The most important thing:

The most important part of debate is participation, so if you're going to be a jerk to me, your partner, or your opponents, you will lose speaks. Remember that everyone comes to debate from a different starting point, just because you debated in middle school doesn't mean you are a better person than everyone else. For the other side of that coin, I'll try and be as nice as possible and just remember that one bad round in your second tournament doesn't mean that debate isn't for you or that you should quit. I've found myself there plenty of times but I've always come back to debate, it will be OK.

To all novices I am judging:

If you are reading my paradigm you are doing a good job, I'm probably going to tell you to read it anyway so nice job :).

Onto my actual paradigm:

Yes put me on the chain: goanderson@cps.edu

If you need me to type my email in I might take that as a sign that you didn't read my paradigm, but I understand that tech can be hard sometimes.

FLOW

I've run most args at one point or another. I will be fine with literally whatever, just explain it well.*

Run impact calc and explain your link chain. If you can do line by line that would be great.

Just don't drop arguments, this will literally win you most of your debates, flowing, line by line, and analytics will help you.

*this is mostly true as long as you aren't racist sexist homophobic etc.

PREP:Prep ends when you press save on your word doc or share on your google doc. If you are talking to your partner about anything debate related that isn't a tech problem you should be running prep.

One last thing:Remember to chill out, this is a debate round, you're going to be ok no matter what happens, and the other people in this room are your friends.

PS:If you bring up the 2013 cheese wiz incident at Patty's Birthday Party in North Dakota you will lose the round and I will be telling Wayne Tang about you.

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech.

Hi,

I'm Ksenia (she/her)

I debated pf, parli, and ethics bowl throughout high school and I have limited experience with policy from judging/middle school debate. In general:

• If you promote anything sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, classist, etc... arguments then I will, at minimum, drop the arguments from my flow and dock your speaks.
• Weigh!!!
• Please include me on your email evidence chain and if you have questions after a round, feel free to reach out: kbaatz3@gmail.com
• If you are in an online tournament, please don't show your phone timer on the screen unless your opponent is exhorbitantly over time (30 sec or so). This is just a personal pet peeve. I will also keep track of time.
• Well explained, reasonable analytics > random cards.
• It is totally reasonable to indight evidence when giving refutations, but try to go further. Provide logical arguments for why their argument is outwieghed, incorrect, turned, etc...
• I am open to voting for more creative and out-there arguments as long as you can reason them out clearly.
• I'm comfortable with progressive argumentation (particularly K's, T's and Theory). I would discourage disclo theory because, in my experience, it is often used against less experienced, underresourced debaters to get free wins for varsity teams. Also, disclo debates are often less interesting because everyone uses the same exact arguments. Be creative.

UPDATED FOR Illinois Nov/JV States:

Stuff:

Hi, I'm Jacob De Rosas. He/him. Call me whatever you'd like.

NCP Class of '25

add me to the chain pls: jderosas@cps.edu

Currently debating policy for Northside College Prep

Policy:

Top Level:

• Fine with either Policy or K
• I like K's on the neg more than on the aff, but i'm not "bad" for the K on the aff
• Tech > Truth

I don't have any huge problems with any argument. I won't get mad at any shenanigans unless they're pointless.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

tech > truth

1. Policy vs Policy

2. Policy vs K

3. K vs Policy (FW)

4. K vs K ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy 1ACs

Make sure the plan is or at least seems topical

Soft Left 1ACs

You must win framing, cuz i can't NOT vote on extinction unless it is won that something else outweighs.

Strongest part is probability in impact calc.

K-Affs

Make sure the 1AC has all of the stock issues.

K v K debates are fun to watch I guess

K v FW debates sometimes get messy -> one team can't just win by reading a billion DAs to the other person's FW -> have defense

Case answers

ANSWER CASE

omg so many rounds i've been in-- case has been left behind and it just lets the aff be like "they totally conceded the ____ impact so yeah" but it could have been easily avoided by reading cards on case.

Also cross apply on case ev with off case positions, and cross apply off case cards on case if necesary.

Concede arguments strategically. - Like conceding a case answer that warming is not an impact - then taking out the other team's warming impact.

Topicality

the aff is probably reasonably topical, so you gotta tell me why they are BAD for debate under your interp- not just whether or not they are topical.

