The more I think about my paradigm and debate the more I realize that my opinions are constantly evolving and thus I will probably not be straight down my paradigm in round.

The bold is important highlights throughout. Enjoy

Quick overview:

I debated at Calvert Hall for four years (2017-2021), debate at Towson University (2022-present). I ran policy arguments in high school and some college, did performance debate in college as well. Make it simple for me, I don't like doing work. Every aspect of debate is performative, make sure that you are a decent human being and call out your opponents when their performance is problematic. But, run what you want and do your job to explain to me why it matters. I tend to be a pretty expressive judge so you will probably know when I'm following well, when I'm lost, when I'm thinking, etc.

yes I want to be on the email chain, christd550 [at] the google mail service .com

You should leave pen time whether or not I'm flowing on my laptop or paper - I want to make sure I get all your warrants!

here's how I would pref me:

1 - Policy (soft-left) or policy vs the K

2 - K Affs/Identity Arguments/Performance Debate

3 - policy (heg/nuke war/super big stick things)

4 - High theory K's

Specifics:

Overview/Debate rant:

I think debaters have gotten too comfortable dumping cards and not really explaining them or using cards to make arguments instead of just being a debater and making arguments yourself. I challenge you to push yourself to make arguments and use evidence that is of higher quality instead of dumping cards that don't really have any warrants - y'all are smart, show me you are! With that being said -- I don't like "read the card after the round" or "insert rehighlighting" -- I think this allows me to inject too much interpretation into the round of how I think evidence interacts with each other instead of relying on what you tell me is most important;contextualize your ev for me!

Affs:

I think K affs are good for debate. I really like seeing you incorporate aspects of your performance into later speeches, and strategic cross-applications of your performance to answer things like framework. I have experience running plan-based affs and performance-based affs, I don't really have a preference either way and I am comfortable in both situations.

I think the most important thing for me is contextualizing how your specific method is able to resolve your impacts, this means I probably err neg on presumption in debates where solvency isn't well explained.

Neg:

DA:

Better link debating is better debating and will earn you higher speaks.

Live laugh love the politics disad.

T:

Neg teams should probably have a case-list or at least a categories to demonstrate what your vision of the topic includes, otherwise I'm not sure what topics will devolve to, especially if I am judging you on a topic that I don't have a lot of experience on yet.

Framework:

I think that being non-topical is also important but it's the affs burden to prove the role of engagement and why their model is preferable. I like model debates, what does your model justify vs theirs for the activity as a whole, why is this round the key internal link to your model, etc.

Explain my role as a judge clearly. What am I voting for, what am I justifying in the community writ-large? Why the other side's interp is uniquely bad/violent and you have a good chance at picking up my ballot. What specifically does my ballot justify?

If you're aff give me specific examples of why the aff is uniquely good for debate/is topical.

CP's:

PIC's are alright - not my favorite thing, but I'm willing to listen to anything and learn why we shouldn't include a certain part of the aff. Not the best for CP theory debates -- going for theory wasn't ever my style.

Theory:

Theory debates are often very late-breaking and difficult to resolve. I am not the best for lots of debate theory, especially without good line-by-line and comparison. I'm sure your theory blocks are great but what am I supposed to do with that and how does it interact with your opponent? See above: slow down so I get your warrants, especially when you are flying through a pre-blocked argument.

Condo:

I think condo is good unless I'm told it's not/the negs vision is really abusive. Multiple condo worlds are fun. I probably draw the line somewhere around 4 but that's a gray area; I can be convinced that 4+ is good and I can be convinced that more than 1 is abusive.

K's:

Anything super high theory (Baudrillard, psychoanalysis, deluze, etc.) I'm not as familiar with the lit so you're going to have to explain it to me. I think critical engagement with each other and the resolution is really important. Do your thing but you might have to do more explanation than throwing buzzwords around.

Other Thoughts:

- Impact calc is very important, tell me exactly why I should prioritize your impacts. If this means framing cards, go for it.

- I'm willing to vote on anything (except things like racism good), just make it interesting and well explained, and do you!!!

- Don't be rude to your opponent, be respectful and nice, debate is competitive but fun.

