email: najma.ali408@gmail.com

I've done policy debate for 2.5 years in HS, but am not currently debating. That being said i've heard a wide variety of arguments. I will vote on any arg as long as it is coherent (contains claim and warrant) and isn't offensive or personally attacking anyone in round.

I am okay with spreading as long as you are clear.

Not every argument is card based. Debate is a game of logic, so there is no problem with being creative

I vote on T, framework, DA's, ect. AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. PLEASE CONTEXTUALIZE YOUR EVIDENCE.

Impact calc is key. I should be told exactly who to vote and why. I shouldn't have to do that work for you.

I want to be told what the role of the ballot is and what my role as judge is in this round

Put me on the chain - email: emmabeharry@gmail.com

Stanford '26, Carrollton '22

Assume zero topic knowledge! Explain acronyms to me.

TLDR:

Tech > Truth, but the more true your arguments are, the easier it is to win them

Clarity > Speed

Do what you're good at.

I vote based on what I have flowed from the 2nr/2ar. I'll read cards if an argument is heavily contested or there is a lot of ev comparison, but otherwise I'd rather not have to read cards

Good analytics can beat bad cards

Have fun! don't clip or be mean :)

Specific Thoughts:

Do impact calc always. "1% risk outweighs" makes me sad. turns case are only as probable as the DA.

Case: have solvency and real internal link chains. util should be true. Assume 0% risk / Conetta / Prediction impossible args make me sad. when neg, debate the case.

DAs: <3. i think my 99% of my 1nrs were the politics da. turns case are great.

CPs: theory is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team unless it's condo, but I can be persuaded otherwise. process/consult cps make me sad. my default is to judge kick unless you tell me not to

Ks: explain your theory to me. contextualize your links to the aff. aff should get to weigh their plan+case. you should probably have an alt. floating piks/subject formation/fiat doublebind args make me sad. i still dont get why "fiat isn't real" is an argument.

T: i'm pretty ambivalent. i'll default to competing interps.

K-Affs: i think you should defend a topical implementation of the resolution. will i vote for you if you beat the neg anyways? yes. negs: explain your impacts, do line by line, have tvas, etc. why your standards turn the aff's are very persuasive to me. affs: the closer you are to the topic, the easier it is for you to win on some reasonability push, etc.

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

Update 2/13/2021

Add me to the Email Chain: MD16@albion.edu

I debated in high school at CRSJ from 2018-20 through SVUDL. I debate Policy and LD.

I am currently attending Albion College in Michigan.

Currently I am a judge for SVUDL and DUDL. I was given the opportunity to debate from a UDL and I am more then willing to help any UDL students. I understand what it takes coming from a UDL, so I just want everyone to have fun and learn.

Speed: I am fine with speed but please make sure it's clear for me to understand. If I don't understand I will say clear three times and you'll have to hope for the best.

Kritiks: I am fine with Ks but I had limited exposure to Ks themselves. If you chose to run a K that is more complicated or nuanced please do the extra work of explaining it for me, I hate assume things and it might not always work in your favor.

Topicality: If your opponents run something unfair, call it out and run topicality. I will actually listen and it matters, I've had too many parents judges just dismiss it because they just like the other arguments my opponents where making.

Theory: Please make it clear and reasonable. It may be better to have a doc sent out as it would be easier for me to follow. I will probably vote on Education, access, or fairness. Sometimes you don't have the same opportunities so I just want everything to be fair for everyone. Now, I personally don't like frivolous theory but if you chose to run it I will do my best to put my bias aside.

CP: Okay Okay... my favorite cp of all time is the Canada counter-plan. My friends ran the Wakanda counter-plan on the 2019-20 topic and I always loved how passionate they were about it and how they knew every aspect about it. They put a lot of work into it and it helped our whole team understand it and to get a new perspective on it every time.

CX: I am fine with tag-team CX. I don't usually flow CX, if it's a definition then I'd probably write it down. When the time runs out, please wrap it up and be respectful to your opponents. If your opponent doesn't answer your question, call it out.

DA: I am fine with anything, make sure it makes sense. I would rather you run 2-3 solid DAs then 6 or 7 and then drop them.

If you made it this far then yess, this might help you see what I might like and probably will vote on.

Please Please Please make sure if you are running anything that is as clear as possible, I don't want to assume things because you work hard on your cases and if I have to assume something it might not help you.

I want a good informative debate, I want everyone to learn something new and have a good time. Everyone has a different perspective on the world and everyone's voice is valid. Do not discriminate against anyone, debate should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. With that if there is discrimination in the round I will take it to tab, I will definitely will not stand for racism or Ablism, everyone matter and every voice is important. Do not make something up too, that is just abusive and hurts every community.

My favorite Ks of all time is Anzaldua and Afro-futurism, learning these two really helped my debate team really grow and helped us understand our place in the world. I am chicano so Anzaldua hit on a personal note. I really care that everyone is represented in debate and if your argument are about structural issues then this space is for you because if we are educated then we can find solutions.

put me on the chain: sofia_funk@brown.edu

if you're a novice don't stress

generally tech > truth, but the more outlandish your claim, the less work needs to be done on the flow by your opponent to win it

i don't care what you argue if you explain it clearly and aren't discriminatory

debate should be accessible

spreading is ok as long as you are clear and share your doc but not preferred (spreading =/= speaking quickly which is always fine)

ask me any specific questions before the round

policy: don't send me a disorganized doc

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Updated pre-woodward 2024

Yes email chain-- willkatzemailchain@gmail.com

I am currently a coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I debated in high school at Washburn Rural and in college at the University of Kansas.

I have a large amount of topic knowledge for the hs fiscal redistribution topic. I am actively involved in research and have judged at a lot of tournaments.

As a judge, these are the things that I care about (in order of importance):

1. That you treat all participants in the debate with respect and that your speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, could enthusiastically show my administration

2. That you flow the debate and use that flow to make and respond to arguments. I find that debaters are almost universally better at flowing if they try to flow and line arguments up on paper, not their computer.

3. That you are advancing logical, well-evidenced, warranted claims that demonstrate topic knowledge and research. I am not a good judge for you if your arguments are generally 1 sentence assertions, uncarded, or wholly irrelevant to the topic.

4. That you make good, bold strategic choices. I will give absurdly high speaker points to students that take good risks to collapse the debate to a small number of arguments that create favorable win conditions for them.

5. That you make comparisons between your arguments/evidence and your opponents. If your final rebuttals consist of more comparisons than summary and description, I am a great judge for you.