Disads

Most DAs this year are non-unique. If you win an impact outweighs story, i am inclined to vote for ya.

Counterplans

You must win solvency, competition, and a net ben. If not, the cp fails and you've gotta go for something else.

By the way, for the aff, "perms" usually are not literally doing the cp or doing both. They are a test of competition. If I don't have to choose between the cp or the plan -> then the CP is not competitive and I have to vote on the perm. If the CP cannot be done with the plan, and is textually and functionally different than the plan, then you have beaten the perm. Or you can run it as an advocacy and do that but usually you shouldn't have to.

Kritiks

Explain it well, but not TOO well, if you know what I mean. Ks are either super strong, or super weak. Super strong Ks should be fully developed and explained completely throughout the entire debate - like security, to an extent. Weaker high theory Ks, should be sort of fogged up until the 2NR, and be explained throughly in the 2NR.

CX

Ask questions for a purpose.

Make sure to ask clarifying questions. You should be flowing, but missing an argument can be fatal to your chances of winning, especially theory args (reasons to reject the team).

You should never end CX early, even for prep. Your partner should be the one prepping the most right now, since they have the next speech, and you can def ask more questions.

You should try to establish a uq/link/impact/etc in the cx if you can.

I feel like teams severely underutilize cx. Remember, CX IS binding.

Also, don't lie in the CX (unless it's a crazy strategic plan that you've cooked up at 12am). This will come back to bite you if the other team says that your answer was binding.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speech Tips

1AC - Speak clearly - clarity is not necessarily as important in this speech since all of your cards will be sent anyway - just go fast

1NC - Remember, you don't have to demolish the 2AC with 15 off, you could just read a few, (or even a single K), and you could still win the debate while dodging a pretty clear condo link

2AC - Case should be 2-3 minutes most of the time. ANSWER EVERY SINGLE OFF-CASE ARGUMENT. please

Block (2NC/1NR) - Be strategic - spent most of your time on the 2NR strats. Don't be afraid to kick out of arguments here.

1AR - If your opponent was slow - answer ALL of their args. In most cases, they are super fast. The best way to give a 1AR is to think about it as a pre-2AR. Remember, the 2AR can only use arguments extended in the 1AR. Don't worry if you don't answer EVERY single arg, just extend the best args, and predict what the neg is going for in the 2NR. Also I love seeing people strategically undercovering a terrible argument and getting the neg to fall for the trap. Remember - you can read cards, but no new offensive arguments.

2NR - Tell me why I should vote for you AND why I should not vote for the aff. Literally tell me what I should say after the round, e.g. You vote neg because of conceded _______, which means ________, or _________ outweighs ________ because _________. Also, its pretty important to predict the 2AR. Pretend to be the aff, and see what they are winning on. Cover that argument, and your life will be a lot easier. Also, don't read cards (if the 1AR read cards, extend ur old ones; 1ar cards are usually bleh).

2AR - I mean i really dislike it when 2ARs lie, but I mean its part of the business i guess. Don't lie too much though or else i'll be super suspicious of you. The best arguments are ones where you don't need to lie on - but lie if you must.

For 2nd rebuttals, say "Judge, we win for _____ reasons" then explain.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For novices or inexperienced debaters (and I guess for better debaters too lol):

i will keep my camera off during the debate, then turn it on during the rfd

low chance i'll say "clear" bc you should already be clear -> if i can't understand what you said, i won't flow it. you should be explaining the important args as best you can through all of your speeches.

i can vote on presumption if I feel like it

if you say anything that is CLEARLY inherently discriminatory, you will get low speaks

clipping is low speaks, auto-loss if the other team points it out.

if you verbally concede, the judge stops their flow so DON'T CONCEDE SOMETHING THEN EXTEND IT

don't be a prick - don't be hyper aggressive and rude - don't be super condescending in cx - don't be a serious grump

be relaxed, but not TOO relaxed - have fun in your rounds - don't be too passive - do whatever you must to win

please come back next year the debate community needs/wants/cares for/[insert persuasive verb here]/etc. you.

