim results are announced.

Framework

• Trichotomy

  • I am extremely flexible on trichotomy issues as long as both sides are ok with it.

  • Value Debate

    • Please provide a specific value and value criterion and actually link back to / use them for weighing.

• Skewed framework doesn’t make me want to give you more speaks.

Weighing

• I WILL NOT WEIGH / CONSIDER ARGUMENTS OR PARTS OF ARGUMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE LOGICALLY-CONNECTED CLAIMS, WARRANTS, AND IMPACTS.

  • This is bolded in all caps because I want teams to understand that I avoid intervening by not doing work for teams that don’t make coherent arguments. If your opponents’ argument doesn’t make sense as presented, then I’m going to do my best to avoid finishing it for them; the same holds true for you. This is one of the most common things that leads teams to think there was judge intervention when there really wasn’t.

• My default weighing is: Probability > Magnitude > Timeframe > Reversibility

  • This ordering is not absolute (e.g. I will probably consider nuclear war with 95% probability to be more important than an ant dying with 100% probability).

  • Please weigh your impacts for me. This is the single best way for you to minimize my intervention.

Layering

• I default to weighing all arguments on the same layer. I’m not going to up-layer for you.

  • For transparency’s sake, if I had a default layering it would be the following: Meta Theory > Theory/T > K > Case.

• I am very skeptical of “voting issues” being up-layered with little to no justification. If you do this, then please spend time justifying it.

Case

• Please break arguments down into Uniqueness/Inherency, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts.

  • Please signpost these.

• Please terminalize your impacts.

Plantexts

• These need to exist if there is a plan/counterplan.

  • Please don’t use any variant of “do the resolution.”

• Nebel is sketchy.

Counterplans

• I’m fine with all kinds of PICs.

  • I have a higher bar than most judges for the various PIC-bad procedurals. If you are going to run one of these, then it’s in your best interest to prove abuse.

• I default to not judge kicking per community norms. If you want me to judge kick, then ask me to and provide a basic explanation of what judge kicking is for your opponents (in case they don’t know).

  • Judge kicking is when the judge can choose to vote for the squo in the case in which they think the plan beats the counterplan but not the squo.

Perm

• The perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy.

• It’s in the NEG’s best interest to read some sort of perm defense (competition) in the 1NC so that it’s not all new 2NC argumentation that the 1AR can golden turn.

  • Should be explicitly articulated as mutual exclusivity and/or net benefits.

  • Competition by stealing funding generally doesn’t work. Perm do plan and all of counterplan except stealing funding wrecks this.

• I default to viewing any perm that contains all of the plan and at least part of the counterplan as theoretically legitimate. I default to viewing severance and intrinsic perms as theoretically illegitimate.

  • Severance perms are almost certainly cheating. Intrinsic perms are probably cheating.

K

If you plan on K-hacking without actually knowing your literature and K, then I’m not the judge for you. This does not mean that I won’t vote for the K, but it does mean a couple of things:

• I will be more favorable to a K that is well-linked and clearly relevant but lacking in structure much more than a well-structured but questionably-linked and tangentially-relevant K.

• I might not be familiar with your lit base, but even if I am I won’t fill in the blanks for you.

  • Lit bases I have some familiarity with (listed from most to least familiar):

    • Cap, Biopower, SetCol, Anti Blackness, Fem IR, Anthro, Securitization, Ableism.

• I probably don’t know every framing trick you’ve hidden.

  • You can definitely hide them from your opponent, but you might also wind up hiding them from me.

    • If it doesn’t wind up on my flow after you spread through it in the middle of three bullets that you half finished in the impacts before realizing you were low on time and it doesn’t wind up on my flow, then sorry not sorry.

  • Please give me and your opponents a text if at all possible (especially with zoom debate - please make it a little more fun for everyone).

• I will vote for K’s with incredibly generic links if forced to, but your speaks will suffer. Please don’t commodify the K solely as a tool to get the ballot.

• I think that K Aff’s that don’t affirm the resolution as written are probably cheating.

  • Feel free to try to change my mind on this one. I’m honestly curious about how the NEG is supposed to participate in these rounds / have a viable path to the ballot.

• I personally think that most K’s, as read at the high school level, have alts that lack real solvency and/or competition with the plan.

Theory/T

• Overall, I have a lower bar for theory than most judges on the circuit.

• I default to competing interpretations.

• I default to drop the argument.

• I don’t care about the following (i.e. they won’t impact my decision / ballot) unless they are raised as issues:

  • Proven vs. Hypothetical Abuse

  • Frivolity of Theory

• Please read Theory/T in shell format.

• I will vote on the RVI if read. I probably have a slightly lower bar for this than most judges.

  • A justification for RVIs is NOT the same thing as reading an RVI. If you want me to vote on an RVI, then explicitly read one.

Speed

• Unless you’re coming from circuit LD or policy I can handle full speed.

  • The issue with most parli spreading is clarity rather than speed.

• I will call slow or clear if I need to.

  • If you make me do this more than twice, then your speaks will suffer.

• Please be respectful of the speed that your opponents are comfortable with.

  • Your speaks will definitely suffer if you don’t.

  • I am willing to listen to speed theory, but I think that it’s often a weak / difficult argument.

Points of Information / Order

• Please take at least two POIs per constructive speech.

  • This won’t impact my decision, but it will definitely impact your speaks, especially if the debate becomes sidetracked by an issue that a POI could have easily resolved.

• I don’t flow POIs as responses on the flow, but I do consider responses to POIs to be binding (i.e. if a team clarifies in a POI that a counterplan is unconditional then I expect it to remain that way throughout the round).

• Please don’t abuse POIs as “gotchas.” That’s what your speech is for.

• Call the POO, please. I will protect the flow, but I can’t guarantee that I will catch everything or that I am conceptualizing an argument’s place in the round the same as you are.

Speaker Points

The speaker points system is inherently problematic and should be replaced. However, until it is, I believe that participating in it is the best way to advance equity as a flow judge. I award speaker points solely on the basis of effective strategy and argumentation.

