Tabroom.com

University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates

2023 — Athens, GA/US

Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:11 AM EDT

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Cecilia Cerja Hire 2 rounds None

Michael Cerny Woodward Academy 5 rounds

Josh Clark Montgomery Bell Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:01 AM EDT

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks
Damien

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
HSImpact.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.

Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.

Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.

The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss poverty and redistribution strategies this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.

Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

astrid meadow clough Chattahoochee High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 7:08 PM PDT

they/she. astrid, not judge.

astridmeadowww@gmail.com – email subject lines should be: “[tournament] round [#] – [aff team] – [neg team]”

ferris 19-21 – CM: arms sales, CJR. west georgia 21-23 – CF: antitrust. CL: legal personhood. gap year(s) 23-?.

conflicts: Chattahoochee high school, North Broward BK, Fox Chapel TR, Brookfield East SM

NDT doubles 2023, TOC participant 2021.

non-negotiables / “rules”

Debates have one winner and one loser. I will evaluate the entire debate. I will award speaker points at my own discretion. High school policy debates have 4 participants, each of whom gives one 8 minute constructive speech and one 5 minute rebuttal speech. High school LD debates have 2 participants and strange speech times, but I will enforce them regardless. Prep time is allotted by the tournament and ends when the document is sent, no earlier. Clipping accusations end the debate and are an issue for tabroom, not me. Safety concerns end the debate and are an issue for tabroom, not me. Please keep your shoes on. If something is not listed here, it is up for contestation.

notes on evidence practices

Everyone must highlight their cards in a way which makes a complete argument while maintaining coherent grammar and the authors intent. Most highlighting has become so atrocious that I will happily evaluate arguments along the lines of “this highlighting is horrible” as either reasons to strike evidence entirely or even vote a certain way. If arguments about highlighting quality are not made, poor highlighting will be reflected in poor speaker points and a frustrated RFD.

You can insert re-highlightings which amount to "they've misrepresented their own argument" or "this isn't actually what the evidence says" as long as you say analytically why this is the case. You must read re-highlightings which make a new argument. For example: alt causes, solvency deficits, disad link concessions, you get the idea.

tl:dr

policy – aff-neg all time voting record: 38-45.

LD – aff-neg all time voting record: 6-11.

Debate is good because it is a lawless, vacuous and sophistic game. Debaters should read whatever they deem the most strategic path to the ballot. No argument is off limits*. Tech over “truth” is absolute. A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant** and implication; incomplete arguments needn’t be answered and will not be evaluated. It is a debaters burden to make an argument before it is their opponents burden to answer it. I will hold the line on this.

*though I won’t immediately end the debate over someone forwarding a controversial or “evil” argument, I am very sympathetic to responses like “this argument is evil, reading it is a reason to reject the team regardless of the rest of the debate” when supplemented by a substantive response to the argument. Be reasonable. Make good arguments.

**some warrants are self-evident/implied. We needn’t have a debate about easily observable & provable phenomena which exist in the status quo. Use your intuition to determine the level of analysis you need to win each argument.

the long version.

Honestly, the rest of this paradigm is largely unimportant ramblings because of my near total ambivalence regarding content, but exists for the sake of optimizing everyone’s pref sheets given the tragic inevitability of pre-existing bias influencing how convincing any given argument is to me. I am imperfect. If something is evenly debated, exceptionally messy, or not debated at all, the following paragraphs are insights to my defaults and tie-breakers.

about me / overarching biases

I am a grumpy trans woman who cares about debate very much, though not for any external reasons like “community” or “skills”. I like debate because it is a space which allows people to be creative and express themselves and their ideas; I love debate because of the way those things are facilitated by and interact with its competitive form. I am a very competitive girl and a “policy” 2N at heart, but I have primarily read critical arguments throughout my career given the size of programs I’ve attended, partner preferences, topics debated, and my more personal research interests.

I think of debate as very similar to music. In the same way there is a very technical, theoretically complex, even mathematical way to go about each, there is also a much more artistic, fluid, and creative way. The best debaters and musicians are able to merge technical understanding and proficiency with an ethos which conveys unique ideas and character, though each school of thought is more than capable of producing something beautiful and revolutionary alone. If this doesn’t make sense to you don’t worry too much, simply do what you’re best at and I will appreciate it.

