Tabroom.com

DUDL 2

2022 — Detroit, MI/US

Policy Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Darcell Brown Hire

Kathryn Gross-Jacek Loyola High School of Detroit

Joshua Harrington Cass Technical High School

Last changed on Wed January 11, 2023 at 5:32 PM EDT

Paideia 2019 Michigan 2023

email: harrington.joshua33@gmail.com

2022 CEDA Finalist

I debated for four years in high school and continue to debate in college. I primarily run Kritikal race theory arguments such as Wilderson and Moten, although I have dabbled in the Baudrillard and high theory stuff. If you ever wanna talk about any specific body of literature talk to me after the round or feel free to shoot me an email. I like debate and generally try to make this community a welcoming space for those that choose to participate. As a result, I hope you enjoy your time in your rounds and the activity broadly because it is truly a great place.

Thoughts on debate overall- As someone who has been in environments in which his arguments are not being taken seriously, I want to push debate to counter these behaviors. To me, the role of a judge is to consider and adapt one's beliefs to the arguments presented. As a result, I will do my absolute best to fully consider the arguments made, render the best decision I can, and give comments that I think will aid you in your future debates. With that being said, I am definitely a better judge for certain arguments than others and I thus have my own preferences with arguments. Honestly if you can flow, do line by line, and have arguments that make sense you'll be good and should not tailor a particular strategy to me.

Thoughts on NATO/Emerging tech- has the potential to be one of the cooler topics that I have personally judged. I generally don't enjoy IR topics, but I have to admit I have enjoyed doing both policy and K research on this topic. Did a policy lab for three weeks and kritikal lab for four weeks, so in theory, I know what you're talking about and will be able to point you in the right direction during the RFD. This topic is complex but also somewhat intuitive, so I hope at the end of the day, you have fun and take risks that other topics may not traditionally allow.

Thoughts on online debate- It can be good and it can be really really bad. I encourage you to have face cams on, at least during speeches and CX but understand if you are not comfortable with that or just choose not to. I'm a pretty good flow overall, but if there is a tech issue or the speech becomes unclear, I'll do my best to let that be known.

Case/Impacts- Case debate is generally important; you should have some way to implicate the case whether it is turns case on a DA, a CP that solves, or just going for case or solvency takeouts. If it's a K debate, I still care, but I think teams should explain what the actual impact to a given case argument is. For instance, if you want the state can be good, explain why that matters beyond just it means "the AFFwas wrong about something". Explain why it implicates solvency, why it means the method they've chosen to resolve their impact might be flawed, or how it implicates another flow within the debate.

DAs- For the most part I understand DAs although I'm probably rusty on the political scenes, I think I get the main ideas. To me the most important things are link and internal link work so focus there.

CPs- I'm cool with whatever for the most part as long as you have a solvency advocate. I like Perms though, and think judge kicking sorta makes sense but can defs be persuaded otherwise.

Topicality- Definitely more AFF-biased. I honestly think reasonability and predictability arguments for the AFF trump most NEG args. With that being said if you think an AFFis blatantly untopical, odds are I do too so go for it if you think it's the right 2NR. I greatly prefer a ground 2NR to JUST a limits 2NR. My ideal combines the two but that's probs just a me thing.

Ks- I'm fine with Ks. I think links should be either in the context of doing the plan, the assumptions around particular impacts, or why a particular AFF theory (such as realism or whatever) might be bad. Ideally, an alternative is able to solve these but if a convincing presumption push is made, I will evaluate the debate that way. What somewhat annoys me is these debates come down to who can better read blocks and not flow. I think K debaters get a lot of fire for this trend but I have seen it with policy debaters as well, so please try your best to continue to do line by line and debate off the flow. For answering the K, you're best tool will always be the 1AC so do your best to leverage it as much as possible.

Theory- 3 Condo is good, 4 there is some grey area and it'll come down to the flow, 5 or more I'm pretty AFF bias. But if it's a new AFF feel free to go 13 off. Most theories to me are a reason to reject the arg not the team. I have never understood the "perv con means we get to sever our reps" type arguments. To me, if you want to make this argument, the 2AC needs to prove specifically why the contradiction made it impossible to effectively answer the arguments, or the 1AR has to show specific forms of abuse, i.e. cross applying args from flows. With that being said I like consistency within flows. If you are answering a pess K, read authors that actually disagree with pess AND would likely agree with the 1AC. If you are running pess, don't read conflicting authors because I will notice and it will put you in a tough spot if the other team points it out.