Note that "subject" isn't really on this list outside of it being relevant to the topic. I don't care if you read a soft left aff, go for topic-relevant critiques, read 90 plank advantage counterplans, or go for politics.

Everything below offers clarification on how this set of arguments plays out in practice

_________________________________________________

I love debate. I really, really like seeing students demonstrate that they are having fun, working hard, thinking about debate, researching the topic, and engaging in debates that reflect the topic's literature base. In many ways, debate is better now than it has ever been.

I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. If I am told about or personally observe behavior that I would consider in need of an intervention, I am going to approach the tournament administration about it rather than use my ballot as a punishment/reward system. If your speech explains how you are discriminated against, oppressed, bullied, or otherwise unsafe in debate, I am going to talk to the tournament administration instead of letting that be a matter of debate. Ad hom attacks against the other team are a sua sponte reverse voting issue. If you launch one against the other team, I will vote against you (whether your opponents tell me to or not). If your debate strategy relies on ad hom attacks against your opponents, I am not the judge for you. If your opponent is so horrendous of a person that you must levy ad hom attacks, please direct your complaints to the tabroom

Debaters should flow and use that flow to make arguments in a line-by-line fashion that responds directly to what the other team said. Debaters should not just read into a speech document for the entire speech.

Have fun! I more often vote for and give higher points to teams that have fun and are nice. If you are mean or look like you are here against your will, voting for you will be a challenge.

I am trying to adjust to modern speaker points. I still find it hard to believe that if you got a 29 in every debate, you would not have been particularly close to a top 25 speaker at Greenhill or St. Marks. That is the reality we live in, but it is a difficult pill to swallow.

Here are my biases.

-I prefer debates about the topic. That means aff with a plan and negative strategies that use arguments germane to the topic to say the plan is bad. That also means that I do not prefer super generic impact turns like spark/wipeout or arguments like "x author is bad so they should lose for introducing that author"

- I prefer specificity over vagueness. That's true with plans, cp's, da links, alternatives, etc. With me as a judge, vagueness is not as strategic as specificity.

-I care about cards. I want you to read good cards and a lot of cards. Good is more important than a lot, but if you end the debate and your card doc is 4 cards long, something has gone wrong.

- Plans have texts and functions. Unless the debating is very lopsided, I will probably not view the plan's text "in a vacuum" because I will also care about the action that the plan does. If that changes in every speech or multiple times a speech, I will be grumpy (see my point about vagueness)

-Bring theory back! Not in an annoying way where you always go for conditionality when you're losing. But in a way that punishes negative teams for relying on strategies that aren't germane to the aff.

-I feel reasonably strongly that "Social Security" refers to Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance and I think that affirmative teams that read an ssi/medicare/tanf/etc aff probably need to treat topicality as a very threatening 2nr choice. I haven't really seen debates over any other t argument yet.

-I think if evenly debated, I would agree with an aff team that said "cp's must have published solvency advocates." While others interpret this standard as necessarily arbitrary (what is a solvency advocate? Why can't the debaters be solvency advocates?), it seems like it would create a massive increase in the quality of debates for a relatively low amount of arbitrariness.

A note on kritiks

I often find myself frustrated in kritik debates, not because of some ideological objection, but because there is not a lot of internal consistency with most kritik debates that I judge.

In a typical kritik extension follows this format: 1. Framework- evaluate aff as object of research. 2. Link- plan doesn't do enough and/or reps k link. 3. Impact- extinction. 4. Alt- maybe movements, maybe just framework.

This does not make sense to me. The links do not prove the aff is a bad object of research, and the impacts do not stem from having a bad object of research. Alternatively (pun intended), the links and impacts are not offense because they are not unique or causal (they don't say "plan causes extinction", they say aff takes part in something that already exists and will cause extinction). And the alt is almost always useless or loses to the perm.

So if you do want to go for a kritik in front of me, it would help to extend a coherent, well thought out position where every component works together. Below are 2 examples:

1. Framework- treat the aff as an object of research. 2. Link- aff's research is flawed and capitalist (bought out by think tanks, buys into a flawed ideology of competition, etc). 3. Impact- capitalism is unethical because it relies on exploitation, and research that relies on capitalist methodologies furthers that exploitation. 4. Alt- insert better form of research

1. Link- increasing pharma patents in the US causes more exploitation of countries in the global south 2. Impact- exploitation of global south is unethical, linearly causes structural violence, and turns case because gutting public health infrastructure means more disease spread. 3. Alt- policy approach to public health that is opposed to patents. 4. framing/framework- k of extinction focus

Both of these examples are beatable by the aff, but at least give me as a judge a coherent "here is why the aff is bad" decision.

I am currently an assistant debate coach with both Montgomery Bell Academy and George Mason University. This is my 15th year in policy debate.

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

Please put me on the email chain & make me an ev doc at the end of the debate. NJL1994@gmail.com.

Set up and send out the 1AC 10 minutes before the debate begins. Please avoid downtime during debates. If you do both of these things without me needing to say anything (send out the 1AC 10 minutes early + avoid downtime) you'll get higher speaker points.

If I'm judging you online, please slow down a bit and emphasize clarity more than normal.

Top level things:

I think about debate in terms of risk (does the risk of the advantage being true outweigh the risk of the disad being true?). I am willing to vote on presumption, particularly when people say really ridiculous stuff or people's cards are highlighted to say nothing.

I like specificity, nuance, and for you to sound smart. If you sound like you've done research and you know what's going on, I'm likely to give you great points. Being specific, having nuances, and explaining your distinctions is the easiest way to get my ballot.

Judge direction is a lost art. If you win the argument that you're advancing, why should it matter? What does this mean for the debate? What does it mean for your arguments or the other team's arguments? This is the number one easiest way to win my (and really anyone's) ballot in a debate. Direct your judges to think a certain way, because if you don't, your judges are likely to go rogue and decide things that make sense to them but not to you. So impact your arguments and tell me what to do with them. I think it's way more valuable to do that than include one more tiny argument and almost certainly the easiest way to get me to overcome any predispositions.

Decorum is very important to me. If your strategy is to belittle, upset, talk down to, yell at, escalate, curse at, or otherwise be rude or mean to your opponents, then you can expect me to give you terrible speaker points. I also reserve the right to end the debate early if I find the behavior particularly atrocious or potentially threatening to anyone in the room. I am very uninterested in the “I know what you did last summer” strategy or any personal attacks. You certainly don't have to be best friends with your opponents, but I do expect a sense of cordiality when engaging your opponents and their arguments.

