I primarily focus on the strength of the respective teams' arguments.

Paradigm

I have been judging for about 4 years now, middle school and high school competitions. I value clear organization of thoughts and communication.

Debate

Please email speech docs, especially for Policy.

I am a lay judge and cannot understand spreading, you may speak quickly but so the average person can understand. I am a traditional judge and If I cannot understand an argument because of speed or jargon I will not vote on it, especially if that is used as a tactic to make arguments against opponents who cannot be expected to reasonably understand.

Speech

Follow the rules of the category you are in.

I will dock points for rude behavior. Be yourself, but be nice. Be confident, you are doing great!

Finally- good luck!

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

updated for bsd '23 :)

guo.hanjia@gmail.com, 2A/2N, she/they

hi! im sarah / saturn, i have been debating policy for four years (interlake '24) & went 4-3 at the toc as a junior. i am capable of judging anything in any event - i have experience debating and judging in cx, pf, and ld. love ks, love (smart) policy, love phil, etc. i believe in tech > truth but have more time judging arguments that are reasonable and true. prioritize clarity. i am okay with any amount of speed.

as nora says: "Things that will make it easy for u to win:

1. The last two speeches should include judge instruction; pretend you are writing my ballot for me. When writing my RFD, I will think about the debate through "win conditions." What arguments does the AFF need to win at minimum vs. what does the NEG need to win? How much have those conditions been met by either side? If you do that analysis for me I will be very impressed.
2. Good flowing, neat line-by-line (answering arguments in the order they are presented), and not dropping things.
3. Impact calculus. Why does your impact outweigh theirs on magnitude, timeframe, and/or probability? Why does it turn theirs? Why does this matter for the "win conditions"?"

how to get good speaks:

1. all of the above
2. food !!! pleaseeee please
3. emphasizing ethos. sound good and clear!
4. showing me neat and well-organized flows => auto +.1

re any in-round violence or ethical issues: my conclusion is that i am a student who is judging other students. i will go with my gut. if you are a bad person, auto L and zero speaks. otherwise, as truf says, "my role as an educator outweighs my role as a disciplinarian. this ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. you should give this line a wide berth."

Tabula rasa.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Trent Kuykendoll (he/him)

Bellingham High School/Sehome High School/Squalicum High School

Add me to the chain: trentkuykendoll@gmail.com

For Puget Sound Nat Quals:

Considering I'll be seeing most if not all of you multiple times throughout this tournament, please make it interesting for me. This is a great opportunity to start breaking fun new strats for state/other end of year tournaments. I'll lower speaks based on lack of creativity. Rest of paradigm remains the same.

Update:

If there is a significant skill-mismatch between teams, the better team has an obligation to make the round accessible in my opinion. I'm tired of seeing way more experienced teams just beating up on newer teams, so from here on out I'm going to give low-speaks if I see that. Same situation if you're running tricks.

Top

I’m a TAB/flow judge. Tech > truth, however, will intervene (specifically in impact weighing) if those arguments go unaddressed by both teams. Also, I do judge kick if you're condo or uncontested. Anyone who needs you to spec judge kick is an LD nerd. Here is a pref cheat-sheet before we go into the weeds:

Speed Clarity ---------------------x------- Spread

Depth More args ---------------------X------- More development

Topicality Non-voter --------X-------------------- #1 Issue

Inherency Non-voter --X-------------------------- #1 Issue

K Debate Maybe Cap ------------------------X---- Try your craziest strat.

Impacts Magnitude -------------------X--------- Probability

K Affs Nah ----------------------X------ Yeehaw

Performance Nah ---------------------------X- Yeehaw

Fairness I/L ------X---------------------- Independent Voter

Education I/L ---------------------------X- Independent Voter

Theory Vios DTA --------X-------------------- DTD

Condo Bad -------------------X--------- Good

PICs Bad ---------X------------------- Good

Agent CPs Bad ----------------------X------ Good

Adv. CPs Bad ------X---------------------- Good

Int. Fiat Bad -------------------X--------- Good

Stock Issues

I have no loyalties to stock issues and winning a stock issue on the neg will not win the round. I need a reason to vote against a team that is un-topical, has no inherency, etc. I often have a hard time buying half-baked T arguments. If you’re going for topicality, you should probably collapse to T in the 2NR. The other stock issue I have my gripes with is inherency. Full disclosure, I almost never buy that a lack of a barrier to the plan is coherent argument, (however if you can win a round on inherency alone for a plan that has not been implemented already, I’ll give that team perfect speaks… good luck). As far as other stocks go, explain why they’re relevant to the ballot and please, for my sanity, don’t say “harms”.