K AFFs- Please talk about the topic but still go for it. It helps if you defend some kind of a method that solves your impacts but if that's not your thing please still explain either what the ballot does or why solvency isn't necessary. I dislike AFFs in which it is clear the entire purpose is to just beat topicality; these are both unstrategic for me and often make me more sympathetic to NEG solvency/framework/alt pushes.

K AFFs vs FW- framework debates are my favorite debates I've had, I'm always interested in the new ways people find at interpreting the topic, but at the same time, any team can lose or win on framework. Fairness and clash are impacts but need to be explained likely more than you are planning on. Adding on to this, I am cool with the impact turn approach but would much rather judge a round in which an AFF team defends a model of debate and the respective sides debate those issues out.

K vs K- AFF gets a perm, reject alts aren't very convincing unless the AFF isn't really doing anything either. And I will never vote on arguments that are tied to another person not being X identity group unless it is non-black people reading black scholarship.

Things I dislike: speaking past the timer, idk it's a weird pet peeve just be reasonable, and don't ramble on after the speech is over. Saying "debate becomes monologue" or "creates bad people" (insert Karl Rove joke); neither of the things are true and honestly so played out that they become cringe. I think this trend is finally over but saying "it's T not FW" has not and will never be a thing in my eyes. This list will likely grow, and I promise I do not plan on docking speaks for these things I just find it annoying.

My ideal debater combines the persuasion and ethos of Giorgio Rabinni and Natalie Robinson, the technical skill of Taj Robinson and Elon Wilson the work ethic of DML and Pranay Ippagunta, the judging abilities of Corey Fisher, Vida Chiri, Devane Murphy, Shree Awsare, and Taylor Brough and the attitudes of Nate Glancy, Jimin Park, Ariel Gabay, and Ben McGraw. If you are able to display any of these qualities to the level that these debaters have, you have set yourself up to thrive in this activity.

Extra Points: if you make me laugh or honestly look like you're having fun I'll give extra points. Throw some shade be petty cause that's honestly all debate is: throwing shade at 300 words per minute.

Faith S. Howard Hire

Douglas Husic Hire

Last changed on Mon March 6, 2023 at 11:35 AM EDT

Debated for Wayne State, qualed to the NDT twice, MA student at Wayne now

Include me on the chain please

DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper give me pen time and you're also better served starting slower to give me time to adjust to your voice especially for online debate.

Pre-NDT 2022 Personhood thoughts -

-The comments I have below about my opinions on TVAs I think have been misinterpreted to mean don't make TVAs if Doug is in the back. My point was never a press to stop making the argument, I think as I emphasize there my issue is more with the context it is often deployed. It is not a worthless argument, but I also don't think it acts as the catch-all debaters often make it out to be.

I think TVAs are most useful when either a super specific articulation of a 1ac which synthesize aff theory with policy expressed with a really good or a few really good pieces of evidence, or a diversity of plans which alone don't encompass all of the aff themes but in totality allow us to over the course of a season test multiple premises of the aff in new and interesting ways in combination which a description of how your model can negotiate defense on the style of questions that promotes through the resolution. At best though it is always defense to whatever the affirmative's impact turn is.

I also seem to differ on layer of explanation necessary for a TVA to interact with themes of the 1ac, i'm not good for do RON with this author's book as your impact framing solves. I am great (read as: better contextually) for here is a policy aff which has incorporated theory on the front end from construction or have a theory of the law which supports this style of change, with novel impact framing or advantages the break from the norms of policy framing. More detail and engagement with aff stuff the better and more likely I am to vote for you.

-I miss impact turn debates

-And 1ars that tried to win the debate.

-Bring back theory debating,

i'm sympathetic that the aff should have to specify resolution dependent stuff or terms in the plan. Not as a voting issue but as a circumvention arg.