All in all, enjoy the activity - if its not for you, i totally get it, but to be completely honest, the first year is pretty boring and you only get to do the fun stuff like travel in your 2nd year - so thats an incentive to stay i guess lol

don't focus on speed your first year (even though it will get super important eventually), focus on 1. Thinking of good arguments on your feet 2. Time management and being able to answer everything in 1 speech 3. Flowing and making sure that you answer everything AND call out dropped (or unanswered) arguments and finally 4. Bonding /w your team - this is also important.

any questions: jderosas@cps.edu

Theory in the 2-R-------------X--------------------------------*groan*

Policy------------X---------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------X-----------------------Truth

Read no cards---------X--------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------X---------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----------X-------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------------X----Link matters most

Limits---------------------------------------X-------Aff ground

Presumption-------------X-------------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------------X---------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Aff on process competition-----X----------------------Neg on process competition

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaker points:

be funni, clear, and structure your speeches

Parent judge. Feel free to speak at whatever speed is comfortable. Don't be afraid to ask questions. This should be fun and educational... not stressful.

- Josh (he/him)

I'm a former national circuit high school debater from the mid-1990's, but since that time I have not had much in-round debate experience until the 2020-2021 season.

My general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.

The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.

********

Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.

If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is not quite what it used to be. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 20-30% of your speed off would probably be helpful to you.

Please include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)

There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.

Please include me on the email chain -- I'll provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.

Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon or short-hand, some of which I can guarantee I'm not yet familiar with. (As an example, in a recent round, it took me a minute to infer that "a-spec", which I hadn't previously heard of, was just short-hand for "agent specification", with which I'm fairly familiar.) Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.

In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.

Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.

I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.

I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.

It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.

Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.

Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".

When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.

My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.

Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.

******

With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.

Mamaroneck '23

4 years of policy debate

he/him

Preferences:

If I can't hear what you're saying then I probably won't flow it. It's better to be clear than try to talk too fast. Fine with spreading.

Taglines/Author names mean nothing if you don't extend warrants or the actual arguments present in the card

flow flow flow flow

To win the debate you must not only refute the other team's arguments but prove why your own are superior. Usually the team who knows their own and their opponents' arguments best will win. Going for unique or creative arguments will be rewarded with more speaker points.

-----

Inspired by Jacob Miller's paradigm:

~

✔️-Open cross

✔️-Time your own *and* your opponents' speeches / prep / cross-ex

❌-Answering questions when your partner should be answering (if they ask you for help then that's fine)

❌-Stealing prep / taking too long to send documents / not knowing how to send documents

✔️-Writing your prep time on the board

❌-Ending speeches >20 seconds early. I don't think I've ever seen a team who ends their speeches earlier than the other team win a debate.

❌-Not splitting the block (2nc/1nr) with different arguments

❌-Being rude especially when you (think) you're winning

✔️-Good Impact Calc

~

PF:

I realize it's possible that I'll be judging PF so just in case you read my paradigm and are freaking out since I'm a policy debater/judge - don't worry I know how PF works; my brother used to do it.

Speaker Points:

Debate well and you'll get good points. Debating is hard but if you work hard you'll get better.

If you feel like I made a questionable decision, tell me. You should know why you lost/won on each argument/flow, and my goal is to help you become better debaters. A lot of judges don't take their role seriously and I find that stupid.

Overall

Be nice. Remember that I can be persuaded to vote on anything if it's warranted out well enough so don't let this paradigm sway you from arguing what you want to run. My preferences also don't govern the way I judge, they just influence it. I have no bias for or against either side.*coughs* I may have voted against your team or even you in the past but each debate is a new experience and nothing from outside the round carries on in.

Anderson High School ‘21

University of Texas at Dallas ‘25

Email: arikarch@gmail.com

I'm looking for some teams to coach and drill with for the 2023-24 season, so if I judge you and you're interested, feel free to inquire at the email above

I look favorably speaks wise on teams that have the email chain set up when we all get to the room, and unfavorably on teams that take forever (clearly stealing prep) to send the doc

I try to be as tab as possible, so you can read whatever you'd like, with a few exceptions

Things I won't vote for

• Stuff that happened outside the round
• Death good
• Frivolous theory
• Aliens

tough sell for word PIKs, and willing to vote aff on pdcp for a lot of counterplans.