"The existence of speech time limits, the assumption that you will not interrupt an opponent's speech intentionally, and the fact that I (and not you) will be signing a ballot that decides a winner and loser is non-negotiable." (taken verbatim from Shree Awsare).

I am incredibly uncomfortable adjudicating things that did not occur in the debate I am watching. Please do not ask me to judge based on something that didn’t happen in the round. I am likely to ignore you.

High school debaters in particular: I have consistently noticed over the past few years of judging that I vote for the team whose arguments I understand. If I cannot connect the dots, I'm not going to vote for you. This goes equally for kritikal and policy debaters. Most of my decisions in high school debates come down to this, and I will tell you that your argument makes no sense in my RFD.

How I decide debates:

First: who solves what?-- does the aff solve its impacts, and (assuming it's in the 2NR) does the negative's competitive advocacy solve its own impacts and/or the aff? In framework debates, this means the first questions I resolve are "does the aff solve itself?" and "does the TVA solve the aff sufficiently?"

Second: Who’s impact is bigger? This is the most important question in the debate. Do impact calculus.

Third: Whatever you have told me matters. Because I have started with solvency & impact calculus questions, everything else is always filtered along those lines (including framework/role of the ballot/role of the judge).

Other misc things:

1. A dropped argument is a true argument but it needs to be a complete argument to begin with or I will likely allow people new answers. For example, this epidemic with high schoolers reading aspec on the bottom of T flows to hide it: if it’s so quick I didn’t catch it in the 1NC, the 1AR gets all the new args they want. Additionally, an argument is not just a claim and a warrant, but a claim, warrant, and reasoning. In other words, your warrant needs to be connected to your claim in order for it to be an argument.

2. I am very flowcentric. Do not ask me to not flow, because I won't listen. Please do line-by-line. If you don't, I'll be frustrated and less likely to buy new extrapolations of arguments. Your speaker points will definitely drop if you don't do line-by-line. I do not like overviews ("overviews are evil"-- one of my labbies; "flowing is good for your health" -- another one of my labbies).

3. Show me that you care. Show me that you know things, that you've done research on this topic, that you want to win, and that debate matters to you. I love this activity and if you also love it I want to know that.

4. Judge kicking makes sense to me but I frequently forget about it, so if you want me to judge kick something you should tell me so in the block/2NR.

5. Cards and highlighting: Teams should get to insert rehighlightings of the other team's cards, but obviously should have to read cards if they're new/haven't been introduced into the debate yet. Two offshoots of this-- 1. You should insert rehighlightings of other team's cards if they suck 2. You should read cards that don't suck.

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

Please highlight your ev so it reads as complete sentences. This does not mean that I need you to highlight complete sentences, but if you are brick highlighting, I want to be able to read highlighted portions of your ev as complete sentences—it flows better to me. IE don't skip the letter "a" or the words "in" or "the." Just a random pet peeve.

If you do not have a complete citation or at least a full paragraph from your evidence I will not evaluate what you've said as evidence. Cherrypicked quotes with no context are not evidence.

I tend to not read a lot of cards after the debate unless things are highly technical or I think the debaters aren’t explaining things well. That being said, I’ll likely read at least some cards. Please put together a card doc for me.

6. Debaters parroting their partners: I usually just flow what the partner said. That, obviously, only exists within reason (you don’t get to give a third speech in a debate, but you can interrupt your partner to say something and I will flow it).

7. New 2AR args are bad for debate. I consciously hold the line against them as much as I can. I as a 2N feel as if I got a few decisions where a judge voted aff on an arg that didn't exist until the 2AR and it's the most frustrating. You can expect me to try to trace lines between args in earlier & later speeches. However, if I think the argument they're making is the true argument or a logical extrapolation of something said in the 1AR, I'm more likely to buy it. 2As-- this means if you're gonna do some 2A magic and cheat, you should trick me into thinking that you're not cheating.

Some specifics:

Disads: I’m better for the smart DAs than the silly ones, but I understand the value of bad DAs and will vote for them. I will likely reward you with higher speaker points if I think I understand your story really well and/or you have some cool/unique spin on it. I am fine with logical take outs to DAs that don’t require cards (especially if there’s some logic missing internally in the DA). Don’t just read new cards in the block or 1AR, explain your args (although also read new cards obviously).

I really do not understand how the economy works. I'm sorry. I've really tried to get it, but I just don't. You absolutely can go for econ DAs and/or econ case turns in front of me, but please be extra careful to explain (in lots of detail!) what you're arguing here.

Theory, CPs, and K Alternatives: I put these pieces together because my thoughts on these three args blend together.

Competition is determined off the plantext, not off cross-x, nor off the resolution. PICs & PIKs are only competitive if they PIC/PIK out of something in the plantext. I do not believe that you get to PIC/PIK out of a justification or non-plantext based word. The only way I will ever be convinced otherwise is if the aff allows you to do so.

Condo: It’s good. “They should get one less CP” is an arbitrary interp and makes no sense. The phrase "dispo solves" at the end of your bad 2AC condo block is not an argument and I will not be writing it down on my flow. I will vote on this if it's dropped, but I'm pretty persuaded by neg flex and education-style args.

"Performative Contradictions" is a term of art that has been bastardized to no end by debate. You're either saying the neg has double turned themselves or you're saying conditionality is bad; in my mind, perf con is not even worthy of being written on my flow.

Particular Theory: I’m better for this than most judges (and MUCH more persuaded by it than condo). States theory, international fiat, consult/condition, vague alts, utopian alts, etc—I have gone for all of these and actively coach my debaters to do the same. My predisposition is to reject the arg not the team, but I can be persuaded to reject the team on non-condo theory args (you should introduce the arg as reject the team in the 2AC, not CX, if you want this to be an option).

Theory can be a reason you get to make a cheating perm.

Counterplans/alternatives that use aff evidence as solvency advocates are awesome.

If the CP/alt links less I think it makes sense that I prefer it, but make that arg yourself because I won’t make it for you.

Case: I love love love case debate. You should make logical extrapolations that take out the internal link chains and make me question how the advantage makes sense. The block should read more cards but feel free to make logical case take outs without cards. I don't think you should have to go for impact defense to beat advantages-- uniqueness and internal link take outs are almost always the easier place to attack advantages. I tend to prefer a well-developed take out to the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

Affs-- 2NR that don't do well-developed case debate are generally overwhelmed by your "try or die"/"case outweighs"/"1% chance of solvency" args.