If I'm judging you in high school and you're interested in debating in college at Towson plz lmk after the round or visit this link -- https://www.towson.edu/cofac/centers/debate.html

accomplishments you don't care about:

3x NDT Qualifier

1x CEDA Octafinalist. Double Octafinalist

1x TOC Bid recipient

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K. Prefer progressive LD.

I would like to be on an email chain - georgeli135022@gmail.com, but if the internet is broken, I'm fine with flash drives as well.

I was a policy debater for like 2 years, but I prefer a clear-cut debate rather than a lot of theory and K's. You can still make those arguments, you're just gonna have to make them clear to me and also your opponent.

TLDR- be respectful to the opposing team, and let's make sure to make debate an enjoyable experience where we can all learn something.

Policy

It's been like 3 years since I actually did policy debate, make sure to extend your technical terminologies for me to more easily understand your arguments. As an old-school (kinda) taught by old-school debaters, I prefer large tangible impacts to small soft ones, but if you make a good argument for that I will still favor it.

Some other stuff:

While arguments y'all make should be supported by evidence and reliable sources, they should also make logical sense. Please don't make me pull my hair out trying to decipher what you just said.

Policy debate is about making real-life policies. I will refer to the real tangible impacts of the plan over arguments like theory or Kritics. If you do use theories and Ks, make them understandable, if you start spouting words I hear from my philosophy class it will most likely fly past me. Especially if you're using Ks, please elaborate on how the alternative is better than the plan.

Public Forum

PF is pretty similar to Policy Debate so I'll probably judge it as one. All my points about the clash and evidence from above still apply, especially on Ks and Theory. There is less time in PF to fully flesh out the intricacies of a Kritic or Theory so it should be even more clear.

Ofcourse, I want you to explain the logic of your arguments clearly and make sure to engage in as much clash as possible. Beyond that, as long as it makes sense it's good enough for me.

General Notes

Debate is not just about dumping evidence on your opponent and then hoping something sticks, please clash with your opponent. Extend your arguments and answer your opponents' arguments. If you don't extend arguments after your opponent drops them I will put much less weight on them in my decision.

I will take logical arguments over some flimsy evidence. Just saying we have evidence doesn't cut it, explain and extend why that's important to the wider debate and the plan.

As a policy debater, I've seen pretty fast speeds before so I can understand them. However, as a judge, I would much rather you make a few clear and concise arguments than try to overwhelm your opponent with 10 different disadvantages and counterplans. I'm also not going to read your document if you spoke incomprehensibly to fill in my flow sheet, I'll just disregard that argument in my decision. I'm not saying speaking fast is bad since there is a lot to get through, I'm just saying don't abuse it.

Of course, the point of debate is to educate and have fun. As someone who follows politics and policies, I want to learn something from the debate. Use common sense and we'll have an enjoyable experience.

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

tflovecchio@gmail.com

The Aff must present and defend some type of topical plan. How the Neg wants to argue against that is really up to them, but it has to relate to the resolution for the year and the aff plan. I will not reject the resolution.

Speed is fine as long as I can actually hear and comprehend what you are saying. I have not had to let someone know that I cannot understand them, but will if need be.

Please have fun.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round.

Benjamin Morbeck

Updated 9-11-2023

I debated 4 years at the University of Rochester (NY) and 2 years at Strath Haven High School (PA).

Add me to the email chain: benmo28@gmail.com

As a debater and a coach, I lived pretty exclusively on the policy side of things. I think my judging history suggests I am an even worse judge for the critique and critical affirmatives than I thought I would be.

I haven't been particularly involved in debate since I graduated; I now work full-time outside of debate (I'm a geologist with the US Geological Survey in California) and that is even more true.

I evaluate the round probabilistically -- comparing the risk that each team accesses their impacts, regardless of whether it is a DA, K or T debate. Good defense is often as important as offense in my decisions, but there is very infrequently "zero risk".

I very rarely dealt with theory and (non-framework) topicality as a debater. I think there are very few situations where negatives would be better served by going for topicality instead of a DA/CP strategy in front of me, and vice versa few situations where you are better off going for theory/condo to answer that nasty counterplan instead of just making solvency deficits or putting offense against the net benefits.