Theory

A 2-hour round is non-negotiable as are -isms. Outside of these, the rules are for you and your opponents to agree upon and if there is something in round that you don’t agree with, run theory on it (this includes Flex prep, tag-team, etc.). <-Read my paradigm on this portion and stop asking. If it does not require the round to be stopped, I will not intervene and I will tell you as much if asked (this means I don’t have any opinions on tag-teaming, flex prep, clipping, altered speech times, etc. unless brought up as a theory argument). I tend to be more willing to drop specific arguments or err one way on evidence or during ties. This being said, I am more likely to drop the team if the round is collapsed to that theory argument in rebuttal. I have no problem with Affs kicking case and going for theory.

I enjoy well developed (emphasis on well developed) theory rounds. I tend to skew condo good, unless the neg is running 3+ conditional counter-advocacies. I have a much lower threshold to buy DTA than DTD/DTT. If you go for drop the debater, I will expect the abuse, real and potential, to rise to the level at which only dropping the team is a sufficient sanction. For this reason, if you want me to buy a DTD argument, I would recommend going for that alone in the second rebuttal, regardless aff or neg.

If you have further questions, ask pre-round.

I'm a parent judge.

I understand that as one debate judge, I need to convey the significance and importance of competitive integrity to all members of our community, in the interest of maintaining the high standard of conduct. I will try my best to support your interests in debate.

Top Level:

Interlake 24'

Pronouns are He/Him

Call me "Rohan" not judge or else I'm going to die inside - add me to the chain: rohanwa666@gmail.com

Pay attention to the word "reason" in RFD, this is relevant throughout this paradigm. Give me a REASON to vote for you.

Tech > Truth. I generally dislike doing some work on the flow for some teams so do your best on the line-by-line and this will easily help prevent bad decisions.

I like to think of myself as a "games" judge. I believe debate is a competitive game and the resolution is an important aspect that maintains clash and fairness. Pick the strategy that's best going to help you win the game.

Anything on this paradigm isn't perfect and my opinions aren't strong, so read with a grain of salt.

I'll make it a priority to help you feel safe in this space. Let me know what I can do for you!

If you do anything offensive or problematic, in-round consequences and perhaps out-round consequences will be up to my discretion. This includes impact turns of oppression, death good, extinction good, racism/racial profiling good, etc.

Please if you read an aff, off case, or argument in general that may be uncomfortable for some people to debate about has please put a trigger warning behind it before reading it. Especially goes for planless affirmatives with traumatic impacts.

Arguments need a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

I know this paradigm isn't well written don't bully me.

TLDR at the bottom.

I'm not very expressive, sorry :(

Novices:

1 - If you're varsity, scroll past this section

2 - Read a plan. Make sure you know your case as much as possible, and make thorough arguments.

3 - Off-Case: Run what you are comfortable with. Do not steal your varsity's blocks (this never ends well, I promise)

4 - Clarity > Speed. ALWAYS

5 - Skip the rest of this paradigm

6 - I am excited you chose debate!! Have fun!

Case Debate:

1 - The affirmative should be "topical".

2 - I'm looking for knowledge the affirmative team has beyond their 1AC and 2AC cards to evaluate case. I love a good case debate where both teams have good impact calculus, knowledge about their case arguments, and good framing contentions if it comes down to that (I dislike exhaustive framing contentions however). This also plays a part in topic knowledge that can be limited or plentiful in some cases, though you can do whatever you want with topic-specific knowledge that is relevant, I'm confident I'll understand by reading your evidence and flowing you.

3 - Recuts on aff and neg can be really powerful, but don't get ridiculous. Good recuts will earn you higher speaks. You have to read recuts of evidence do not just insert them in the document.