Topicality: I'm getting better for this as a strategy lately than I used to be. I do still generally think that it's about the plantext, but can be persuaded that I should think of the plantext in the context of the 1AC. Topicality is only ever a voter, not a reverse voter. I’m not great for silly/arbitrary T interps (I am very persuaded by the arg that these interps are arbitrary).

Kritiks: I like Ks that care about people and things. I'm optimistic to a fault. I certainly believe that things are still terrible for billions of beings, but it's hard to convince me that everything in the world is so absolutely irredeemable.

Your long overview is actively bad for debate and you will not change my mind.

Make your K interact with the affirmative. I want your links to be about the result of the aff as opposed to just the reading of the aff. Fiat bad links are bad. Your "state is always bad" links are slightly better, but also terrible. Don't just explain your theory of how power works, explain how the action of the aff is bad according to your theory of power.

I think that I am worse for structuralist style kritiks than I used to be for two reasons: 1) I feel more so that I want you to be responding to the action of the aff than I used to 2) I generally study poststructuralism and queer theory. I read a lot of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler.

Grad school has taught me that theory is way more complex than I used to think it was. I will get annoyed if I know that you’re deploying the theory wrong. I'm not good for things like "death good," "meaning doesn't mean anything," or "language is meaningless" because I don't think those are questions even worth asking.

I have read some literature about antiblackness academically and have read a bit more from a debate standpoint. I would not call myself an expert by any means in this literature, but I do understand some of it better than I used to. I am still unwilling to fill in those blanks for you if you are lacking them (ex-- just saying the words "yes antiblackness ontological, natal alienation proves" is not an argument in my mind).

99.99% of the time I will entirely ignore your framework/role of the ballot args when you're going for the K against a topical aff. There's a high chance that I will just stare at you and not flow during your incredibly long and generic 2NC/2NR framework block on your K. I am serious, I may not even waste the ink in my pen flowing this. I do not know how to decide debates unless I'm weighing the merits of the aff against the merits of the K. For example, if the aff is an object of study, then to evaluate that object of study I have to weigh the aff's consequences. You are better off just saying "yes the aff can weigh the plan, we'll just beat it" in front of me. This also means that the role of the ballot/judge is only ever to vote for whoever did the better debating in every round I judge.

“Perms are a negative argument” and “method v method debate means no perms” are both not arguments. Despite judging for however long I have, I still do not know what a "method v method debate" even is or why it's different than every other debate. I will not write these words on my flow.

I also generally do not find the "voting for us gives us more wins/sends us to elims" as a solvency mech persuasive or that "X thing done in the debate is policing/surveillance/violence" (other than actual/physical policing/surveillance/violence) to be persuasive.

Ultimately, I evaluate K debates just like I evaluate policy debates. Technical line by line is key. Explain your args well. Put the debate together. Don't ignore the other side.

2NRs on the K that include case debate (with some level of internal link/impact defense; not just your security K cards on case) are substantially more persuasive to me.

Framework against non-topical affs: you should also read my section on Ks (right above this one) as well.

Framework is a strategy and it makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Just like every other strategy, you should try to tailor it to be as specific to the aff as you possibly can. For example, how does this particular aff make it impossible for you to debate? What does it mean for how debate looks writ-large? What's the valuable topic education we could have had from a topical discussion of this aff in particular? Same basic idea goes for when you’re answering generic aff args—the generic “state always bad” arg is pretty easily beaten by nuanced neg responses in front of me. The more specific you are, the more likely I am to vote for you on framework and the more likely I am to give you good speaks.

Stop reading huge overviews. They’re bad for debate. Your points will suffer. Do line by line. Be a good debater and stop being lazy. The amount of times I have written something like "do line by line" in this paradigm should really tell you something about how I think about debate.

I do not find truth testing/"ignore the aff's args because they're not T" very persuasive. I think it's circular & requires judge intervention.

I do, however, think that fairness/limits/ground is an impact and that it is the most important standard in a T debate.

T and/or framework is not genocide, nor is it ever rape, nor is it a microaggression, nor is it real literal violence against you or anyone else.

I’m a sucker for a good topical version. Teams seem to want to just laundry list potential TVAs and then say "idk, maybe these things let them discuss their theory". I believe that strategy is very easily beaten by a K team having some nuanced response. It makes way more sense to me if the TVA is set up almost like a CP-- it should solve a majority or all of the aff. If you set it up like that and then add the sufficiency framing/"flaws are neg ground" style args I'm WAY more likely to buy what you have to say (this goes along with the whole "I like nuance and specificity and you to sound like you're debating the merits of the aff" motif that I've had throughout my paradigm-- it applies to all debaters).

I oftentimes wonder how non-topical affs solve themselves. The negative should exploit this because I do feel comfortable voting neg on presumption. However, I won’t ever intervene to vote on presumption. That’s an argument that the debaters need to make.

Non-topical affs should have nuance & do line by line as well. Answer the neg’s args, frame the debate, and tell me why your aff in particular could not have been topical. You HAVE to have a defense of your model and not just say that framework is bad or else I will probably vote neg on presumption. The same basic idea applies here as it does everywhere else: the more generic you are, the more likely I am to vote against you.

Garbage/Hidden Stuff/Tricks: Nope. New affs are good, hiding aspec makes you a coward, death is bad, free will exists and I don't care if it doesn't. Make better arguments.

Cross-ex: I am becoming increasingly bored and frustrated with watching how this tends to go down. Unless I am judging a novice debate, questions like "did you read X card" or "where did you mark Y card" are counting as parts of cross-x. I tend to start the timer for cross-ex pretty quickly after speeches end (obviously take a sec to get water if you need to) so pay attention to that.

I pay attention & listen to CX but I do not flow it. Have a presence in CX & make an impact. I am listening.

Speaker points-- I do my best to moderate these based on the tournament I'm at and what division I'm in. That being said, I won’t lie—I am not a point fairy.

I will grant extra speaker points to people who number their arguments and correctly/aptly follow the numbering that has been established in the debate.

Paraphrasing from Shree Awsare-- I will not give you a 30.

29.8-- Top speaker
29.2-29.5-- You really impressed me and I expect you to be deep in the tournament
29-- I think you deserve to clear
28.3-- Not terrible but not super impressive
27.5-- Yikes
I will award the lowest possible points for people who violate the basic human dignities that people should be afforded while debating (e.g., non-black people don't say the N word).