tough sell for condo

My thoughts

Overall, you do you. I'm fine with pretty much anything except the stuff I listed right above. I'm comfortable with a variety of different things and I want students to go for what they like not what I like

Slow down, its better to read one less card than to be unclear. I am probably not reading your cards unless there is a dispute about what they say and I am specifically directed to. I flow based on what I can hear, not on what you have in the doc

I don't like overviews, most of your speech should be on the line by line, especially with the k, really long overviews are going to make you lose speaks

Clipping is an automatic L

Being exceedingly rude will make me not like you, and your speaks will suffer badly. Just chill. If you're making this space unsafe for others, L 20 automatically

Intro: Hello, I am Owen, a 2nd-year debater at William Jewell College (Mention Jewell and I will boost your speaks). Currently, I do NPDA/NPTE debate (NPDA/NPTE is essentially policy without cards). I debated for 4 years at Shawnee Mission South (Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water Resources). I have qualified to nats in pretty much any event I am judging you in and did 3 years of TOC-level debate.

Email for the Email Chain: owenkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask all the questions about all the things before the round

Please let me know pronouns before the round (if you feel comfortable)

Last update: 9/27/23

TL;DR Paradigm:

Feelings------------X-----------------------------Dead inside

Policy---------------------------------------X------K

Tech-X---------------------------------------------Truth

Conditionality good--------X----------------------Conditionality bad

Spec good------X----------------------------Spec bad

Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most---------------X-----------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Delgado 92

Desire is a productive force-X---------------------Desire is the lack

Try or die-X------------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits-------------------------------------------X---Aff ground

Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face--------X---------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer offs--------------------------------X---------More offs

Expressive--------------------------------------X---D. Heidt

Alt double bind------------------------------------------X-literally any other arg

Of course, theory/T is a priori---X--------------------------------Justify it

AT: ---X----------------------------------------------------- A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

Thoughts:

Disclosure is good - clipping is cheating - debate is a game, albeit with educational benefits, don't steal prep - I will call you out on it - flashing/sending the email isn't prep as long as you stop prepping - A dropped argument is a true argument - make sure to flow, even if you aren't good at it, it can only help you, and every time you do it you'll get better - paste your analytics into the doc if you have them typed up, leads to better debates that everyone gets more out of - go as fast as you want - if a CP or K alt is in the 2NR presumption flips aff? (this is very much up for debate)

- Being Racist/Sexist/Homophobic/Abelist/any other form of hate toward the other team, the 1st time I call you out and tank your speaks (unless it's egregious), 2nd time I vote you down, and we spend the rest of the round talking about why what you did was problematic. Debate should be a space where everyone feels safe.

- Please email me about my RFD's/questions/comments, as well as if I give an oral RFD (if I am allowed); feel free to ask questions about the decision after I am done

Judging Style: debate however you feel is best

Speaker Points: Clarity (especially in online debate) and smart args make your speakers rise; the opposite makes them sink. I will not hesitate to clear you. Clipping = 0 + L (1 warning).

Affs: Do whatever; I always read soft-left affs in HS, and K affs in college, and I am very much a marxist, which structures the way I think about pretty much everything. Not to say don't read your heg/econ aff, I think I can fairly judge it.

K-Affs:

• Aff vs FW - I view this as simply a question of models, the better job you do spelling out how your model looks for debate if I vote aff (or otherwise what voting aff does) the higher your chance of winning. Question I find myself asking (and think aff teams should make this arg more) - what edu does the topic generate and is that edu good when framed thru the lens of the aff?
• K v K - love this debate, do it, people don't do this enough. No strong thoughts about perms in a K v K debate.

Case: Debate case; it'll boost your speaks and help you

DAs: They are fine; I love a good politics debate

CPs: Any CP is fine until proven otherwise. Condo debate should be condo is good/bad - not sure there's a "good" number of condo. As with T debates, extend your interp, don’t drop the other team's interp; you need offensive reasons and defensive reasons. Read all of the perms but also put them in the speech doc; perms aren't advocacies; they are tests of competition, impact out perm theory. I will listen and vote on all types of CP theory; just win your arg (big fan of cheaty CP's, but def receptive to aff theory args to reject them)

Ks: If you wanna read a K go for it; win it like any other argument. The FW debate matters to me a bit more than most

T: I think of T as worlds of debate; win your world is better, and I'll be likely to vote for you; RVI's aren't real\

PF/LD: treat it like policy, focus on line by line and impact calc and you should win my ballot

P.S. If you have questions about college debate/college in general, don't hesitate to reach out

Tabula rasa

I am a new judge (as of the '22-'23 school year) that has never previously participated in any formal debate program. I have volunteered for all but one of the debate tournaments this year.