4 - Make sure your affirmative has solid internal link evidence, this is the glue of your case and if the negative team answers internal link evidence well and extends it throughout the debate, then the neg is highly likely to win. Also a note for the negative team as well.

5 - I think that good case debate (on the negative side) beyond the 2AC and 2NC is underrated, contesting your opponent on their case arguments really minimizes aff offense on anything else you may be trying to win on.

6 - I like smart 2AC answers on case that are either really fleshed-out blocks to a frequent case answer, good cards that respond to less case-specific stuff but still relate to case, and high-level off the flow answers.

7 - Status quo solves is underrated, that's all I'm going to say

8 - You do not need evidence to make a good argument. With that being said, I've seen certain advantages totally nullified or amplified through smart analytical arguments. Like I said, beyond your cards. In fact, I do encourage novices, if you're reading this, to try and make arguments by just knowing your 1AC, no cards. You'll learn a ton!

Kritikal Affirmatives and Framework:

1 - Framework: My belief is that the state is capable of doing a policy action in a single instance that is good for a certain amount of people without being a defense of the abhorrent things the state has done to certain people. I really like these debates and these are very fun to judge. On the negative, I'm persuaded more so by skills/testing impacts, smart TVAs, and switch-side debate. On the affirmative I'm looking for impact turns to the game of debate itself, why is fairness not an intrinsic good. Aff needs develop key offense on framework, do good line-by-line, and have solid impact calculus in the final 2 speeches (impact calculus goes for both teams because it's where I do most of the evaluating). Impact out certain statements and standards, don't just say "no clash", explain why clash is needed afterwards. I typically will vote on which model of debate is best for debate in the future.

2 - Case debate against k-affs is underrated. Contest the aff on their theory of power and don't just say "they don't do anything". However, presumption claims make no sense if a k-aff claims it solves for something outside of the round (a part of debate that's bad).

3 - On K vs K debates, I like it when both the aff and neg can find problems in each others' philosophies. It comes down to which theory of power and mechanism of change is most concisely explained and argued. But I have little to no experience with this so I may not be able to give as detailed of an explanation as I do on other things but it's fine.

4 - Topic DAs against k-affs are good. I'm not a fan of politics DAs being ran against k-affs but whatever you seek fit works.

Disadvantages:

1 - Impact comparison and framing are key parts to any DA debate, and this is where I do most of the evaluating.

2 - I love really, really unique DAs that are specific to the aff and I'm less fond of something generic like a politics DA. However, I'll buy it if your links are concise and can be specified to the aff beyond the 1NC. I said above that impact framing and comparison is where I do most of the evaluating, however the link and uniqueness debate are influential to the impact debate and a low/high risk of a link or a non-unique argument can be used as offense on impact framing.

3 - Please, PLEASE do not just throw a bunch of cards my way in the negative block and expect me to put together a DA story myself. Like I said on case debate, you do not NEED evidence to make good arguments. What I like to see is a bunch of evidence comparison, impact calculus, framing debate, and uniqueness arguments using the affirmative evidence. Just because you have more evidence does not mean you win the debate on the DA. One smart analytic from the aff that lasts 10-30 seconds could destroy 5 minutes worth of just reading cards.

4 - I love straight turns!

Counterplans:

1 - No CPs are "cheating" unless the aff wins on the flow that they are.

2 - Generic CPs are fine as long as they're supported with clear reasoning and maybe a few aff-specific claims in the 2NR about the solvency of the CP vs the aff.

3 - I will not default to judge kick except if the 2AR drops it after the 2NR has mentioned it.

4 - 2NC CPs and 2NC changes to 1NC CPs are just fine, however 1AR gets new answers.

5 - I lean neg on most CP theory arguments (except Lopez, I lean strongly aff on that) however go for theory if the neg makes really unconcise arguments against it.

6 - Limited intrinsicness is up for debate.

7 - PICs that take advantage of lackluster plan writing are always amazing.

8 - Condo is good but within certain bounds. I generally believe the neg should get 2 CPs and a K but if you want more advocacies by all means go for it!