I’m more sympathetic to accommodations and arguments regarding flowability than a lot of judges. I am a slow writer, I am losing hearing in my right ear, and I flow on paper. I will have the speech document open to minimize my errors, but I will only check it to clarify and elaborate on arguments I’ve already heard. I will not use it to fill gaps and compensate for anyone’s lack of clarity and organization. Please slow down on tags, authors, qualifications, dates, and analytics. If anyone else has a (non-safety) related accommodation request, send an email to me and your opponents before the debate so I have a record of it and can fairly evaluate arguments you may make if said accomodations are not met.

Influences & contemporaries include, but are not limited to: Geoff Lundeen, Sarah Lundeen, Jason Regnier, Adrienne Brovero, Dylan Kirkpatrick, Joe Skoog, Nathan Fleming, Julian Kuffour, Kate Marin, David Sposito, Jordan Keller, Patrick Fox, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz, Moss McCullough, and Blaine Montford.

on policy throwdowns

The affirmative has the burden of proof and the negative has the burden of rejoinder. For the negative this means, at least, I value case defense more highly than many and, at most, I am more willing to pull the trigger on presumption against poorly constructed affirmatives. For the affirmative this means the same emphasis on defense applies to disadvantages, and I'm very willing to listen to 2AC tricks like intrinsicness tests, weird permutations, and anything else you can think of that amounts to “this argument doesn’t necessarily prove the plan is a bad idea.”

I slightly prefer straight up policy strategies over tricky ones, but that is quickly overridden when the tricks are well executed and provide obvious strategic benefit. I value evidence quality and story both very highly in these debates. The best practice is obviously having both good cards and a good story. Though if lacking one, Debaters can get me to vote for an extremely contrived, improbable internal link chain if they have the evidentiary goods, and I am just as happy to vote for a smart analytic argument against contrived scenarios. Debaters should take time to clarify exactly how I should evaluate analytics vs evidence to minimize the chance of me evaluating these arguments in a way they may not like.

Magnitude times probability is not the only way to do impact calculus, and becomes exceptionally problematic when dealing with extinction because of the potential value of future generations. To resolve this, below a certain probability threshold, I think magnitude ceases to matter almost entirely. Given debate doesn’t deal with percentages, determining the threshold relies more or less on gut checks which are able to leverage the tech over truth paradigm. This means I’m probably better for soft left affirmatives or smaller disadvantages than a lot of policy people assuming both sides are reading comparably good evidence to defend their impact calculus.

I lean slightly affirmative on all theory questions except topicality because I prefer debates which contain less BS and more clash. My like/dislike for an argument is directly proportional to the amount of clash it is capable of producing or mitigating respectively. Impact turns have my heart. If the 2AR is 5 minutes of no neg fiat the floor of the 2A's speaks is a 29. If the 1NC is zero off the floor of both negative debaters speaks is a 29.

on critiques

I hate overviews. Do line-by-line. I’ve been around debate long enough I am familiar with most of this literature.

The most interesting and important things in these debates are competition and framework. If the aff gets to weigh the plan it will outweigh most critiques absent substantial case defense, and if the aff doesn’t get to weigh the plan it will usually lose if the critique is competitive. What exactly makes a critique competitive is up for debate, but consider that permutation debates get really messy absent a theory debate which tells me how I should evaluate the kind of competition created by the link. If the link is to discourse, but the permutation says the alternative doesn’t functionally compete with the plan, I’m not sure how to compare those because they operate on totally different levels. The critique needs to disprove the desirability of the aff. I am probably not voting negative on “the aff is bad because didn’t solve everything ever”, but I am willing to evaluate negative link arguments to basically anything which is present in affirmative speeches, not just the plan.

KvK debates are probably where I’m the worst because of the aforementioned competition point. These debates are messy because the permutation is OP and I’m not sympathetic to “no permutations because it’s too broken” given the obvious aff response is “no permutations is even more broken.” That said, the standard for competition is much lower in these debates and I’m far more down for PIK type arguments than I would be against a policy aff. If you have me in the back for one of these feel free to get super far into the weeds of your literature. I know lots of authors commonly read in debate disagree with each other over small issues, but this usually gets ignored because the scope is so small that it doesn’t work within the usual argumentative strategy of debate. KvK debates are where those disagreements can see the light of competition. Just tell me exactly what it is about the affirmative your criticism disagrees with – be it their theory of power, their entire advocacy, their tactics, the fact they’re reading the aff in debate, author choice, language, or whatever – and cover the rest of your usual bases and I’m down to decide the debate over something which may seem extremely miniscule when compared to the usual scope of disagreement in debate.