I've also been known to give 20s to people who don't make arguments. I will not be giving you a 30; nobody gives a perfect speech.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the debate begins, or send me an email. I also do seriously invite conversation about the debate after it occurs-- post-rounds are oftentimes the most valuable instantiation of feedback, the best way to get better at debate, and important for improving intellectually. I know that post-rounds sometimes get heated, and I think we all get defensive sometimes when we're being pressed on things we've said (or think we've said) so I will likely consciously try to take deep breaths and relax if I feel myself getting heated during these times. This also means that I may take a second to respond to your questions because I am thinking. I also might take awkward pauses between words-- that's not because I don't think your question is important, I'm just trying to choose my words carefully so I can correctly convey my thoughts. I only post this here because I don't want anyone to feel like they're being attacked or anything for asking questions, and I apologize in advance if anything I say sounds like that.

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

I would strongly discourage ethics challenges in all but the most extreme instances. I don't want to adjudicate them, you don't want to be the team who makes the challenge, etc. If you notice something is wrong, please contact coaches and/or debaters and try to fix the problem rather than making it a challenge in round.

An ethics challenge is not a no-risk option for me. That is, when an ethics challenge is issued, the debate ends. I will clarify that the team issuing the challenge has issued one and then end the debate and adjudicate the challenge. I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward then and there. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances.

An ethics challenge may be issued along one of three lines: either you have accused the other team of clipping cards, of misciting evidence, or of misrepresenting evidence. Nothing else will be considered an ethics challenge for me.

Clipping cards is defined as claiming to have read more or less of the evidence than one actually has. Please note that I do not follow along with evidence as the debate is occurring. Missing a single word/a few words is not enough. I will decide what constitutes enough of the card to be considered clipping.

Misciting evidence is understood as providing the incorrect author and/or date as well as missing the first author, source of publication, and date (at least the year). Please note that putting something like "the New York Times" instead of "Nate Silver" is acceptable for an authorship. Source of publication can be broad (article title, URL, book title). If the article is easily accessible, then it is acceptable. Again, I will determine what constitutes an incomplete or miscited citation if this becomes a relevant question.

I do not consider missing credentials to be unethical but I do consider those pieces of evidence to be incredibly weak.

Misrepresenting evidence is understood as inserting evidence which is missing lines or paragraphs within the parts of the initial article/book being read. So, for example, if you want to read the first and third paragraph from an article, you must leave the second paragraph in the evidence you read in the debate. This means that, for me, ellipses to indicate that parts of the card are missing or stating something like “pages 4-5 omitted” is unethical. Cards need to be full paragraphs.

Providing a single quote from a book or an article is not a card. As such, I will not consider it as you having introduced evidence and it is not unethical for me. However, not providing full paragraph pieces of evidence means your argument is substantially weaker for me (because, again, then you have not read evidence).

I will either decide to vote for the team who issued the challenge or the team who the challenge was issued toward. The debate will not continue for me under any circumstances. Please note that I will take this seriously; an ethics challenge is not something to be debated out in a round.

The speaker points I will give are as follows: 28.6 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I vote for, 28.5 for the 1^st speaker of the team I vote for, 28.4 for the 2^nd speaker of the team I do not vote for, 28.3 for the 1^st speaker of the team I do not vote for. My assumption in the event of an ethics violation is that you made an honest mistake and that you were not intentionally cheating. I do not understand ethics challenges to be the equivalent of academic dishonesty or worthy of any punishment besides my ballot being cast in that particular debate (I do not hold these challenges against you in future rounds nor do I believe that you should be in trouble with your debate coaches or schools).

Please note that what I have written here is designed for varsity debate only; that is, when judging novice and JV debates, I will be more lenient and talk through what's going on with the students and, depending on the situation, allow the debate to continue.

These are thoughts that are still evolving for me as I talk with more people. Please bear with me as I continue to think this out. (Also note that this caveat goes along well with the first statement in this section: I would prefer you not introduce an ethics violation unless it is a serious issue in that particular debate).

Please also note that these rules do not apply to my standards for threatening violence against another debater (physical or otherwise) or hurling slurs at your opponent. I will immediately end the round and give the lowest speaker points that Tab will allow me to in that situation.

Please put me on the chain: debate@sarahlim.com, interlakescouting@googlegroups.com (high school), debatedocs@googlegroups.com (college)

Interlake '14, Northwestern '18, affiliated with both as of 2023–24. Fairly minimal HS involvement, actively researching/coaching the college nukes topic. she/her

• I am something of a curmudgeon (”old man yells at cloud”), more truth > tech, and extremely persuaded by argumentative rigor. I really do not want to vote for stupid arguments. I want us all to elevate the standard of this activity.
• Please slow down from your top speed, especially on topicality/theory/CP texts, and especially if you're debating online. I flow on paper by listening to the speech, not by following along in the doc. I will "clear" your analytics to a reasonable extent, but I will not vote on theory I cannot flow, and I will not backfill my flow by reading your doc to compensate for your lack of clarity.
• Presumption goes to the status quo, then the aff.
• The 2NR's job is to decide what to go for. I will judge kick the counterplan/fiated counteradvocacy if and only if the 2NR instructs me to do so, and the 2AR drops this argument. Just saying some variation of “the 2NR’s job is to decide what to go for” is usually enough.
• I detest intimidation, rudeness, or snark regardless of your argument content.
• I will not use my ballot to adjudicate non-falsifiable events that occurred outside the round. For in-round behavioral accusations that are debated out (rather than stopping the round), I reserve the right to evaluate these arguments using something other than offense-defense.

Administrative

• Please time your own speeches and prep.
• If you give your final rebuttal without a computer I will award +0.3 speaker points.
• I can’t believe this has to be said: please explicitly kick offcase positions you are not extending in the block/2NR. If you do not do this, the aff can leverage this on conditionality, or at the very least as a reason the world of the 2NR is incoherent.
• I attempt to line up arguments on my flow, rather than simply flowing straight down. Ideally these orderings will coincide, but oftentimes they do not, e.g. if you jump around, skip arguments, only flow off the doc, or otherwise mess up the numbering. When misalignments occur, I waste time trying to figure out where to flow you, and miss more of your arguments. Therefore, number/skip around at your own peril.
  • Given the precarity of numbering schemes, I find it much easier to flow debaters who label the arguments they are answering, either explicitly ("2AC 4 is 'alt fails'") or via embedded clash ("1NC 4: yes China war")
• Rehighlightings must be read out loud. I will not evaluate anything “inserted” into the debate unless it is talked about in the speech.