-I miss aff teams willing to impact turn probably the most

Pre-NDT 2021 thoughts:

-I've discovered I'm not a very good judge for framework teams who assume I agree that things like research, iteration, fairness, etc. are all inherently good things and don't need like any unpacking. Iteration is probably the worst offender. "3rd and 4th order testing" isn't a warrant/impact in my mind it's an empty signifier. All research is iterative - because it builds on the research conclusions of previous academics/authors/researchers (standing on the shoulders of giants and all that). Does this mean there is no impact to iteration in the world? No, but when you describe it as a process of testing conclusions - its not really an exclusive impact because the affirmative is also (whether you acknowledge it or not) attempting to test conclusions about the world. So what is an avenue you would find more persuasive? Well most simply its not a question of who iterates. But the types of questions/conclusions we iterate upon. I wanna hear what the iterative process looks under your method and not like just like "it's a predictable stasis" but what truths do we get to test more often under your model. is there a benefit to your model making policy affs vs the K the primary way we engage in critical literature? Does their alternative model also utilize problematic research standards? is K v K debate a sustainable controversy even with a focal point of the resolution? These are questions I never hear in framework debates but are ones I'd be way more interested in hearing then every one's copy-pasta explanation of iteration.

First Semester Alliance Thoughts:

1) I try to keep my camera on while you're speaking universally so you know whether or not I'm there. I've only had one issue of dropping out of a call due to my computer crashing this year. In that instance my user never fully disconnected from the call but just showed as if I turned my camera off. If my camera ever turns off in the middle of someone's speech assume I've dropped from the call and try to pause.

2) Framework on this topic:

a) negative teams have been good at explaining impacts in front of me but less good on the link - I've been persuaded in a lot of instances that affs that defend the end to a particular alliance regardless of their agent or method reasonabley meet the negs interp - especially when coupled with arguments about the topic paper predicting this as an approach to reducing alliance commitments. I don't think I'm un-persuadable on this issue but definitely need a more robust push-back on this arg from the neg when the aff relies heavily on it in the 2ac. Debates about extra-T could also be a useful avenue.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate relevant offense in a debate generally wins my ballot this is universally true for all arguments and how I look at my flow at the end of the debate. Specifics for arguments will be listed below. But generally absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. But communicating and persuading me on the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A sick card that is undersold and not well explained and applied will get my appreciation but not my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. Obviously contested argument backed up by quality ev favors the team with the quality ev.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

You'll get a lot of return investing time in minimizing the other teams thesis. Probability > Magnitude (unless you fall into a "try-or-die" trap).

Thoughts on framework:

I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a one-off position and am compelled by arguments that there should be some limit on the topic and that affirmative teams should have some relationship to the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I can also be persuaded that there are alternative interpretations for the resolution that are beneficial for the purposes of inclusion and are equally as debatable. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. For the aff It resolves what I often find to be a core issue with aff offense on framework is that it is very compelling but the aff doesn’t solve it through the 1ac. Impact turns alone can still win my ballot though.

I think teams focus too much on the need for a TVA. They’re useful contingently but teams waste so much time trying to make something that isn’t even trying to be topical be T. You’d be better served developing better explanations for how SSD resolves their offense or talking about how the communicative model you promote still accesses the relevant pedagogical skills from their literature.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Saying "baudy" caps your points at 28.7.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Suki Johal University Prep High School None

Ian Kimbrell Padre Pio Academy HS

Last changed on Fri November 4, 2022 at 4:48 PM EDT

You can e-mail me at ian.kimbrell.debate@gmail.com.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK: Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

Jake Kostecke Hire

Eleen Laham Hire

John Lawson Hire

Last changed on Wed March 30, 2022 at 4:14 PM EDT

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 47 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 47 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

On the 2021-2022 water resources topic, I have judged eight policy rounds: two rounds at Marist, voting negative both times, one round at Groves, voting affirmative and one at Golden Desert, voting affirmative, two rounds at UGA, voting affirmative and negative and, finally two rounds at the Detroit Urban Debate League Championships, voting negative twice. I also judged 3 LD rounds at Groves, and one PF round at Wayne State. I also worked/administered at the Detroit Urban Debate League's Summer Institute.

I judged 18 tournament rounds on the 2020-2021 criminal justice reform resolution, at the Grapevine Classic, Marist Ivy Street, Wayne State Pappas Memorial, JW Patterson Invitational (OK), University of Georgia, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Woodward Academy JV/Novice Nationals, NAUDL Round Robin and West Bloomfield Invitational (MI), voting affirmative 13 times. I also judged three college debate rounds (alliances topic) at the University Kentucky and Wayne State, voting affirmative once. I judged six public forum rounds on the no first use topic at the University of Michigan and Dexter HS (MI) HS, voting pro three times. In addition, I judged seven rounds on the NSA surveillance topic at Michigan JV State Finals, UNLV-Golden Desert and Lexington (MA), voting con six times as well as seven rounds on the West Africa Urbanization resolution at the Providence (NC) HS Classic and the Rushmore (SD) Challenge, voting pro three times. I judged two Lincoln-Douglas debates for the Detroit Catholic Forensic League, voting negative twice. I co-administered and taught at the Detroit Urban Debate League Summer Institute, which addressed this year's policy resolution. I actively coach and co-direct the Groves Debate Team on the resolution.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Tatanisha Lewis Cass Technical High School None