A general scale for speaker points (see above for specific things that might impact speaks).

• <= 25 = Something Problematic / Arguments that just don’t make sense.

• 25-26 = Serious errors that probably lost you the round.

• 27.5 = Average, no significant mishaps or particularly good choices.

• 28.5 = Good strategic choices (likely to be around even).

• 29 = Great strategic choices (likely to break).

• 30 = Visionary strategic choices (likely to do very well in elims).

Other Events

World Schools

• Models are very useful to clarify broad resolutions.

  • This doesn’t exempt the proposition from it’s burden to affirm the whole resolution.

• Humor is very much appreciated if pulled off well.

• Please take points of information.

• I will score speeches individually, but I expect to see coherence between speeches down the bench (a lack of coherence will definitely affect strategy scores).

Policy / Circuit LD

• Please put me on the email chain if there is one: mrfinn (finish the last name) @ gmail.com).

• I understand the core elements of the formats, but I’m not super familiar with their specific implementation (e.g. I know what theory is and how it functions but I’m not 100% caught up with LD’s or Policy’s norms for it).

• I can probably handle about 70% of full speed without a speech doc.

  • I’ll call slow or clear as needed.

  • Please slow down on key parts of cards for me. It is highly unlikely that I know the topic well.

• LD Specific:

  • I’m most familiar with evaluating LARP debates.

  • I’m down to evaluate kritikal debates, but keep in mind that I’m coming from a parli background.

    • I’m probably not familiar with your lit if it’s something more niche (see above for my general familiarity).

    • Parli kritks tend to be much more framework heavy, so make sure that you explain how you want me to evaluate the kritik.

  • As far as tricks/phil go, not my favorite but I will evaluate. Keep in mind, especially with phil, that my background here is fairly limited.

As a parent judge, it would be very helpful to pay attention on the following points:

1. speak slowly and clearly
2. emphasize key points

Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.

I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.

I have been a parent judge for 3+ years and have mainly judged LD. Important notes for debaters:

1. Speak clearly and at normal pace
2. Tag your contentions
3. Be respectful

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

Hi! Newer judge here, and promise to do my best. If I'm your judge, please note:

Go with any form of evidence exchange you're comfortable with, if gdocs/e-mail I want to be on it: andreaho.designs@gmail.com

Not a fan of speed at all. Slightly above conversational is ok, and signposting will make my life a lot easier. Please make my life easier.

I'll do my best to keep track of time, but I'd prefer it if each debater kept track of their own and each other.

Include warrants in everything, and avoid jargon whenever possible. You should assume I don't know anything specific about the topic literature or common abbreviations.

I won't disclose in prelims, but I'll try to give feedback if I'm not late to another round. Good luck!

I am a judge with experience judging multiple debate tournaments throughout the entirety of 2021. I've mainly done LD and PF, but I also have judged some Parliamentary, Congress, and individual events as well.

I believe it is important for things such a debate to be accessible to anyone, so clarity in communicating ideas and speaking at a clear, easy to understand speed will be important to me, as well as clearly articulating tag-lines of arguments, and I would prefer refraining from jargon when possible.

I will mainly try to judge Tabula Rasa, as I believe it is fair and important for the debaters to have control over what the rules of the debate are, and if those rules are mutually agreed upon, then it sets everyone up for the highest level of success. I won't be bringing preconceived notions into the debate, as I would prefer to judge to debaters on the merits of what they bring to each round.

In the last speeches of the round, I want you to tell me which argument you think I should vote on and WHY, and how it compares to the other team's argument.

Traditional flow judge. No spreading. Keep it slow please. I like substantive debates.

I have no preferences except for LD-no spreading.

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Debated four years at Lansing

Formerly debated at Washburn U

Do whatever you think is going to win you the round. I like seeing rounds that have both sides arguing what they like best. Reading an argument you don’t know / are uncomfortable with is risky and doesn’t work as good as what’s in your back pocket. A good rule of thumb is to explain your arguments that win you the round like I’m a kid. Doing this ensures we are on the same page and I don’t have to do work for you in the rebuttals. On the topic of speed, I can keep up but slow debates are my bread and butter. That said, Speed won’t lose you the debate by any means.

Disadvantages - Probably my favorite rounds to watch are ones that are DA v the Case. Impact calc debate is a tool that wins debates. Explain why the DA outweighs the case and how you might garner offense from any case turns.

Counterplan - love them. If the aff thinks a CP is cheating it’s their job to convince me why that’s the case.

Theory - I like theory debates. I’m not side biased so shoot your shoot and it could win you a round.

T - T debates are always fun. If there’s in round abuse I’d vote on that.

K - I never really ran K’s in highschool but college has made me understand them better. That said if you ran them just explain them like I’m a kid :) If it’s a fast round go slow on the alt / advocacy.

I probably missed some stuff so if you have questions feel free to approach me whenever so I can answer questions you might have.

Email: minnalkunnan@gmail.com

I debated for Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Rutgers University under Policy Debate, APDA and BP formats. I have judged BAUDL tournaments in the past and currently judge/coach for Gabrielino High School.

1. I generally don't prefer any one style of debate over another so please feel free to debate however you like. Just make it clear what my role as the judge is in the round and what my vote means.

2. Please attempt to be "normal". Debate seems to encourage anti-social and fringe behaviors that I am increasingly intolerant of. Technical analysis and argumentation is fine, but I often find some rhetorical framing and "truth" or at least belief in one's own arguments are important.

3. Please do not assume that I am familiar with the literature you are reading. I have a general sensibility of the evidence we have chosen to use in debate but I am unlikely to be well versed in your specific authors.

4. If you are going to go for theory in the round please be very specific and clear about what abuse occurred and why it creates a bad debate. I generally do not enjoy debates where either side is attempting to win using a frivolous theory argument.

5. If there are a variety of impacts in a round please provide me some way to compare them. Provide me a metric or framework for weighing different impact claims and prove to me that yours is more important.