9 - I like generic CPs (especially process) that are well-argued with good warrants and aff-specific parts. However, I am much more likely to buy very aff-specific CPs that are well-researched, strategically planned, and have solid evidence.

10 - Solvency deficits to the CPs are personally more convincing to vote on than conventional perms but don't let this discourage you from going for a perm in the 2AR.

11 - Clever perms on the aff are a joy to observe!

Kritiks:

1 - Not the best judge for postmodernism.

2 - I'm familiar with afropessimism, capitalism, D&G, queerness, settler colonialism, feminism, and more but too exhaustive to list every single thing here. Whatever you want to run should be fine.

3 - PLEASE do not read Ks without knowing the literature base just to be edgy. It's painful to watch and it becomes obvious in CX.

4 - I like good explanations and contextualization of your alternative however it does not have to solve everything.

5 - I'm good with you kicking the alternative as long as you can garner offense off of links and framework.

6 - 2NC Line-By-Line > a 6 minute long overview that gives me redundant information that I can just look at your 1NC for. If you ignore the line-by-line, you'll most definitely lose.

7 - Good aff specific link analysis is a threshold for voting on the K.

8 - Buzzwords are meaningless unless you can use them efficiently and in the right places.

9 - If you make the argument that your K should not be weighed against the aff, I'm not going to buy it.

10 - Perms should have offense against all parts of the K.

Topicality/Theory:

1 - Theory is fun, but really painful when theory gets arbitrary and trivial.

2 - What "topical" means is up for debate.

3 - I have a slight tendency to vote on untruthful T violations if argued in a way the aff doesn't explicitly point out what's untrue about the violation.

4 - I'm not persuaded by reasonability as much as some other judges are.

5 - The primary focus of topicality is about functional limits and predictability. Arbitrariness should be a reason why competing interpretations is bad. I err neg on over-limiting, and even if the neg overlimits under-limiting is worse.

6 - T is like the equalizer of debate in my opinion.

Speaker Points:

1 - I generally start from 30 and move down (30s will almost never be given out unless I can make a decision in less than 2.5 mins).

2 - Clarity > Speed, you DO NOT need to be robot fast in order to be good. But speed is totally fine if you're clear.

3 - Death good = lowest amount of speaks possible.

4 - I typically don't sit well with the following phrases: "Try or die", "Reinvent the wheel", "I don't get a 3NR" (this one by far being the most annoying), "We have more evidence", "Our argument is uniquely better", "They don't do anything", and "Starting on [my/your] first word".

5 - I dislike generally saying the same exact thing for an entire minute of your rebuttal.

6 - A substantial (what this means is up to me) instance of judge intervention = -1

7 - Subscribing to the Interlake CX Debate Channel = +0.1

8 - Jokes about literally anyone I know in debate = +0.1

9 - If you make me laugh at least once = +0.2

Ethics/Procedure:

1 - Clipping cards = automatic loss and lowest speaks (you'll need to record the speech to prove).

2 - Hateful/problematic language was above.

3 - If a team accuses another team of an ethics violation I will stop the round and allow both teams to defend their postion.

4 - Aggressive postrounding will result in me docking your speaks, and I will add I am firm on my decision.

5 - I'll time your prep and only my time matters.

6 - Debate involves a communication aspect and people sometimes forget this. I'll do my very best to understand your arguments but it is very important that you make sure I know what you're saying.

TLDR: I vote for the team that I think won the debate.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN DEBATING!

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.

speech and debate should be a safe space for students to express themselves.

db8 experience:

North Central High School, Spokane, WA – debated 2018-21 (Circuit LD)

University of Washington, Seattle, WA – 1N/2A (NDT/CEDA Policy)

please start an email chain before the 1ac and include me: cfushi@uw.edu

all evidence read must be included in the email chain w/properly formatted cites (update 5/2021: excluding re-highlightings) preferably (but not required) in a Verbatim-enabled Microsoft word document and also preferably (but not required) working, accessible hyperlinks - applies to online and in-person unless you don't have access to a laptop or the internet. analytics not being on is ok - I'm not the best at typing them all out either - but don't speed through full steam if they're not in the doc.