I do not know anything about the material covered other than what has been presented in tournaments so far. I am a former practicing attorney and will be looking for the team that makes the most compelling argument to win.

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

I have primarily read 'policy' arguments; however, you should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants.

I appreciate debaters who are simultaneously serious and kind. Being rude or condescending to your opponents will earn you lower speaks than you're probably hoping for.

T - I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantial on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. The aff can win by either presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model or impact turns alone. For me I will say that the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I'm alright for most process garbage. Although, I really enjoy specific process CPs that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I lean affirmative when there is equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that competes based off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve an impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example.

Theory - Generally I believe that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

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

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Nearly identical to Jasmine Stidham's thoughts)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

My Paradigm is extremely simple.

Firstly, I need to be able to understand the things that you say. The best debater isn't ALWAYS the fastest.

Secondly, I want to see strong clash and line-by-line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.

As a middle school debate coach and judge, I rarely vote on Topicality in a case file league, but I'm willing to if its played properly.

I have been judging the Novice team for a year.

I tried to judge in most of the tournaments last year.

I would prefer the debaters to speak in clear, attentive and normal paced, so I may be able to follow their arguments

If I feel the debaters are getting distracted or too slow or too fast paced, I try to raise my hand so they understand they need to stop so I can advise if they are going either too fast or laughing, distracted which may cause the other side lose track as well.

I have not read the core files, so would prefer a roadmap to begin with from the teams

I focus on debaters who are audible, clear, with good level of depth captured and present good rebuttals to the other team.

Glendale ‘21

Missouri State ‘26

rauhoffdebate@gmail.com---yes chain---please include tournament, round, teams debating, and sides in the subject line.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

Education (HS, debater)

Immigration (HS, debater)

Arms Sales (HS, debater)

Criminal Justice (HS, debater)

Water (HS, coach)

NATO (HS, coach)

Fiscal Redistribution (HS, coach)

Nukes (NDT, debater)

I was exclusively a policy debater in high school and I’m exclusively a policy debater in college. Debating the college nukes topic now. Currently coach for Glendale and cut lots of cards for them, so I will be up to date on the vast majority of the topic lingo.

FOR MISSOURI:

If I am judging you and you want to spread, I love it! You all don't get that opportunity much, and I remember being ecstatic in HS when I'd get a flow judge/panel at a Missouri tournament. However, there are a few things to note:

1---I very much dislike spreading that sounds horrendous. This looks like debaters mumbling through cards incomprehensively, making it impossible to distinguish tags/analytics from the body of a card, attempting to speak faster than you can read, etc---you should prioritize clarity over speed.

2---Your opponents should be able and/or willing to participate in a round with spreading.

3---I will flow, and will decide the debate based off of said flow.

I've noticed some debaters in MO bragging about not taking as much prep time as their opponents or making it a goal to not take prep time at all. I will audibly laugh if you stand up for the 2NR/2AR without prep, and immediately after the debate, tell you several things you could've used prep time for to improve your speech. Prep time is useful. It's there for a reason, and no debater that has ever stepped foot in a debate round is too good for prep time.

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

Will vote on whatever, just impact it out & tell me why your argument matters more than/outweighs your opponents’ argument. Don’t care if you read death good in front of me, but just know that the threshold for beating that argument is pretty low. Same goes for ASPEC/FSPEC/whatever weird stuff you feel is necessary to read.

I try not to be a very expressive judge, because I find these judges to be extremely annoying.

Clarity is more important to me than speed---go however fast you want, but make sure I can hear taglines/analytics, regardless of whether they’re in the speech doc or not. If you want to blaze through cards, that’s fine, just make sure I can hear like every fifth word or something.

Condo is good (within reason), judge kick is good, reasonability is stupid, utopian alts are stupid.