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a sophomore at Cornell University. I did Parli for a year and Public Forum for three years back in high school. Now, I've been doing college policy for two years :) I typically run trad policy stuff, but I'm used to hearing (and sometimes running) K's and T - so you can probably get away with running most things. Contact me for email chains at:

jzhou0303@gmail.com

--

For LD: I'm pretty new to coaching LD, but I do have my policy experience to supplement my understanding.

Good with evaluating traditional arguments all around, and I can definitely handle spreading. However, for online tournaments, I'd suggest speaking at a slightly slower speed so I can hear you and your mic doesn't cut out. My wifi is kinda spotty, so I may ask for speech docs. I understand what a value/value criterion are, but I've never actually competed with them; I'm still in the process of learning about them. I am used to progressive framing, though.

I'm fine with evaluating some of the wackier progressive arguments, like high theory or tricky T stuff, but keep in mind that I might not know what you're talking about!! I know the more basic stuff like Foucault's biopower and Baudrillard's simulation theory, but I will not know what you're saying if you start talking about Deleuze. There is a limit to these sorts of things!!!

--

For PF: I think paraphrasing cards is alright, but I will call for cards if necessary (or if you ask me to).

I'll understand spreading, but it's somewhat unadvisable because your mic might cut out. Please signpost in your speeches or else I won't be able to flow!!

No impacts, no dub >:) Trigger warnings are great! Please read them when you find them necessary. Please go hard and roast each other in cross (I won't flow it though lol).

--

I'll evaluate theory in PF, I'm alright with RVI's, and you should feel free to run trix (but keep in mind that I might get lost).

Background

I did 4 years of PF in high school and 4 years of parliamentary (BP) at University of Southern California. I've coached in both PF and Parli.

Style

Be civil and regardless of your speed, remain coherent in your speech. I'm fine with spreading, but do realize that there is an inherent risk of me missing something if you do so, especially if you begin slurring words together.

I appreciate signposting and well organized speeches in general; either keep it organized or explicitly signpost. Otherwise, I will not guarantee the flow I have is the same flow that you may have wanted.

If you want to offer a framework, make sure that it's a framework of substance rather than just a glorified roadmap. I'd rather you set the tone for the round by providing a weighing mechanism instead (morals in utilitarianism vs. consequentialism, short-term vs. long-term, etc.).

I will only call cards if they are the deciding factor for the round, which is basically never. However, mentions of statistics or results of studies should touch on their methodology.

Judging

Impact, impact, impact. I won't care about how great your point is unless you explicitly show why it matters. Note: if you shotgun a ton of arguments in hopes that the opposing team will inevitably drop a few of them, do not suddenly bring them up at the end of the round without having extended them at all.

I lean tech>truth, but keep it somewhat reasonable. I appreciate creative arguments and am open to anything. However, if you run a more convoluted argument that requires a certain suspension of belief, keep it relevant to the topic of the round or at least keep it loosely grounded in reality.

Speaks will be given based off of argumentation and how well you engage points. Bonus points if you fit in a clever analogy somewhere.

Weighing and/or offering a criteria for weighing is far more appreciated that dogfighting the same 2 or 3 points for 30 minutes. I highly appreciate turning arguments, but make sure it makes sense.

Speak slowly. Spreading will tank your speaks and lead to a bad decision.

Stick to stock issues, I cannot understand your K.

Hello,

I am a parent judge.

Be respectful and track your time. Honor your time limits.

Arguments should be delivered properly with emphasis on communication delivery. Be precise and communicate your point well.

I do like to take notes and would be doing it during the rounds.

Debated LD - 1997 - 2001

Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present

Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017

I am open to all debating styles and could handle speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made Kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA, make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time and education was lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is important. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me. Prefer Speechdrop over email chains.

Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Hi I'm Sanath (he/him) and I’m a freshman in college. I have 4 years of experience in PF.

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

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

However you decide to share evidence, make it fast. If it's e-mail, I'll drop mine when you the round starts (remind me if I forget)

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll try and time too but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to solely rely on me. For varsity, I'm not timing anything y'all are grown.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or the speech sheriff.

Speed is fine but don't full on spread (esp first round)

If you disclose cases with your opponents let me know everyone will get extra speaks.

PF:

For PF, I'm good with paraphrasing cards and whatnot but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

If you send a link and tell someone to "control f" I will cry and that may or may not affect your speaker points.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. Make sure to weigh those impacts as well, tell me why I should care about yours over theirs.

I'm cool with a heated cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure to be respectful of your opponents.

I don't flow cross so if something super important happened in cross bring it up in the next speech.

If you do theory make sure you explain it really well because I am not the best with it. If i have a confused face you've lost me.

LD:

Consider me a lay judge for LD, with a little bit of background (i.e. idk LD specific jargon but if its general debate jargon like weighing or something I'll get it)

Other:

I'm a lay judge

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Please speak clearly and a fast conversational pace is fine.

Being courteous is extremely important. Please do not be rude to your opponents.

You must signpost and organize your speeches clearly so that your arguments are easy to understand.

Please speak clearly and slowly. I will listen to all of your arguments thoroughly, and am more interested in policy-style arguments. I value authenticity in arguments so I don't have to listen to the same arguments throughout all the debates I judge. Also please be respectful to your opponent and good luck!

Please do not say anything inappropriate, racist, homophobic, or anything offensive to your opponent. Please be kind & respectful to your opponent, and do not interrupt your opponent during cross-examination. No offensive terms or personal attacks

I consider evidence, and argument interaction very important. Evidence must be quantitive with clear and credible references. Supporting evidence is critical. I also pay attention whether opponents questions and contentions are addressed or not.

Please speak clearly. Also please define any acronyms you will be using throughout at the beginning. Make sure your key points and values are clear.

Please do not speak too fast, so that I can understand you.

I am a Parent judge. My notes focus on (1) argumentation, (2) supporting evidence. I highly value credible evidence.