Valerie McIntosh Hire

Last changed on Thu March 9, 2023 at 11:45 AM EDT

Debate Coach - University of Michigan, Niles West High School
Institute Instructor - Michigan Debate Institutes
Michigan State University '13
Brookfield Central High School '09

I would like to be on the email chain - my email address is valeriemcintosh1@gmail.com.

A few top level things:

If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is. This also includes forwarding the argument that death is good because suffering exists. I will not vote on it.
If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
I'm a very expressive judge. Look up at me every once in a while, you will probably be able to tell how I feel about your arguments.
I don't think that arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates are at all relevant to my decision and I will not evaluate them. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.

Pet peeves

The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start
Asking if I am ready or saying you'll start if there are no objections, etc. in in-person debates - we're all in the same room, you can tell if we're ready!
Email-sending related failures
Dead time
Stealing prep
Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team
Asserting things are dropped when they aren't
Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards
Asking me if I need a card doc - I will ask you if I want you to start putting a card doc together.
Disappearing after the round

Online debate: My camera will always be on during the debate unless I have stepped away from my computer during prep or while deciding so you should always assume that if my camera is off, I am not there. I added this note because I've had people start speeches without me there.

Ethics: If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted zero speaker points.
*NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me.

Organization: I would strongly prefer that if you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn that it go on its own page - its super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders. Ditto to reading advantage CPs on case - put it on its own sheet, please!

Cross-x: Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions. If you don't start the timer before you start asking those questions, I will take whatever time I estimate you took to ask questions before the timer was started out of your prep. If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Translated evidence: I am extremely skeptical of evidence translated by a debater or coach with a vested interest in that evidence being used in a debate. Lots of words or phrases have multiple meanings or potential translations and debaters/coaches have an incentive to choose the ones that make the most debate-friendly argument even if that's a stretch of what is in the original text. It is also completely impossible to verify if words or text was left out, if it is a strawperson, if it is cut out of context, etc. I won't immediately reject it on my own but I would say that I am very amenable to arguments that I should.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting. This can also be accomplished by reading those lines in cross-x and then referencing them in a speech or just making analytics about their card(s) in your speech and then providing a rehighlighting to explain it.

Affirmatives should have a solvency advocate. What that looks like is up for debate. I think debates that stray too far from what a reasonable person would constitute an advocacy for a policy change distort the literature base in ways that make it impossible for the negative to respond to the aff. This is compounded by excruciatingly vague plan texts that enable the aff to "no link" out of what are obvious disads to the affirmative. If your style of debate is built around manipulating and bastardizing literature to create affs that say and defend nothing, I'm probably not the judge for you. I think this vision of debate disincentivizes in-depth negative research. If you refuse to specify what your aff does, I am probably not the judge for you. If you think that saying "a thing is bad" constitutes an aff without saying what your aff does about it, I am a bad judge for you.

Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. Limits are an an important question but not the only important question - your limit should be tied to a particular piece of neg ground or a particular type of aff that would be excluded. I often find myself to be more aff leaning than neg leaning in T debates because I am often persuaded by the argument that negative interpretations are arbitrary or not based in predictable literature.

5 second ASPEC shells/the like that are not a complete argument are mostly nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans: For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Over time I have gone from being somewhere in the middle on the question of "does the neg need a solvency advocate for the cp?" and I have found myself very strongly on the side of "yes." A lot of the debates I've judged over the past few years have had the scope of what the neg should get to assert with no evidentiary support go from semi-reasonable to impossible distortions of the literature and REALITY in ways that the aff could never reasonably answer. I DO think what constitutes a solvency advocate for the neg is affected by whether or not the aff has a solvency advocate. For affirmatives that do not have one, my threshold for what I expect the neg to have is much much lower.