Judge kick makes intuitive sense to me and I'm happy to do it for you, but you need to tell me to do it in the 2NR.

Evidence quality is very important to me. I like to read a lot of evidence as the debate is going on NOT because I like to needlessly intervene but because I think that it makes my decisions more informed. You should use this to your favor by (a) reading good evidence and (b) comparing evidence to impact how I view the evidence that has been read. This also means I am hesitant to vote on, for example, disad stories that are contrived and supported mainly by "spin." If you don't have a single card that describes all of your disad story, I'm probably not interested (though I have a bit of a soft spot for the old school PC-style Agenda DA).

This (hopefully) should only apply to high school debates, but I have a very low tolerance for non-substantive, "trolly" arguments in policy rounds---things like ASPEC, frivolous T arguments, one card or backfile critiques, or even very generic impact turns (e.g. spark). My threshold for affs answering these is incredibly low.

LD specific:

My background is in college and high school policy. I judge LD occasionally but am not familiar with the intricacies of circuit LD. If you read plans/DAs, I'll be a good judge for you. If you are a more traditional/old school LD debater, I'll be able to keep up. Otherwise, you probably don't want me judging your LD round.

I don't think I would ever vote on a theory argument in LD. Generic impact framing arguments (e.g. 'the util debate') don't matter much to me.

I'm not going to look at any analytics you email out. I'll only check the document to look at your evidence. If you are going so fast that I don't hear your analytic arguments with my own ears, then those args aren't going to be on my flow. Sorry. Speed is good, but you need to be comprehensible.

Gabriel Morbeck

Debated at Strath Haven High School in PA 2014 to 2016

Debated at Emory University in GA 2016 to 2020

gsmorbeck28@gmail.com

Currently assistant director of debate at Emory University and a part-time coach at Woodward Academy.

If you're judged by me, here are the most important things for you to know:

1. I prefer affs that defend a topical plan. If they do not, I find framework arguments about fairness and limits very compelling. If you choose to not defend a plan, you have to play at least some defense on fairness/limits to make any education arguments compelling.

2. I'm very offense-defense. Really unlikely to vote on presumption.

3. How I evaluate your explanation is shaped by how much quality evidence you have. I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. It's just how my brain works. The more cards you read on something the truer it feels.

4. Tech is important, but so is developing robust positions throughout the debate. My threshold for "complete argument with a claim and warrant that I'm willing to vote on" is pretty high.

5. I'm more amenable to conditionality bad than I used to be. Lots of 2Ns use conditionality as a shortcut to avoid debating the case or answering straight turns, which seems anti-educational to me. I won't judge kick unless the 2NR instructs me to do it. My views on counterplan legitimacy are shaped by evidence. If you have a card advocating for the counterplan it's probably legitimate. If you don't have a card from this topic advocating for a counterplan then theory is pretty persuasive. No theory argument that is not conditionality bad or topicality is a reason to reject the team.

6. Fine for T vs policy affs, but I also think substance crowd-out is true on reasonability. I will default aff unless the magnitude of offense the neg is winning is very big.

7. Fine for the K vs policy affs. At this point, I think I prefer debates about a substantive critique with links to the plan than most of the DA debates I judge. I almost always vote neg when these Ks are executed well. However, I do not find "the fiat K" persuasive at all. I default to the aff being able to weigh their 1AC, but I also think it's arbitrary to completely exclude the justifications for the 1AC from consideration.

8. Debate is fun! I understand everyone cares a lot about wins and losses, but I appreciate debaters who remember that they're functionally just playing a game with their friends on the weekend. I'll enjoy judging you if you enjoy being in the debate!

Some misc thoughts: lots of impact defense to warming on the college topic is basically climate denial and my threshold for rejecting it is very low, I love the agenda DA, I think qualifications debating about where an author/think tank gets funded from is very convincing and underutilized in policy debates, usually a try-or-die guy. I look at speech docs less and read far fewer cards in decisions than I used to, but I do subconsciously care a LOT about evidence formatting and doc organization.

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 1/8/25). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.