Most of all, I appreciate a respectful and fun debate!

Last updated - 9/22/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

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

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

Director of Debate

Dulles High School 2022 - Present

Westside High School 2017 - 2022

Magnolia High School 2016-2017

Summer Debate Institutes

Lab Leader - Texas Debate Collective 2020 - Present

Admin - National Symposium for Debate 2022

Lab Leader - Houston Urban Debate League 2019 - 2021

Emails

All Rounds: esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy Rounds: dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD Rounds: dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. I'll reward deep content knowledge, organization, clarity of explanation, depth of explanation, judge instruction, efficient file sharing, and flowing. Other than that, do your thing and do it well. Read the full thing to get a sense of how I understand what it means to debate well. Non-Policy event specific thoughts are at the bottom.

General Thoughts

I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges frequently (over 100 rounds in the 22-23 season). I debated for a small rural high school and read exclusively policy style arguments; however, I have since coached students who go for the K on both sides and every other kind of argument under the sun. I am probably fine for whatever you want to do. Although most of my experience competing, judging, and coaching is in Policy and LD, I have worked with debaters across all formats. My preference is for national circuit style debate, but I have worked with a number of traditional debaters and judge traditional rounds quite frequently. I believe that debate can be one of the single most transformative activities for high schoolers who engage deeply in the processes of research, argument refinement, skill development, and content mastery that it requires to be done well. As such, I am committed to the educational integrity of the activity. This has a few different implications for you, regardless of format:

• Safety, inclusion, and access are my first priorities because students can’t get the benefits of the activity if they feel unsafe, unwelcome, or lack access to the materials they need to be successful. For you, this means to be cognizant of your words/actions and their effects on other people, especially those coming from social locations different from your own. Assume less, listen more.

Respect people’s pronoun preferences, honor requests for accommodation, and be kind to novices and those less experienced than you. Don’t bully or harass people, don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist. If something is happening and I’m not picking up on it, please bring it to my attention either verbally or via email. If I am part of the problem, please let me know so that I can do better.

Recording your speeches is fine. You must get consent from everyone in the room to record the whole round. It would also be polite to offer to send your opponents a copy of the recording if they consent. If you record others sans consent and I find out, you will be reported to the tabroom.

Content/Trigger warnings should be read if you suspect a position might be triggering to someone, and you should be ready to read something else if your opponents or I say we are not comfortable with the position being read. If an observer objects, they are free to leave, but we have to be there.

I will not be evaluating arguments about people’s character or their conduct outside of the round we are in and the prior disclosure period. Any significant issue of safety or comfort that impacts your ability to engage with someone is not something that a ballot can resolve. That needs to be taken to the tabroom.

If you debate for an under-resourced program and would like some materials to help you improve, let me know and I’ll send you some of the resources I make sure my students have access to.

• The rigor of academic debate is the main reason it has such a large and long lasting impact on people’s lives. I will reward displays of it with generous speaker points and will tend towards being punitive with regards to practices that compromise the rigor of the activity.

The two teams on the pairing are the only entities taking part in the debate. Coaches, teammates, random spectators, and AI chatbots are not to be assisting once the door closes. Chatbots shouldn’t be used before the door closes either. If I find that academic dishonesty of this variety has occurred, I will go to tab and lobby for you to be disqualified.

You should do your own research, reading, card cutting, and block writing. Using open evidence, the wiki, or published briefs is fine as a starting point, but that hardly constitutes research. Similarly, it is fine if some of your blocks are written by a coach or more veteran teammates, but overreliance on things cut/written by other people is detrimental to your learning and development. This will put a cap on your speaker points. I will bump speaker points for quality work that is obviously your own.

When cutting cards, make sure not to clip or power tag. For those who don’t know, clipping entails cutting around parts of cards that are inconvenient for your argument, not cutting at paragraph breaks, reading more or less than what is highlighted, and failing to mark cards if you decide to move on. Power tagging is simply when the tagline you have written does not represent what the body of the card says. Evidence ethics challenges are limited to claims that evidence is fabricated in whole or in part, so you should be confident that you are correct before staking the round on it. In the event of a challenge, you win if you are right and you lose if you are wrong.

Citation drives research, which is the source of argument innovation over the course of a topic. Complete citations contain the following information: The author’s complete name (you only need to read the last name), the date of publication (read month and day if the evidence is from this year, just the year if it is from a previous year), a list of author qualifications, the title of the source, the name of the publishing entity, a url to the text if applicable, and an indicator of who cut the evidence.

Generally speaking, I am pro disclosure since having time to read, think, and strategize tends to improve the quality of engagement from both sides exponentially, which in turn results in debates that are more educational for the participants and, incidentally, more enjoyable for me to judge. This is my default position; it doesn’t mean you can’t get me to vote against disclosure. I freely acknowledge the validity of objections regarding student safety and competitive equity.

Recording audio of your speeches, later transcribing and editing them, is a good habit to help you notice issues with clarity, efficiency, and explanation. It can also be a part of your block writing process. The final product might be super specific, but it does not take that much time to convert the specific speech to a generic block that you can use in future debates.

Prep time exists for a reason. You should not be typing or strategizing with your partner if there is not a timer running, be that yours or your opponents’. Stealing prep is cheating.

Take notes during feedback, preferably in a word or google doc. It’s a good habit to be in, as some judges don’t write much, memory is pretty faulty, and it helps create the impression that you care about improving and are actively listening to what judges are telling you. I would also suggest labeling and saving your flows.

Ask questions with redos and file updates in mind. I welcome all questions; however, understand that once the ballot is submitted I can do nothing to change it. Aggressive post-rounding of me or another judge on a panel is futile and immature. I would suggest that you choose to focus on growth and improvement rather than burning bridges with people.

• Debate is a skill focused activity that necessitates a degree of technical mastery. As such, I tend towards tech over truth, but I think that paradigm is overly simplistic. In reality, truth is constitutive of tech, meaning that arguments more germain to my understanding of the world will inevitably require less work to get me on board with. I do my best to check my preconceptions at the door, but the idea of a truly tabula rasa judge is a farce.