I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. For example: the CP to have Trump decide not to withdraw from NAFTA is not legitimate, while the CP to have Trump announce that a policy that he will not withdraw from NAFTA would be. The CP that has the US declare it will not go to war with China would be theoretically legitimate but the CP to have Trump personally decide not to go to war with China would not be.

Disads: I am not very sympathetic to politics theory arguments (except in the case of things like rider disads, which I might ban from debate if I got the choice to ban one argument and think are certainly illegitimate misinterpretations of fiat) and am unlikely to ever vote on them unless they're dropped and even then would be hard pressed. I'm incredibly knowledgeable about politics and enjoy it a lot when debated well but really dislike seeing it debated poorly.

Conditionality: Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options). Conditionality is the ONLY argument I think is a reason to reject the team, every other argument I think is a reason to reject the argument alone. Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Kritiks: I consider myself a policymaker unless you tell me otherwise, the implication of that being that if you want me to consider my ballot as something other than advocating a hypothetical policy that would be enacted, you need to explain to me what it is and why that is better than the framework the affirmative is providing.

I've gotten simultaneously more versed in critical literature and much worse for the kritik as a judge over the last few years. I think that often times teams who read exclusively critical arguments get away with asserting things as true with no evidence or explanation and judges treat it as a complete argument or incontrovertible truth. I'm not one of those judges.

Your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad.

Yes the aff gets a perm, no it doesn't need a net benefit.

Affs without a plan: I generally go into debates believing that the aff should defend a hypothetical policy enacted by the United States federal government. I think debate is a research game and I struggle with the idea that the ballot can do anything to remedy the impacts that many of these affs describe.

I certainly don't consider myself immovable on that question and my decision will be governed by what happens in any given debate; that being said, I don't like when judges pretend to be fully open to any argument in order to hide their true thoughts and feelings about them and so I would prefer to be honest that these are my predispositions about debate, which, while not determinate of how I judge debates, certainly informs and affects it.

I would describe myself as a good judge for T-USFG against affs that do not read a plan. I find impacts about debatability, clash, iterative testing and fairness to be very persuasive. I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I am not very persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.

I generally am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.

I don't think debate is roleplaying.

I am uncomfortable making decisions in debates where people have posited that their survival hinges on my ballot.

Katja Molinaro University Prep High School None

Irshad Reza Husain University High School Academy

Last changed on Thu March 23, 2023 at 8:00 PM EDT

Top-Level Opinions: Debate is a game that we play that informs how we think about real-life situations and scenarios. As the judge, I adapt to whatever you say and do in the Debate. Keep prep stealing and dead time to a minimum, showcase some strategic vision, make smart moves in cross-ex and answer your opponents arguments to earn above a 29. Conversely, you must absolutely fumble the bag to warrant under a 28.

My Knowledge Level: I'm studying to be a computer engineer, so my familiarity with Artificial Intelligence and Cybersecurity is extremely high, and I have interned at tech firms that specialize in both of those fields. Both my mom and my best friend work in the healthcare industry, and I started doing Policy Debate in 2018 right after the College Healthcare topic so I would say I'm pretty up to speed on biotechnology. I've debated on both Alliances and Arms topics in college and high school respectively, with the former topic including NATO specifically, so I know most of the ins and outs of debates centered around NATO in regards to the high school topic as well as IR debates more broadly. I'm also debating in college on a resolution that has basically just devolved into the AI topic, combined with a couple teams who recycle the Climate Change topic through Rights of Nature, or the occasional Manoomin aff; this is to say that your AI aff will certainly not elude me at this point. I also coach a large Detroit UDL team that engages in both policy and critical research, so I'm up to speed on what the current high school trends are, and I've judged at three national tournaments in varsity policy this year.

Rules: Don't say racial slurs. If you say oppression is actively good, I am unlikely to vote for you. That being said, I'll still vote on your cohesion aff if you win it. Just refrain from saying messed up cross-ex answers as much as possible and engage.

Speech-Specific Comments: The 1AR gets new arguments if the negative block blows up a position and contains new arguments that could not possibly have been ascertained from the original 1NC. The 2AC should not forego analytics, even though I read cards and would describe myself as a research-oriented judge. The 2NR and 2AR must do impact calculus and explain solvency for their impacts (or if the negative going for the status quo with a DA or Case Turns, flesh out uniqueness).