pronouns: he/him/his

*note: I'm fine with most args except death good or death neutral, please don't read it in front of me for personal reasons if you can avoid it - especially arguments advocating suicide. Anything else, please give a content warning when reasonable (graphic violence, sexual assault, slurs, et cetera) and accommodate your opponents.

if I'm judging speech for some reason: I did impromptu and program oral interp, for both of which I went to WA State championships. I also did DI, which I sucked at but enjoyed, and extemporaneous, which I extra sucked at and loathed.

pref me in this order (top/1 = you want me in your round, bottom/4 = literally strike me )

k (structural + identity positions) - 1

soft left aff - 2

larp/policy - 2

k (pomo etc) - 3

phil - 3

trix: strike me. seriously, it's worth using one of your strikes.

pet peeves:

saying "they don't do enough work on the flow" -- sounds like something a coach would say -- expand on this a bit or use the word "ink" ig

telling me that x speech/cross-x was ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING THEY HAVE CONCEDED THAt... (jk)

saying your opponent dropped something when they didn't

being overly aggressive - be confident! but there's a clear line where you're being unkind to people.

paraphrasing instead of reading a properly formatted card (i.e. Author, year: [text of cut card])

yay:

a s m r of keyboards typing during prep

but srsly:

process cps bad ------x--- process cps cheating a bit

condo good -----x---- condo bad

standards, rotb, literally anything else framingwise x---------- v/vc (eew)

k affs in the direction of the topic good ---x------ fascistic fw hack

debate is an advocacy space x--------- debate is a game

ld specific stuff:

I hate nebel-t and plans bad theory with a passion. Disclosure and generics probably solve and unless you can prove specific abuse, a few mediocre analytic responses from the aff are sufficient defense for me to not vote on it.

I won't vote on most tricks prima facie - a clever strategy =/= a trick, but something disingenuously spread through to exclude large swaths of offense that everyday people would find categorically absurd and that adding 10 more seconds to your opponent's rebuttal would neutralize - that's probably a trick, and you'll know it on my face (providing I'm looking up from flowing and don't have my head in my hands).

affs - I'll count an overview and brief underview extension (if you have one) as sufficient to extend; obviously extensions need a warrant but the 1ac presumably already has one so I don't expect you to spend a lot of time here esp. since time skew is a huge thing

condo is probably good if the aff can reasonably answer the 1nc in 4 minutes; if it's purposefully designed to take advantage of time skew I'll be more convinced by the aff on condo debates

slow down on your underview! I'm not the fastest flower yet also underviews still need warrants

default to nibs ok, condo good and yes rvi's unless you successfully argue otherwise

trad ld ppl - don't focus on the v/vc debate if it's not necessary - it's a waste of time (e.g. util vs. "cost-benefit analysis"). you don't have to have a dedicated voter section at the end of the 2nr/2ar! affs, collapsing in the 2ar or even 1ar can be strategic if you have multiple contentions. Trad ld can and should be more phil-based otherwise the v/vc debate is kinda pointless. Also, for the 1nc, contentions can probably just be rephrased as disads, counterplans, etc. to keep flows tidier - the 1nc should still differentiate between different off-case and on-case arguments even if it is a trad round - doing so will help your speaks. Going one off phil nc is a really good trad strat that will boost your speaks; contact me if you need help understanding - I underwent the transition from understanding only trad to circuit-style as well so I know how it feels.

"this is ld" isn't a warrant. If you're reading t or theory, read a properly formatted shell (interpretation, violation, standards, voters, drop the debater or drop the arg). p.s. topicality is negative ground because it only concerns whether the affirmative plan falls under the ground that the resolution assigns to the affirmative - I've heard 1ar's calling the negative "untopical" too many times in trad.

more experienced debaters should try to accommodate less-experienced ones, but I won't disadvantage a student based on their stylistic choice to be more "progressive" just because their opponent is not. Especially in ToC-bid and/or varsity divisions, students should be expected to engage non-"traditional" positions.

that being said, do not read arguments whose format and/or warrants you clearly do not understand. your speaks will thank you.

cx specific stuff:

I'll judge kick in the 2n only if you tell me to, don't assume I will - although to be honest, most aff arguments against judge kick are more persuasive to me. I don't think judge kick belongs in ld because the negative gets more structural advantages than in policy imho, but if you win it you win it

idc who speaks (ins and outs, 1a/2a etc, idc) BUT each person must give at least two speeches and one cross examination unless extenuating circumstances arise.

let's not hide aspec or other voters clearly tangential to the flow you're on in those pages? it's academically dishonest and unaccommodating to people with processing difficulties - incl. me.

everyone:

sit or stand, (online: camera on or off), wear whatever you want, it's not my role to police you nor is it appropriate for judges to do so.

please time yourselves and each other.

stock issues are antiquated but still matter, even if we don't specifically call some of them by their names, keep them in mind - if you give a 2nr on "significance" and it's really good, I'll think it's really funny and give you (and your partner if it's in policy or pf) a 30.

not up for debate: speech times, things that happened out of round that aren't disclosure-related, having only one winner (I literally can't award two ballots), speaker points, people's identities, authenticity testing (unless you have solid proof), other people's experiences, comparing minorities' oppression relative to one another, whether you can: say a slur belonging to, read pess args about, or blatantly misrepresent yourself as an identity group you are not (you can't and if your opponent makes even the weakest argument about this I will award them the ballot).

case debate

disclose on the wiki!!! open source, round reports, cites, do it!

mental health comes first. I personally struggle(d) a lot with this in debate; if you need some time to regroup as long as you're not prepping and we can finish the debate before the tabroom timer ends please take it. I trust that people won't abuse this - just know that taking care of yourself is a pre-req to good debating and winning a round shouldn't come at the expense of your health.

I'm more sympathetic to small schools when it comes to t and theory including disclosure

I try to be generous but not Weimar Republic inflationary with speaks. If you get below a 27 then you really need to work on your skills, but I do give out 30s as well. Middle of the road should be 28.5, before adjusting up or down based on tournament norms (e.g., an east circuit tournament like Harvard vs. a west coast local district would expect different speaker point scales, and I’ll try to fit them as best as I can).

please, no aggressive post-rounding. I hate confrontations.

Hi! I'm Andrew (he/him) and I debated in LD at Interlake for 3 years, graduating in 2021 and qualifying to the TOC my senior year. I now do some policy debate in college as a hybrid team with Western Washington University. Please add me to the email chain: shawan[at]uw.edu

Top Level:

- I am most familiar with philosophical arguments and decently familiar with policy, theory/topicality, and critical arguments. However, I'm willing to listen to anything as long as it is warranted and explained well—please don't run something you don't understand just because you think I would like to see it. I will also not supplement arguments using my prior knowledge if you do not make them, so what I know/do not know well should not be super relevant.

- In general, I will vote for the side that requires the least intervention for me to vote for.

- Weigh, signpost clearly, and collapse—the 2NR/2AR should give a ballot story and a clear path for me to vote for you.

- Don't do anything racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic/anything that makes the round unsafe.

- Please try to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to your opponents (e.g. they say instead of he/she says).

- Defaults: drop the debater, no RVIs, competing interps, epistemic confidence, no judge kick, presume neg unless there is a CP/alt.

Locals:

- I'm fine with speed if you're clear.

- I will vote on the flow and will not consider blatantly new arguments that are made in the 2NR/2AR.

- It also makes me sad that framework/phil debates are dying out, so I'll give higher speaks if I see a normative framework syllogism and/or in-depth framework debate.

- I'm not interested in listening to your value debates. Values other than morality are probably impact justified and regress back to some form of morality. I use the value criterion to evaluate the debate at the end of the day, so please spare us all 3 mins of justice vs. societal welfare and skip to the value criterion debate.

- If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Phil:

- This is not the same as tricks debate—if your idea of a phil debate is spamming independent justifications or hiding indexicals in analytics, please see the tricks section below.

- Here are the FWs I ran/am most familiar with: Kant, virtue ethics, pragmatism, ubuntu.