While I prefer fast debates over slow debates, I enjoy debates I can understand even more. If you are not capable of spreading clearly, then don’t do it at all. Slow down for taglines and parts of cards you wish to emphasize. Raise your volume when something is important. If you are not doing speaking drills for at least 15 minutes every day, you are not working to improve or maintain what is, realistically, the easiest skill to practice. If you spread, be ready to honor a request for accommodation.

All arguments should make a claim, support that claim with evidence and/or reasoning, and explain the implication of that argument for the debate. They should be organized in a line by line fashion, meaning “they say . . . we say . . . that matters because . . .” or an equivalent organizational schema. Compare arguments/evidence and weigh as you go down each flow sheet. If the affirmative team introduces a position, the negative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. When the negative team introduces a position, the affirmative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. Any overview that summarizes an argument should be kept short, and should include weighing and judge instruction, especially as we get deeper into the debate. Get to the line by line and do the work of debating there. Affirmative teams should start on the case page (T first is an exception), and negative teams should start with the off case positions they are extending, then go to the case (unless presumption or an impact turn is what they go for in the 2NR). Neither side should jump around and go back to a page they have already moved on from.

Most errors get made because debaters don’t flow or are not proficient at flowing. This should be one of your most practiced skills, as you can’t do line by line effectively or make intelligent decisions if you don’t have an accurate record of what happened in each speech. Flow every single speech of every single debate you are in or that you observe in order to practice. I am generally of the opinion that it is better for competitors to flow on paper rather than on your laptop.

Housekeeping tasks should be done at the beginning of CX/speeches. This means that questions about independent reasons to affirm/negate, CP/alt status, etc. go first in CX, counterplans get kicked and no link arguments get conceded at the top of speeches.

Don’t just answer the previous speech, anticipate and shut down the arguments that will be in the next speech using lots of judge directed language. The 2NR should be focused on beating their best 2AR options, and the 2AR should be focused on narrating the debate back to me and beating the 2NRs ballot story. The earlier you can start the process of judge instruction, the better off you are.

Aff and Neg Case Debating Thoughts

Affirmative teams must identify a harm or set of harms that is being caused by some aspect of the status quo. They must also propose some method of addressing those harms. If you can’t articulate how you’ve met those two burdens clearly and succinctly, you probably lose on presumption. I don’t particularly care if you prefer policy/law, philosophy, or critical theory as the part of the library you research from, nor do I care if you read a plan or poetry. I do, however, think that the topic should have some effect on the research and writing you are doing when crafting your case. If every aspect of the aff is generic and not specific to the area of controversy that we voted to have debates over, I will likely be voting neg as you have clearly not thought hard about the way that your particular literature base engages the topic and topicality/FW answers will be bad. If you are not extending the case from the 1AC to the 2AR, you will likely lose (exception for going all in on theory, for which I have a pretty high threshold).

Case is the core of the debate. The role of the negative is to disprove A.) the truth claims of the 1AC and B.) the desirability of the plan text/broader 1AC scholarship. It is way harder to do B if you have neglected A by not making offensive and defensive arguments on case targeting different aspects of the aff. Don’t just spend time at the impact level. Don’t just make cross applications of off case positions. Read cards, contest link and internal link claims, contest claims of solvency, etc. You need to think about how these case cards interact with other off case positions. I’ve written a shocking number of aff ballots in debates where someone goes for a security K in the 2NR without extending carded link, internal link, or impact defense on case, and they end up losing the debate because the 2AR gets to wax poetic about how good and true their China reps are given the conceded empirics. If it interacts with the case page, you probably need to have case cards that help the argument make sense. There are no instances where the 1NC can afford to ignore the case page. There are a few instances where you can afford to not extend case in the 2NR, but those are few and far between.

Topicality Thoughts

I default to competing interpretations, as I think choices should have to be justified. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not the specific aff, arguing that it is sufficiently predictable, limiting, etc. to mitigate the impacts of the shell, and that losing the round would be disproportionate punishment, even if there is some marginal benefit to the negative interpretation. Interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Framework Thoughts

I’m of the opinion that both sides should defend a model of debate that they believe to be desirable. The social structures and dynamics that define competitive debate are fair game for criticism; however, I think the fact that you’ve voluntarily chosen to come to a tournament probably concedes that there is some benefit to doing the activity as it is currently instantiated, so tell me what your vision of the activity is and why you think it’s worth it to show up to tournaments, not just why your opponents’ model is bad. Both sides should start with a caselist of affs that would be topical under their interpretation and the various possibilities for negative testing their interpretation would permit.

For T USFG vs K affs, a limits standard with an skills impact, switch side debate net better/read it on the negative solves their offense, and an example of a topical version of the aff is most persuasive to me. If you prefer to go for fairness, that’s fine, just be aware that I understand myself as an educator first and a referee second, which does implicate how I end up thinking about close debates.

For K frameworks vs policy affs, I am unsure why we are making this section of debate more confusing and self-serving than it needs to be. They want me to look at just the plan and its consequences, you want me to look at the 1AC holistically. Other questions are either secondary to this core controversy about the evaluative terms of the debate or are irrelevant altogether. KvK debates have a tendency to be less clean cut at the framework level, so just be sure you are being clear about the model you think is good and explain how the debates your model would value relate to the debates they think matter.

Kritik Thoughts

You should have done a lot of reading on the thesis of your kritik so you actually know what you are talking about. That said, over reliance on jargon isn’t a flex. Instead, explain big concepts simply and use lots of examples to illustrate your link and alternative arguments. Links should be specific to the aff/topic you are criticizing. Illustrate the link by quoting your opponents and/or their evidence.

Disadvantage and Counterplan Thoughts

In an ideal world, disadvantages would be intrinsic to the action of the plan. Explain the link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides. Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for a counterplan. I'm agnostic on judge kick.