Affirmatives

• Claiming durable fiat is a prerogative, but not an obligation, of the affirmative.
• I believe the aff gets to make permutations by default, regardless of framework or the nature of the 1AC advocacy. I am open to debates about what kinds of permutations are theoretically legitimate depending on the context, e.g. intrinsicness tests, competing methods, etc.
• Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies; as a result, they are not offense and do not require net benefits. All permutation texts must be read (they cannot simply be inserted in the doc).

Disadvantages and internal NBs

• I believe that DAs and internal net benefits should be opportunity costs to the plan, and that this produces the fairest and most educational form of debate. Pet peeve: It’s not an “intrinsic perm”, it’s an “intrinsicness perm”, because it tests whether the neg’s offense is intrinsic to the plan. It also makes no sense to say “intrinsicness is a voting issue”, if you wanted to defend the negative should get non-intrinsic offense, the voting issue would be ”intrinsicness perms are illegitimate.”
• Most agenda politics 1NCs are incomplete arguments, and more affirmative teams should leverage the holes. “Plan popular” is link defense, not offense. “Winners win” can be offense. However, it is also a label that gets slapped onto a litany of different internal links. Some (e.g. Singer 9) require the plan be unpopular to count as a win. Others (e.g. Hirsch 13, Waldman 20) don’t really care about the direction of the link. I genuinely can’t tell what Kane 21 wants.

Counterplans

• I am extremely persuaded by analytic common-sense solvency deficits to absurd advantage CPs.
• For counterplans that compete only on "should = immediate and certain" (offsets, sunsets, recommendations, or your exciting new strategy that somehow still reads Summers 94 in the 2NC), assuming competent execution by both teams, the affirmative should almost always win my ballot. I find myself voting for these CPs due to aff execution errors, not because I find them in any way compelling.
• Textual competition is an utterly inane argument because that is not how words work in mainstream American English. Easy litmus test: if the plan says “do X” and the 2NR goes for DA/case, you are functionally going for “CP: don’t do X” which obviously represents an opportunity cost but would not be textually competitive. There are always better arguments for why a CP is illegitimate. The one exception is that this is sometimes a valid negative interpretation: for example, I can think of some topic-specific word PICs of terms of art that would be textually but not functionally competitive, with valid reasons why I should prefer certain language in the context of the aff's policymaking.
• Solvency deficits must be impacted and quantified. Corollary: you don’t need to tell me to use “sufficiency framing,” which is a three-steps-of-telephone mangling of the observation that CPs are tests of the plan’s necessity. This is like going to a DA and saying “evaluate this page using impact framing: if the negative impact outweighs the affirmative’s offense, vote negative.”

Kritiks

• I have a higher bar for the quality and execution of critical arguments. I am a very good judge for well-researched, novel/innovative Ks debated technically without much reliance on blocks. Otherwise zzzZZZZ
• Please be cognizant of your subject position as it relates to your arguments, and debate with the corresponding self-awareness.
• K vs. K rounds should maximize clash; these can be some of the most interesting positions to write.
• I think critical education is valuable and teams are unlikely to convince me otherwise. That being said, to quote Patrick Kennedy's philosophy, "I am interested in learning some things, but I am not interested in deciphering incoherent nonsense. I am not a nihilist, and I think 'things' are generally better than 'not things.' Ontology critiques are very interesting, for example, when articulated effectively. If you want to read the script of Dude, Where's My Car and claim it was an ontological critique, I don't think you want me to judge you. I guess you could win, but I think I hate you."

Topicality

• “Plantext in a vacuum” is incredibly silly because it implies I should reinterpret the words in the plan differently across different parts of the debate, which makes absolutely no sense as either a procedural locus or model of standard American English communication.
• For procedural impacts, I find clash and education more persuasive than fairness by default.
• I am unlikely to reject a team solely for being extra-topical.
• I evaluate “we meet” as a yes/no question. However, there are straightforward W/Ms and oblique W/Ms. Affirmatives depending on the latter would be advised to extend other offense in the 1AR. (Litmus test: suppose you were reading the negative’s interpretation as your own counter-interpretation. If the 2AC would include an additional line for “we meet our C/I” because it’s not blatantly obvious, then it’s an oblique W/M.)

Theory

• Please answer theory on the correct flows. These flow(s) should be present in the roadmap even if you are only answering theory and/or kicking (see above). Example: If the 2AC reads conditionality bad on the States CP and you answer it halfway through your K 2NC, whose roadmap did not include the states CP, that is not the correct flow.
• "C/I: we get what we did" is so annoying. I guess I'll vote for it, but like, why not just say conditionality is good??

Miscellany

• I think that teams often view conditionality as a blank check to make contradictory arguments, as long as they occur on different flows. I do not have substantive theoretical objections to this (assuming the neg is winning conditionality good, of course). However, debate is partly a persuasive activity, and when I hear a negative block consisting of diametrically opposed positions, I find it undermines the persuasiveness of the speech on both sides of the issue and becomes susceptible to 1AR strategic exploitation.

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

• I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
• Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
• Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
• I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
• Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
• Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

• Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
• Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
• I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

• Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
• Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
• Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
• "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
• Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
• Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
• Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

• I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
• I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
• I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
• I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

• "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
• Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
• I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

hello!!! I am Michelle. :))

I was a debater, but now, I am not. Yippee!!

Please run whatever you want, and I will try to follow along. :DD Please do not be mean. :(( I also have not done anything related to debate in a long time (1 year), so please do not spread or use too much debate jargon or I will get confused and might miss some of your arguments. :(( Sorry!!

I really like K affs!!

Can you please add me to the email chain too: michellenguyen2004@gmail.com??

Thank you!!! :DD

Extra notes:

follow yb on instagram @ybhsdebate !!!

Fun Fact: In 1894, US president Joe Biden awarded Yerba Buena debate society with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Stanford '24 update - I haven't judged much recently, but have been pretty engaged with the fiscal redistribution topic via coaching/research/etc. I think I have a good sense of the topic, but might be a bit rusty as a judge compared to coaches attending tournaments more regularly. Practically, this probably means it will benefit you to emphasize clarity & final rebuttal judge instruction a bit more than you otherwise might.

I debated for 7 years across HS and college, at Glenbrook South & Northwestern, graduating in 2016.