Other Activities: If I'm judging LD, keep the frivolous theory and independent voters to a minimum. Substantive debates will be rewarded with good speaker points and useful feedback. Maybe it's just my predisposition, but the asymmetry of speech times seem to indicate the activity has a massive neg side bias. Feel free to work that into either side's arguments. If I'm judging PF, you should make good use of cross-ex and try to make sure all your evidence is accessible to the other teams. Your evidentiary standards are a little foreign to me still, but I have no problem keeping up with what you're saying. I also find PF teams having trouble doing terminal impact work. If your opponents are operating under the same framework as you, then don't waste time winning your framing.

ABC's

AI: I think the best affirmatives about AI are ones that use it to access both healthcare and innovation impacts. The naval AI aff about submarines and military leadership is also pretty good against the critique if you can effectively win heg good. My main bias is probably that I think LAWs are bad and should be regulated rather than developed, i.e. "regulate LAWs" aff is probably a lot better in front of me than the "develop LAWs to beat Russia because LAWs inev" aff, because that one should lose to LAWs bad. Creative uses of AI are also encouraged, but I do think I'm in line with the consensus for the topic generics.

Biotech: I think the "ban gene editing" aff may be in the opposite direction of the resolution, but a neg team going for T against this aff would probably require definitions of multiple words and good precision (legal) and/or predictable limits debating that definitively wins them. Green biotech affs are certainly good against the critique but I think is actually susceptible to process and/or agent counterplans if you can win its deployment through NATO is not necessary, because I'm unsure what the NATO key and Security Cooperation key warrants are. The disease/vaccination biotech affs are fine, but again, I think the healthcare AI affs have all of these benefits plus more and are in general more strategic. Probably the best topic area to go for China impacts with.

Cybersecurity: The generic aff about redlines, hybrid wars and Article 5 activation is the way to go with this in front of me. I've seen some teams add in creative advantages stemming from international law internal links about space, those seem pretty good if you can beat the negative's impact defense and win the specificity of such scenarios. Otherwise, I'd just recommend going for the typical Russia Bad / Cohesion Good scenario. I'll say that against critiques, I think you should lean more in the heg good direction because I think lots of negative teams I've seen have developed arguments that implicate solvency and advantage claims of the aff more than just the regular securitization arguments by saying that US control of cyberspace is bad and more likely to escalate conflicts. I think these arguments operate as case turns if you don't win that US control of cyberspace is uniquely good.

Liam Teasdle University High School Academy

Sarah Walker Hire None

Nina Warrow Berkley High School

Scott Warrow Berkley High School

Last changed on Wed February 22, 2023 at 2:02 PM EDT

Scott Warrow

Debate Philosophy Statement

I have been judging, teaching, and coaching policy debate for over 30 years at a variety of schools in Michigan and have always been open to a variety of arguments so as long as they are well-development and explained. Arguments need to be reasonably well understood by the debaters, more than just reading of tagline and evidence, debaters need to be able to explain the interconnectedness between arguments on and issues, the relationship between different issues, and the framing of the debate with a coherent narrative. Providing multiple avenues to show how you win and why relative to the opposing team, with the assumption that you may not win every argument, is critical to sound argumentation and my ballot.

I do like a well-developed and explained Kritik (AFF or NEG) debate. Don’t assume that I know what you are talking about or have read up on what is trending in the national circuit. I am familiar with popular Ks (Capitalism, Security, ect) and like creative thinking. But I don’t tend to fill in the holes with my own interpretation. So, a lackluster, undeveloped K does you more harm than good. That said, comparatively I do prefer policy-based debates that are strategic and thoughtful. I am not a fan of a negative team that runs eight off, with external contradictory positions. I am also not a fan of an Aff with a slew of undeveloped Advantages. Perhaps my least favorite group of arguments is theory debates. I often find them confusing and a regurgitation of taglines. Unless purposeful and strategic or completely dropped, I tend not to vote for a team to win the round on theory. Topicality, on the other hand, if thoroughly argued, I enjoy listening, however; it hard for me to vote Neg on T for a mainstream Aff that has been run all year.

Also, It is very important that debaters compare evidence and a weigh issues and arguments in rebuttals. I won't do it for you unless you leave me no choice. The line by line is important, but I am not going to vote on an undeveloped argument just because it is dropped on the flow. I need to be able to understand the arguments and evidence clearly in the context of the whole debater.

Finally, show respect, have fun, learn, and grow, and do your best. You can ask me any questions.

Login to Tabroom:

DUDL 2

2022 — Detroit, MI/US

Policy Judges Paradigm List

Judges