LD Thoughts

Everything mentioned above applies to LD. I'd prefer not to be subjected to tricks or frivolous theory debates.

A philosophy framework should have a clearly articulated relationship to the relevant impacts for the round. I would suggest slowing down to ensure I don't miss key steps in your syllogism. I'm fine for one or two substantive tricks like skep triggers and paradoxes here, provided they make sense in the context of your framework.

I'm agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs in the context of this event.

PF Thoughts

This event exists with the explicit purpose of preserving lay debate, so pretend that this is a short policy round, and I am a lay judge who knows how to flow. If you want to do progressive debate things, come to policy. We would love to have you.

Cards are good. Paraphrasing is bad. If we are sending out speech docs with carded evidence before speeches, I will be a happy camper and likely bump speaks.

"Flowing through ink" is not a thing. You have to attend to responses if you want to extend something. Additionally, defense is not "sticky". You have to extend it if you want me to consider it.

I understand PF to be advantage vs disadvantage debate, with the resolution functioning in place of the plan in policy debate.

Topicality doesn't make a ton of sense in PF considering that the aff doesn't default to speaking first and the negative isn't tasked with upholding the resolution. Just do the thing traditional debaters used to do and define your terms at the top of the speech to parametrize the debate.

Counterplans are allowed at TFA sanctioned tournaments. They are banned only at NSDA sanctioned tournaments.

If you are considering reading a kritik in front of me, you don't have enough time to do the requisite amount of explanation and contextualization for me to feel like you have a shot at winning. Come to policy and read all the Ks you want.

WSD Thoughts

This event suffers from inconsistency of argument from speech to speech. Introduce your arguments in you first speech, and start answering your opponents' arguments as soon as you are able. Arguments and answers must then be extended in each successive speech in which you'd like for it to be up for consideration.

Congress Thoughts

After a few speeches of floor debate and cross examination on a given bill, you should not be reading speeches word for word. Clash with arguments presented by people on the other side of the issue and extend arguments made by representatives you agree with.

I would like debaters to speak slowly. I have judged only a few LD tournaments.

Pronouns: He/Him

Affiliation: Leland HS '20, UC Berkeley '24

Background: Competed extensively in Congress for my four years of HS (top 40 Nationals, Berkeley finals, 2x State, etc.), with experience judging or competing in basically every event except Interp and Policy.

General Comments (for all events):

• Always treat your fellow competitors with respect. For speech events, this includes paying active attention, not stonewalling, and staying quiet when your competitors are speaking. For debate events, this includes not rolling your eyes/shaking your head when your opponent is reading their arguments, asking for cards in a respectful manner, and not being disruptive while they are speaking (whispering to your partner is allowed, but don’t be obnoxious)

• Don’t be discriminatory/racist/sexist.

• Presentation is key. If I can’t hear and understand what you are saying, then it doesn’t matter how good your content is. Good speaking skills (voice inflection, meaningful pauses, etc.) will always be rewarded.

• Organization is very important. Use taglines and signpost so I can easily follow along w/your speech on the flow.

• Don’t abuse your event’s grace period. Doing so will result in lower ranks and/or speaking scores, and I won’t listen to any arguments made past the grace period.

• Remember to enjoy yourself and have fun! Good luck!

Speech/Extemp/Imp:

• Always give me your topic before you begin your speech.

• I rank good organization, effective speaking, and the inclusion of emotional rhetoric (when appropriate) very highly.

• Do not become a thesaurus -- larger synonyms of simpler words aren't impressive. Keep in mind that clarity is the number one most important aspect of a speech, and using any superfluous words doesn’t help you achieve that goal.

Congress:

• Out of all the debate events, Congress is the most holistic. This means that I will judge you not only on your argumentation (speeches/questions), but also on your overall presentation skills (speaking proficiency/level of engagement with the chamber/Congressional role player) Congress does have a role playing element -- it is important to treat your fellow legislators with the appropriate level of maturity and formality.

• Presiding: I judge POs equally fairly as I judge speakers -- there is no competitive disadvantage for POing. I will not hesitate to give an excellent PO the 1 (or a very high rank) in the round. That being said, POing is an art -- you must always be fast, fair, efficient, clear in your communications, maintain chamber decorum, and understand proper procedure. If there is clear bias (e.g. coincidentally choosing your schoolmates three times in a row) or you make repeated/notable mistakes, you can expect low ranks. Just as a speaker will need to be flawless to obtain the 1, a PO will similarly have to be of excellent quality.

• I have been in too many rounds, especially as one attends more prestigious/national tournaments, where no one wants to deliver the first authorship and/or early speeches. If you volunteer to give the authorship speech after 10 minutes of dawdling because no one bothered to prep, I will look upon your speech more favorably. In addition, good authorships (establish strong context and explain the legislation’s mandate and initial advantages) will be ranked very highly. Authorships are essential and I heavily appreciate those who put in the work to prep one.

• Rebuttal/Crystallization speeches with clash are the bread and butter of Congress -- I should be hearing more of these as we progress through cycles. Excellent rebuttal and crystallization speeches are hard to find, but when delivered appropriately, will be ranked extremely highly. Do your best to deliver such a speech.

• Engagement with other speakers by mentioning their names shows me that you’re paying good attention, however, don’t make laundry lists of legislator names.

• Part of being an exemplary Congressional debater is adapting to the flow of the round as cycles progress -- I look down severely on rehashing points that another speaker mentioned earlier without offering a new perspective or extending their argument.

• As cycles continue, I expect each speech to have some degree of rebuttal or crystallization. I will severely penalize you if you give a pure constructive speech in late cycles (if there is a particularly profound point, exceptions can be made here)

• Good intros and persuasive rhetoric will be heavily rewarded. I’ve heard all of the low-effort/cliche/joke intros -- avoid them. Crafting an excellent intro will earn you my respect and appreciation.