I flow on paper, so really short analytics may go by faster than I'm physically capable of writing them down. This most often happens in T and theory debates; slowing down a little or starting each argument with a short "label" are good ways to make sure I don't miss something important.

T/Framework - I haven't judged any of these debates; all else being equal I lean toward thinking that the aff should defend a topical plan but could likely be persuaded otherwise.

For T debates where the aff reads a plan, note that I haven't judged enough on this topic to have strong feelings about side bias, staleness etc. so you may need to invest a little extra time drawing out the practical implications of an interpretation.

Critiques - it's pretty easy to get me to include reps/epistemology/etc. in my decision alongside the consequences of the plan. It's tougher to get me to ignore the consequences of the plan entirely.

It's important to show that the aff has actually done something to endorse/strengthen/conceal a bad system; all-purpose "perm answer" arguments aren't nearly as compelling as a genuine link to the plan or 1AC. The more it feels like you're actually disagreeing with something the aff said, the better.

Theory - I think I could be convinced that state fiat is bad, especially if neg solvency relies on fiating that state governments act exactly like the federal government. I suspect I'm also pretty persuadable on theory or competition against counterplans that do the whole aff. No 2AR has tested this, so take it with a grain of salt.

Some defaults in the complete absence of in-round discussion:

- Presumption is in favor of the status quo over the plan, and the plan over the CP

- I won't judge kick unless the neg says it's an option in the 2NR.

Updated 4/11/23* Email: yungprk23@gmail.com

Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.

Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.

Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.

Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.

Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.

Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.

Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.

Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.

Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.

Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.

General Notes:

- Ask permission to record

- Don't clip cards

- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

Please add me to the email chain: mariaesan98@gmail.com

Judging Notes:

• Please keep track of your own prep
• Please be as quick with tech as possible - I will deduct from your prep time if this becomes unreasonable as I want to be respectful of the folks running the tournament
• No tag team CX - I really prefer to hear individual 1 v 1 CX clash and this helps me determine speaker points more easily
• Unless this is a reasonable ask, if you care about where a team marked their cards/what cards they did or did not read, then please be diligent about flowing that yourself - I have a very strong preference towards not sending out marked copies of speech docs when there were only one or two marked cards

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about. Please be respectful to both your partner and your opponents and give it your best!

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!

Theory:

Conditionality is good.

Critical Strategies:

I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

About Me:

-Hello! Please add rnivium@gmail.com to the email chain.

-Debated at: University of Kansas '18-'22. Arapahoe HS '14-'18.

-Coached for: Asian Debate League '22-'23, Arapahoe HS '22-'23, Lawrence Free State HS '20-'22.

Paradigm:

-I don't think arguments start at 100% weight/risk. I believe it is my responsibility to assess the extent to which your warrant supports your claim.

-I encourage you to have a coherent overall narrative/strategy, to provide argument comparison/interaction, and to emphasize clarity/organization.

-I would definitely prefer to judge the "best possible argument" as opposed to the "most possible arguments."

-I'm apprehensive about "insert this re-highlighting." If you do this, please make the tagline very clear and don't highlight more than the key part. The trend of "insert this section of a card we read earlier for reference; its warrant is applicable here" seems fine.

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.

Email: khristyantrejo@gmail.com

I debated in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL) in high school, made the Urban Debate National Championship twice, competed in Parliamentary (NPDA) for Tulane University and made it to Quarters at the NDPA National Championships. I've coached for Isidore Newman School (LA) and Stern MASS, currently coaching Elizabeth Learning Center. I've been active in debate for about 12 years.

You can't argue racism / homophobia / sexism / transphobia / ableism good arguments in front of me. Ever.

As a competitor I started with plan texts, Econ advantages, and running 7 offcase. I finished with a poetry aff, PICs, and committed to Foucault. I know what’s going on and want to offer a safe space for you to read your arguments.

Debate is a game, but the game can be changed.

Kritiks need to have links and some type of explanation of the alternative. Please don’t assume I know which privileged and old philosopher your K is based on—explanations are key!

Disadvantages need to have specific internal links and impact scenarios.

As long as you are contextualizing your scenarios, and the functionality of your scenarios compared to the other team, we should be good to go. You are entitled to read 1 off, or 2, or 3, or even 7, but I hope you’re ready to defend your model of debate and why the education you are advocating for is a good one.

I love a good T debate; and have voted aff on Condo before. Theory/T arguments should be well contextualized. As long as your providing specific reasons why procedural issues take precedent in the debate, we should be good to go.

At the end of the day, I need you to explain what my role in the debate is, why I should vote for you, and why the arguments your opponents made are insufficient for the ballot. Please make sure you are explaining/extending the actual warrants of the evidence you’re reading.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me or ask in person before the round.

PS, you matter.

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. Negs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. Affs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

I do a lot of work during tournaments and will be tired on their last few days. I have found that this makes it harder for me to focus. To counteract this, I have gone back to flowing on paper, which I have found helps me process the debate as it is happening. You will benefit if you make my paper flowing life easier (give me time to flip the page, warn me if you're going to make an abnormally large number of arguments about part of the flow, tell me to make an overview or framework page if I need one, etc.).

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue.

This procedure typically means (for example):

1. I will prioritize resolution of impact claims.

2. I will deprioritize resolution of claims that do not affect the relative magnitude of two sides' offense. For example, in a DA/case debate where turns case is conceded, uniqueness is often irrelevant since aff solvency is reduced to the same extent neg offense is inevitable.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would decide every question in the debate. However, shrinking decision times make this impractical. Minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

As of end-of-season 2024, I have voted aff 47% of the time, and sat on 11% of panels.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them through debating.

DAs

The agenda DA will usually not survive a rich, accurate description of the current legislative agenda based on thoughtfully reading the news.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty neg on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the aff are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the aff, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches. "Should =/= immediate" plus a cr

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the neg says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of aff/neg bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other affs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless Affs

Good for specific Ks on the neg, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K affs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA then yes, you need framework and you need an alternative. Whatever issue your framework says should determine the round should be what your link, impact, and alt are about.

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional affs. The biggest hurdles to voting aff for me are usually: 1) why can't the aff be read on the neg, 2) why is the aff's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting neg on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the aff's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am very willing to entertain arguments that attempt to denaturalize debate as competition but struggle when these critiques lack an alternative or a theory of why debate as a way of putting two teams and a judge in conversation with one another is nevertheless useful.