I will not adjudicate out-of-round events, regardless of the situation. My role is solely as an educator, not as an executioner. If you bring up an issue to me that has happened outside of the context of the debate round that involves your opponents and you refuse to debate the round, I will give all debaters involved a 27.5, immediately stop the round, and report the issue to tab/let them deal with it.

ONLINE:

Could not care any less if you have your camera on or off.

Slow down slightly.

Include analytics in the doc (don’t care if you do this in-person, but tech issues makes it important).

Use an external mic if possible.

TOP LEVEL:

Probably about 60/40 on tech v truth. If you explain to me why one matters more than the other, I will evaluate the debate that way. I lean slightly more tech, because you can’t just answer an extinction impact with “extinction won’t happen!” with no ev or warrants to substantiate that claim.

I typically vote pretty quickly, but this doesn’t mean the debate was bad or lopsided. All it means is that I feel as if the debate was clear enough argumentatively that I was able to adjudicate it without putting pieces together at the end or looking at evidence. This is my ideal situation. Debates are long and we all want to move on. That said, if I need to take 20 minutes to decide a debate, I will do so.

If you’re rude, it’ll affect your speaks in a negative way, though I might have a higher threshold for what I constitute as “rude” than most. For example, if you’re giving a long, drawn-out answer to a question and your opponent cuts you off, they’re not being rude---they have more questions to ask and you don’t get to use CX as 3 minutes of extra speech time. Calling an argument “trash” or something isn’t rude, but calling your opponents “trash” is. If you’re REALLY rude, it is possible for me to vote you down, but this is an extremely high bar that I’ve only come CLOSE to crossing once.

I will only intervene if neither side has made the arguments they’ve gone for clear. This is my least ideal judging situation. The more I have to intervene, the lower your speaks will be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I do not pretend to have a strict rule for speaker points, and they are adjusted on a tournament-by-tournament basis. What this means is that my average will be contingent upon various parameters of the tournament (i.e. size, pool, length, etc.). My average is a 28.5 and you’ll go up or down from there.

DISADVANTAGES:

They’re great and ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Politics DAs are awesome.

COUNTERPLANS:

They are also great and the other ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Textual v functional competition can be debated out. I don’t have particularly strong thoughts about either. Competition is more impactful than theory.

Conditionality is definitely good, but I’ll vote on condo bad if you decide to go for it. That will, however, require lots of work done on the line-by-line and there should probably be an example of in-round abuse.

Advantage CPs are great and underutilized at the high school level.

Multi-plank CPs are fine.

Probably better for Process CPs than most.

PICs are good, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Plan-plus counterplans are bad 99% of the time---not from a theory perspective, but from a substance perspective---just stop reading these

TOPICALITY:

Pretty bad for T vs policy affs, unless

1---The violation is obvious or

2---It’s a new aff.

In situations where your opponents break a new aff that has not been read commonly on the topic, I understand T as a last-ditch strategy and will give the negative some more leeway. That being said, if the aff IS clearly topical, it will still be difficult to get my ballot on T.

While I don’t consider myself a good judge for T, I do place importance on having good interps/reasons to prefer. It is possible for the aff to get my ballot with just a “we meet” argument, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Fairness & clash are not independent impacts---but rather internal links to impacts like education---this is especially true for T against K affs.

T is not an RVI.

Will not flow an ASPEC shell or any other theory shell if it's hidden inside a T shell---stop doing this

KRITIKS (on the aff):

In my ideal debate, the affirmative will defend a hypothetical plan through the USFG and the negative will negate the effects of said plan’s implementation. If I was a critical debater creating my pref sheet for a tournament, I would likely place myself in the 70% range. I personally believe that in an equally debated framework v framework debate, I am likely more easily persuaded by the negative.

In order to get my ballot, you will have to convince me of three primary things by the end of the debate:

1---My ballot in this particular round is key for the solvency of the affirmative.

2---The world of the affirmative creates a better model of debate than the negative, or at the very least, does not create a worse model of debate than the status quo.

3---The affirmative out-teched the negative team and voting affirmative outweighs the offense that the 2NR has.

If you think you are unable to convince me of these three things, you should not read a critical aff in front of me. While it may be harder to win my ballot than some judges, it will not be anything close to impossible. I will reward good debaters, regardless of the arguments they read.