Parli/PF/LD:

• Aim to speak at medium speeds -- I am a “flay” judge, so I will not understand spreading but I will record my own flow. If you go too fast for me, I will call “clear” -- please slow down if you hear this. If you continue to speak too fast, don’t expect perfect case comprehension or a high speaker score.

• Practically all of my experience is with lay/case debate, which I have a strong understanding of and preference for. If you really have to run theoretical/kritikal arguments, understand that I will not be well-read or experienced at all -- be prepared to do more explaining at a more basic level than you usually do. In general, if you keep things simple/clear/clean/organized, I’ll have the best chance at understanding and voting for your arguments.

• Time your own speeches and your opponents, and keep them responsible to their time. If your opponents go overtime, silently hold up your stopwatch/phone and I will get the message. If you are a debater who habitually abuses the grace period, read my note about this above in “General Comments”.

• Framework (V/VC/burdens) is incredibly important and round-defining. Take your time to flush out and argue for your own framework, because I will judge you off of the agreed framework of both teams. If there is no agreed framework, I expect both teams to argue for their own framework effectively. If either team goes a speech without arguing for their framework, I will assume that you accept your opponents framework. A good framework can augment your argumentation and easily set up your team for victory -- don’t make the cardinal sin of ignoring this part of debate. If neither team presents their own framework, I will default to utilitarianism.

• Include impacts in each of your arguments and use impact calculus. Your impacts should be attached to a clear, consistent, and strong internal link chain. Good impacts will always be appreciated and regarded positively.

• PLEASE WEIGH! Write as much of my ballot as you can for me by weighing impacts, voter issues, and highlighting critical parts of the debate and why they fall in your favor.

• POIs/Crossfire: Always remain respectful during questioning. For Parli, I would prefer you to take at least 1-2 questions; however, due to time constraints, taking no questions will not negatively impact your speaks. I generally do not put POIs and crossfire questions on the flow, though I will note if there is an important concession/anything interesting that gets brought up during questioning.

• POOs: Call them. I will be watching my own flow, but I can’t guarantee I’ll catch an entirely new argument brought up in the last speeches. Keep me and your opponents accountable.

I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.

Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)

For all Debate:

• Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
• General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
• I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
• When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
• Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
• Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
• Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.

For Public Forum:

• PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
• Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
• On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
• Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
• I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
• Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
• Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.

For LD:

• On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
• On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
• On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
• Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
• Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
• On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
• Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
• Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.

Dear Participants,

Welcome to the debate round. I am looking forward to knowing your thoughts by conscientiously listening to your viewpoints on the topic under discussion. I have a fair experience in judging debate rounds and am a parent judge as well.

Please, try to talk at a voice level respecting the audience and allotted time. Also, stay relaxed and calm which will help you be more productive in the rounds. I am confident you will do your best.

Good Luck,

Taruna

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

Hi! I'm Ishir, a freshman in college who did debate all four years in high school.

Here's my experience briefly: I did LD in freshman and sophomore years, and went to VBI before my sophomore year. I switched to parli for junior and senior years. I also did congress and various speech events throughout my four years. I'll probably continue to do parli in college.

tl;dr: tech>truth, do what you want and I'll work with it. Perfectly happy to vote on any arg that doesn't specifically exclude or minimize any group. Don't do anything that would make your opponent feel small/not welcome.

Argumentation:

Good with ks, theory, das/cps, tricks (but these are REALLY easy to respond to, don't count on winning if there's been argumentation).

Notes:

I may not be familiar with your k lit, make sure you explain. If I'm being honest, these are the types of arguments that I'm least familiar with. The extent of what I ran was cap and neolib, but I did debate against other stuff, and that doesn't mean you shouldn't read it if you are a good k debater or are passionate about you are running.

As a parent judge for the LD tournament, I would like the participants to be respectful, and behave in a cordial manner. This means not interrupting or talking over your opponent, along with using a strong, commanding voice. I value the research of the topic and evidence, as well as facts to support your arguments, however I want the participants to use credible sources for gathering information.

I would like participants to center their arguments around the value and define the value criterion. Arguments should be well organized and rebuttal should be well constructed. Lastly, I want the participants to be mindful of the time provided.

As a parent judge for LD tournament I would like to see a well researched and concise argument for your case. Quoting relevant facts, statistics to supporting your argument and choosing a unique angle to make your speech stand out is important to me.

Confident delivery and respectful dialogue with your opponent carries weight in choice of the winner of the round,

I debated parli for around two years for Los Altos. I'm at ucla now.

Speed: Don't worry about being too fast; you just need to be clear and coherent. I have attention span issues, so if you're going too slow, I might not understand your argument completely.

Organization: I prefer off-time road maps; I think they're a good way of helping both the judge and the debaters visualize the direction of cases.

Arguments: Any seemingly problematic arguments will be noted. These include any of the "-isms." I don't like Ks. Not because they're bad or anything, I just don't know what they are. :) Don't run Ks. I don't know them.

Things I value in the round: clarity, volume, and lots of sources. If you provide no warrants for a central claim you make, I won't write it in my flow and you'll risk low speaker points. If you have many warrants for many claims, high speaker points. Try not to be combative or patronizing with your opponents. Don't have your camera on and laugh/make faces during speeches; it's kind of distracting and a lil rude. Debate is fun, and the goal isn't solely to win but to be a better debater. If I see sportsmanship, I'll think about it when deciding speaker points.

treat me like a lay judge

TOC Conflicts (besides DTA): Isidore Newman AB

About Me
Basic Info

he/him

Associate Director of Debate and Speech, The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Notre Dame ‘23 (Political Science, Philosophy)

9th year in debate, 5th year coaching

Add me to the email chain: dta.lddocs@gmail.com (Subject Line: TOURNAMENT --- ROUND --- CODE)

Ask questions: blakeziegler.debate@gmail.com

Learn more: blake-ziegler.com

First and foremost, I’m a teacher, which means my aim is to maximize the educational experience of competitors in a safe and equitable manner. I believe debate offers vital skills and opportunities for young people, which is why I’m still involved in the activity. Due to this, I see my ballot as an implicit endorsement of the strategy of whichever debater I vote for. This means that if I see your strategy as morally repugnant or you're not taking this activity seriously, it'll be very hard to get my ballot. As the adult (or one of) in the room, I also seek to ensure this space is void of discrimination, harassment, bullying, and the like. I take that responsibility seriously. Any arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc. will result in an immediate loss.