I think affs that creatively reinterpret the resolution in a way that does not create excessively demanding curricular demands would be more up my alley, but no one has tested this, so proceed with caution.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

Ethics and Conduct

If the tabroom tells me to do something, it is not up for debate. I will do that thing. The rest is what I will do if left to my own devices.

Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Alternative remedies short of an automatic loss could be more responsive or proportional to the harm: scratching the argument AND evidence, scratching only the evidence and treating the argument as if it is made analytically, assuming an author is absolutely unqualified, requiring the team to produce the full text of articles in question, requiring the violating team to establish a paper trail authenticating other important evidence and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, requiring a team to produce the full text of every article in the debate and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, reducing speaker points, informing the team's coaches after the fact. They MAY be a reason to reject the team, but I will not treat them as such by default.

Clipping - claiming you read words from evidence that you did not read - is different, and a voting issue. It is a form of dishonesty that irreparably distorts teams' speech times, which affects every other issue in the debate, and which opponents are uniquely poorly positioned to police. If you are inexperienced or appear to have clipped by mistake, I will be lenient. Otherwise, it is non-negotiable.

Thoughts on stopping the debate early:

1. This is an exceptional measure to be avoided if possible.

2. Once the debate stops because of an ethics challenge, my first step is to consult the tabroom and do whatever they say.

3. Unless expressly instructed otherwise by the tabroom, the debate will not resume once stopped. The winner and loser will be determined solely by the ethics challenge.

4. An accusing team can stop the debate at any time except during a speech or a cross-ex. They win if they are correct, present compelling evidence that they are correct, and I agree that the conduct justifies a penalty loss. The winner will receive 28.5 and 28.6. Losers who have personally committed an ethics violation receive the lowest points allowed. Losers who have not personally committed an ethics violation - either due to an unsuccessful accusation, or because the partner committed the violation - receive a 27 and 27.1.

5. During the dispute, both teams must engage in good faith. The accusing team must submit evidence of their accusation as soon as possible. I will not consider evidence submitted within 20 minutes of decision time. Any filibustering or other unreasonable behavior by the accusing team will result in a win for the accused.

6. An accused team can stop the debate, even if the accusing team does not wish to do so, if the accusation concerns the fundamental academic integrity of the accused. This is a very high bar.

7. An accusing team may ask me if I believe certain conduct justifies a penalty loss without stopping the debate. I will take judge prep to answer. This answer is not an invitation to negotiate and obviously doesn't bind the tabroom.

8. I will proactively end the debate for clipping. I will not do this for other evidence ethics or academic integrity issues.

9. Basically none of this applies to novice or JV, where I will resolve the dispute as quickly and narrowly as possible with the aim of maximizing the number of speeches that can happen.

Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth.

Email chain - solomonsonofwat@gmail.com

Whats good.

To treat people as people is my governing maxim, for debate it is to treat arguments as arguments. This activity lacks any coherence without a judge who adheres to such a universal. The energy generated in this activity relies on the thesis that everyone's argument will be heard, recognized, and reason will be in the decision.

Reason is the product of a unity between the particular argument and the universal debate, reason as the substantive new achieved only at the moment of synthesis of the particular and the universal. Biases are not only inevitable but to some degree necessary, to the degree any objectivity can be achieved it is through recognition of the self’s position in the universe.

I competed at grady (now midtown) high school as an ambassdor from the atlanta udl, later coaching for the atlanta ambassdors (grady, decatur, roswell, etc) from 2018-2020. In 2022, I graduated with a political science degree from utd, after competing there for 4 ½ years. And continued briefly coaching at utd before enrolling in the philosophy, politics, and economics masters program at the university of groningen.

While there is likely a good number in this judging pool with more experience/success in both debate and education, my experience can still make my ear somewhat demanding in certain conversations. As a competitor I approached debate as a game of exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, with the round itself a puzzle to be solved. This approach led to my participation (as both competitor and judge) in high level policy, K v K, and clash debates. My background has made me both familiar with a wide number of literature bases and argument genres, consequently I'm agnostic to both style and content. All I’m looking for are arguments.

When it comes to an argument, I’m looking for a claim with a warrant that’s has an implication for the round/debate at large. A conceded claim with a warrant is not a conceded argument, because it may lack an explicit explanation about the claim’s implication for the round. My commitment to treat arguments as arguments leads me to focus on reading arguments as they are presented and not if they are true. This commitment also leaves me in total deference to the arguments made by students about what the round is about, what the role of the judge or students are, and changes to the traditional calculation or weight of certain arguments.

Debates about the metaethics of the activity or the community are welcomed, in so far as you can articulate a reason why these ethical considerations are of more significance than the procedural concerns that come with alterations to the status quo of the activity. Deference to procedure for the sake of procedure is not always a sufficient defense of the procedure in question. Debates about the metaethics of debates are often most aided by comparing the benefits or harms of proposed models of debate rather than technical conversations that may proliferate the flow.

As the judge I do not allow, merely adjudicate. If you want to do something, make the argument for why you should do it. 2nc cps? Word PICs? Floating PICs? Make the argument and argue it, as the judge I will adjudicate who won. The door to creativity will be left open. Creation of arguments is the self-expression of debaters; self-expression is the life blood of self-aware creatures. Creativity can only exist with limitations, precisely as something for creativity to overcome. The precise boundaries of the limits of the round are for the competitors to argue.

Adjudication is a process of reading arguments through a combination of their technical presentation, offense defense framing, evidentiary/warranted support, and implication for the round. I flow on my computer and will passively read evidence throughout the round. Therefore, I tend not to need card docks after rounds, even in policy debates. That being said, if specific attention is made to a piece of evidence or the debate otherwise hinges on a piece(s) of evidence I will return to it.

My commitment to non-interventionism spills over to my conduct, I tend to say and interact as little as possible during the round. The debate is for the debaters to define, I’m merely an observer. My ballots tend to be littered with misspellings and grammatical incorrections. Generally, I use the ballot as a space for me to cohere my thoughts into a comprehensible rfd, from which I essentially use as a script for my oral feedback. If post facto questions exist about a ballot I encourage reaching out by email for clarity.

To treat people as people is very important to me, any actions on the part of competitors during the round that would negate this maxim will be rewarded with speaker point deductions or a loss depending on the severity. Moves that deny the personhood of participants based on otherization, class, race, gender, ability, religion, migrant status, etc are clear violations, be they epistemic, discursive, or interpersonal. Essentially, don't be an ass.