Having a strong framework argument is integral to getting my ballot. In order to prove to me that the model of debate you produce is better or equal to the status quo, you will first have to win that debates over the resolution are bad.

KRITIKS (on the neg):

The three questions from above also apply to this section. In order to win my ballot, you will have to convince me that my ballot in this round is key to solve, that you create a better and/or equal model of debate than the squo, and that you have out-teched your opponents.

If your kritik is a DA, i.e. just “aff perpetuates x, no alt”, refer to the DA section.

I think that the Cap K is extremely strategic on this year’s HS topic---and I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on it if there’s a viable link to the aff. I think that it is extremely strategic to run this as more of a linear DA, too.

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.comif you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021

Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

--- LD ---

While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.

Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:

1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).

2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."

3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.

4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.

5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.

6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.

**LAKELAND: prep time ends when you send out the email or are ready to start your speech! **

Cornell '27, Mamaroneck '23

She/Her

Email: kiraptretiak@gmail.com & mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

!! Limited topic knowledge (include what acronyms stand for in tags & don't assume any knowledge of topic norms) !!

My priority is always making the debate a safe space. If you do not feel comfortable debating your opponent, please let me know before the round starts and I'll talk to Tabroom with you.

Should go without saying but don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. - L + lowest speaks + email to coach. If you have a Title IX allegation against you, strike me. Use content warnings when necessary - both before & during round.

Tech > Truth to the extent that an argument is fully developed and expressed in a logically sound way. For instance, "they dropped T, vote neg" (the novice special) isn't enough to get my ballot even if technically true because it lacks warrants and requires me to do too much work on the neg's behalf.

Read whatever you want. I think reading what you think aligns best with my personal argumentative preferences will probably hurt you more than help you if that strategy is not generally your preferred strategy i.e. read what you feel comfortable reading. I have a lot of respect for policy debate kids because I know how much effort it takes just to be able to attend a tournament!

Misc preferences:

• Name the email chain with useful info (tournament, round #, teams)
• If you're sending a marked doc, don't take out stuff you didn't read & mark it during the speech - questions about what cards were read go in cross-ex or prep time
• For online debate, turn on your camera or lmk if you can't
• Don't delete tags
• Novices - closed cross-ex
• I like jokes but pls be creative if you want to read a joke type argument (no a-z spec) - jokes abt mamaroneck debaters appreciated. If you don't know any, just name drop Jordan Davis (my former partner) or Jake Lee in your speech and I will be amused

Liberty University

Justicewdebate@gmail.com

Tech over truth. My goal is to judge debates with the least intervention possible. My paradigm is short because I have very few ideological predispositions about debate and decide debates accordingly. Debate is best when debaters respect their opponents, develop well researched arguments, and respond to arguments in the order that they are presented. Given this, debaters who view ethics challenges, Ad hominem, screenshots, etc as case negs should strike me. Debate is hard and I appreciate the time and effort debaters put into the activity. I hope to put similar effort into judging debates.

I generally judge middle school policy, if you aren't that ignore everything here.

I usually prefer tabula rasa (latin for blank slate), as a judging philosophy, your job is to convince me, and I can be convinced on pretty much anything. That said, there is one thing on which I refuse to budge, and that is T.

At the middle school level, the T arguments just don't make sense. The claim is that the aff is running a case the neg should not be expected to prep for, but in a core files league you know exactly which cases you could face, and thus this argument doesn't make sense. If someone does run T against you in front of me, all you need to do is say this argument and I will completely ignore T. So, don't run T in front of me.

Any other argument is completely fair game and as long as you prove it, I will be convinced.

I will always judge-kick the cp for novices, but if you aren't a novice you need to tell me to. If you don't know what judge-kicking is, please look it up or ask your coach about it.

For framing, I will default to util if debaters mention nothing, but if the debaters convince me on something else I will use that. Again, if you don't know what that means please ask for coach

The only other thing is that you don't need to take prep just to look for files, I know some judges require that but I don't. If you just need 30-45 seconds before your speech you can take that off the clock. I will start prep after this though, so please don't try to abuse it.

Finally, you can always finish your sentence, so don't bother asking and just keep talking (I will stop the timer)

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for six years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last three.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the CX can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a "K" Aff on me.