Conflicts
James Logan (former Head LD Coach)

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, soft left affs

2 - Policy args, non-topical affs

3 - Phil* (see phil section), T/Theory

4 - Trad

5/Strike - Tricks

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Overview
I competed in LD in high school and exclusively coach this event. I’ve competed and worked in traditional and progressive styles. I believe that the only difference between those styles is the emphasis on persuasion and the way arguments are packaged. With that said, my basic view of this event is as follows:

The affirmative’s burden is to show that the aff a) has someone doing something and b) is a good idea. The negative’s burden is a) to meaningfully engage with the aff and b) show the aff is a bad idea. Whether either side wants to add to their burden is up to them, but that’s how I enter the round.

Both sides should link back to a framework and tell me why I should care about their impacts. LD is unique as a values debate and it’s unfortunate the way it’s been left behind on progressive circuits. I evaluate the debate as to who best demonstrates they link back to the framework of the round.

Extensions, impact weighing, and crystallization are very important to me. Evidence is especially important - it’s the foundation of any argument. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters. Sign-posting is very important. Give me voters in the last speech!

Traditional/Whole Res Cases
Go for it. This is my bread and butter. I'd recommend focusing on linking to framework and impact calculus. There isn't enough evidence comparison in this style.

CPs and DAs
A well-researched CP and DA makes me really happy, especially if the evidence has a strong link chain. Extinction and nuclear war are legitimate concerns in a lot of policy areas, but the link chain has to be very clear for me to buy it.

I love politics DAs, but the link chain needs to be especially clear if it's the 2NR strategy - why is the aff the brightline for the impact?

Ks and Phil
I read Ks and phil cases in high school and frequently coach students on these arguments. I’ve likely read whatever literature you’re pulling from, but you should assume I’m an uninformed audience. You should be able to clearly explain the argument without buzzwords or highly technical language, especially on the alternative for the K. Even if I know the argument, I won't vote on it if your explanation isn't clear. Also, be sure to identify impacts to violating the philosophy. Why should I care about it?

Debaters often misinterpret or exclude significant parts of the literature they’re using. Sometimes, this outright contradicts what they’re arguing. Make sure what you’re reading accurately reflects your author or risk losing my ballot. I recommend opponents to make this argument if applicable.

I love philosophy and spent several years working in how we should teach philosophy to students. With that said, I put it as a 3 on my prefs shortcut because I think debaters typically don't approach philosophy well. They don't understand the literature, generally only read backfiles, and can't explain these complex ideas in clear sentences. I think the biggest issue for philosophy debaters is 1) making sure their contentions actually link to the framework and 2) explaining how the philosophy interacts with their opponent's own framework and impacts. Struggle in these areas tend to happen when debaters don't fully understand the literature. If you feel this doesn't apply to you, then I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you.

Also, tricks aren’t phil.

Theory and Topicality

I still think theory is valuable for debate but am weary of it being misused. I recommend only using it if there's legitimate abuse in the round that creates a significant structural disadvantage. If you do, be clear, weigh impacts, and tell me if the shell comes before the case. I won't buy frivolous theory and have a low threshold for responses to it (i.e., "gut check - this is frivolous theory").

Topicality is different. It's legitimate to question whether the aff is topical (and whether the aff needs to be topical in the first place), but there are frivolous topicality shells that I view the same way as frivolous theory. I think a lot of these frivolous shells (e.g., "USFG acronyms bad") are better off as plan flaws.

Non-Topical Affs

Debating the topic is good. Not debating the topic can also be good. If you're running a non-topical aff, my only expectations are 1) why we should abandon the topic, 2) why the topic can't contain your advocacy, and 3) how voting aff solves your impacts. If you do that and win the flow, I have no problem voting for a non-topical aff. My biggest issue with these arguments is debaters can't articulate how the ballot solves the problem.

Tricks
Don’t run them. They’re bad for debate. It's an auto-loss and 20 speaks. This includes formatting your doc in such a way that it makes it extremely difficult for your opponent to decipher it. This also includes spikes.

I have a low threshold for answering tricks - “This is a trick. They’re bad for debate” is enough.

Disclosure

Disclosure is good for debate, especially for small school/lone wolf debaters like I was. I’m very sympathetic to disclosure arguments if it’s clear the opponent hasn’t disclosed. My expectation is that you provide an open source doc of your aff on the wiki or email to your opponent. The only exception is students whose school bar you from disclosing or there’s some other reason outside of your control, such as tech issues. In those situations, you should still try to disclose to the best capacity you’re able to.

You don’t need to disclose new arguments. They’re new.

Spreading

Spreading is fine. I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Tech over truth within reason

Prep time ends when the doc is sent

Be respectful. Debate is an activity for everyone

No flex prep

2NRs shouldn’t go for everything

Evidence has become increasingly poor in debate and I’m sad debaters don’t spend more time on evidence debates

If you’re a varsity debater going against a novice debater and intentionally overwhelm them, that’ll lead to a loss and 26 speaks. This is not to say go easy on them, just treat them like any other opponent. The same goes for a circuit debater trying to out-circuit someone from a traditional background or just entering the national scene.

How you deliver your arguments and conduct yourself in round matters

Be brief with your off-time roadmaps and don’t say “This is a x minute speech”

If you go significantly over time, I'm docking speaks

Don't curse

Face the judge when you're speaking

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater.

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something bad, like a racist argument.

People who've had a significant impact on me and heavily influenced my views on debate

Byron Arthur

Aaron Timmons

Jonathan Alston

Elijah Smith

Chris Randall

Ed Williams

Bennett Eckert

Chetan Hertzig