- Well-justified normative syllogism > 10 blippy independent reasons to prefer. The best phil affs are those where every part of the syllogism can be strategically leveraged against different possible 1NCs.

- I know all judges say this, but please weigh and do comparative interactions between FW justifications! This means going beyond "and actor spec comes first since different actors have different obligations," but instead doing big picture explanation of the main points of disagreement and using those warrants to take out individual arguments.

- My favorite affs are plan phil affs with offense unique to the plan. I think analytic philosophy in general has a strong Western bias and love to see phil outside the Western canon when it's run well.

- I never understood indexicals and think it's a silly argument. It's fine as a throwaway argument in the 2NR/2AR but I would rather not vote on it.

DA/CP:

- LD 1NCs should spend more time on case in my opinion—many policy affs in LD can either be impact turned or are behind on the internal links debate.

- Cheaty perms are fine as long as you defend your model of CP competition and/or what the opponent has done to justify the perm.

- Weighing arguments should be comparative.

Topicality/Theory:

- A lot of theory shells/dumps are severely underwarranted—please include full warrants for theory arguments in the original speech that they are read in.

- I don't care whether your shell is frivolous.

- Paragraph theory ("x is a voting issue") and full theory shell are both fine.

- Reasonability needs a brightline. "Good is good enough" is not an argument.

- I think Nebel T is probably true on a semantic level and like a good 2NR collapse on semantics.

- No strong biases on condo or other CP theory—just justify why it's good/bad.

Kritiks:

- I am familiar with common Ks (afropess, anti-humanism, setcol, fem, cap, security, etc.). Regardless of my familiarity with your K, you should still give a brief thesis-level explanation of your theory in the 2NR.

- Ks should have link explanations that are contextualized to the aff and impacted out in the 2NR—explain the broader implication of your link arguments beyond just operating under the framing of the K.

- Floating PIKs are fine but the newer it is in the 2NR the more leeway I will give the 2AR to answer them.

Tricks:

- I don't like these arguments but will vote for them if won. I was never the best at flowing fast analytics, so read at your own risk.

- If I just don't understand an argument, I will not vote for it.

- I will evaluate the debate after the 2AR regardless of what arguments are made to the contrary, as it seems infinitely regressive to me to evaluate arguments on this issue.

- EDIT: Please do not read no 2NR I-meets + the N-word shell in front of me—I don't think it's responsible to trivialize serious racial issues in debate. If you read this and there is even a semblance of a response in the 2NR I will not evaluate it.

- EDIT: After judging truth testing + a prioris for 4/6 prelims at Grapevine, I would like to reiterate that I do not enjoy judging these debates. You will have a much better chance of getting higher speaks if you do not go for this strategy in the 2NR/2AR—please be more creative with tricks :(

K Affs and T-FW:

- I vote aff on K affs when the 2AR isolates an explainable impact to voting aff or what the ballot does.

- Affs that defend the topic "as a method of x" and then go for pre-fiat reasons to vote aff seem extra-topical or non-topical to me.

- 2NRs on T-FW should spend more time answering case.

- I think fairness is an impact and intrinsic to debate, but that there can be other impacts that matter more.

add me to the email chain: sarahsung425@gmail.com

school affiliations: Eastlake High School

general-

I will flow to the best of my ability- please give a road map.

Might forget about speech and prep times please time yourselves!

other thoughts-

I'm pretty much open to any crazy argument/theory in policy (assuming it's equitable) and enjoy the rare and extremely progressive style of discourse. I prefer a focused and well-thought-out neg strategy instead of just dumping a bunch of off and hoping one will stick. Well done impact calc and a clear progression in my flow will decide the ballot. Generally, I find T debates very irksome and repetitive, but I will still vote on it if called for. Counterplans and disadvantages are both fine even when generic. Yes to judge kick. I LOVE K debates but only when the negative commits to spending enough time on extensions. I will vote on framework. I heavily weigh link debate in any flow. I believe everything should be debatable in a debate.

Speaker points.. I weigh technique more than research... a compelling speaker --> good speaker points... clarity>speed.. yellings-> don't expect good speaker points... make it *sparkle*!!

!be ethical! (or else... >.<)

Remember to have fun <3!!