Though the above maybe reads like I'm a hater, I promise I'm not. I spent high school reading either Baudrillard or Deleuze on both sides and I spent my only full year of college going for Marxism in every single negative debate against an affirmative with a plan except the two I went for topicality. I still spend my free time reading postmodern philosophy. My current thing is Bataille if anyone cares. The policy debater in me likes when links are more specific to the affirmative and able to re-contextualize advantages in favor of the negative, while the high theory hack in me says the negative can create link arguments from anything they choose, especially if the block is hot and the 2AC is not. The "death" K is OP.

on topicality framework

If you are only ever on side of this debate, I am fine for you, but you should probably pref me below people who will be more biased in your favor. If you are a team who reads a critical affirmative, but wants to maintain the option of going for framework on the negative, you should pref me very highly.

My biases on this question very slightly favor the negative, but the affirmatives preparation advantage in these debates generally offsets those biases because, when evaluating these debates, I care more about specific analysis and world building than anything else. Impact work is framed by the interpretation / counter-interpretation debate. Aff teams should think more about the counter-interpretation (and reasonability). Neg teams should be more willing to punish aff teams that don’t bother trying to mitigate their offense. Everyone should read less blocks and do more line-by-line.

My overarching personal belief regarding this activity is that the only intrinsic, inherent, and terminal impact to debate is debate itself. Thus, I tend to vote for whatever model produces the best debates. When determining the best model, I think of fairness and education as the thesis and antithesis which produce the synthesis of debate. Both are necessary components of the activity, but neither is enough in and of itself to create a model worth defending. Conversely, a model which substantially or entirely lacks one or both is worth criticizing. No model is perfect and there is ample, specific, nuanced ground for both sides in these debates.

That said, debate means something different to each person and it is not my place or within my ability to dictate what each person gets out of this activity or why each person is here, so arguments about community, skills, and other things which I may not personally be here for, but someone else conceivably may be, are still worth making. These arguments are most convincing when articulated as internal links which influence the quality of rounds and least convincing when articulated as ends in and of themselves (though I have voted on & once went for “framework solves extinction”).

Not rehashing any obvious content takes here. Yes switch side and the TVA matter. Yes the aff matters. Yes structural and procedural fairness are different. etc. etc. Framework debates are more or less a "solved" part of the game which now exist more as a formula for teams to execute or a logic problem for judges to solve than anything new or unique. This is why my preference in these debates is for more specific arguments about how a given affirmative on a given topic interacts with the broader models defended over arguments everyone has heard for almost as long as I've been alive. If you would like to talk to me more about my thoughts regarding the meta-theory of strategy games, my email is at the top.

on speaker points

average points given: TBD

I am still working to determine my overall margin of error when compared to the average, but I know I tend to give points on the lower end. So I’m offering opportunities to get free points to offset my tendency to underrate debaters which also make the world a slightly better place.

+.1 for bringing me black coffee before the debate

+.1 for full open-source. tell me after the 2AR.

email me with any questions, job offers, scouting requests, or other inquiries. happy to talk, coach, or judge debate whenever.

Abhiram Dasari '23 Alpharetta HS 6 rounds

Blake Deng Woodward Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Melissa Eldridge Landmark Christian School 2 rounds

Brett Flater Druid Hills High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 21, 2023 at 12:21 AM EDT

Add me to the e-mail chain: brettflater@gmail.com

He/Him/His

tldr; I've been out of uber competitive debate for a while. If you make the debate difficult to flow, I'll make decisions based on my understanding. If you make the flow clear, I'll make decisions based off the flow. Being nice and respectful comes before winning a debate; don't be mean or disrespectful.

I have not judged on this years topic and have read very little about the topic. Do not expect me to know much of anything about the topic. I'm not deep in the literature so default to over-explaining instead of under-explaining.

Things to know

1. I am an educator first and foremost - this means I care more about the process of learning and being good people who help others learn than I do about your rep or what an amazing debater you are. Debate should be educational and help to build a community; it should not be used to tear down individual debaters, teams or schools.

2. I've been out of competitive debate for a while - I'm the old guy who doesn't understand the new, hip stuff with debate. I'm open and will vote on whatever is on the flow, but you might need to explain things in more depth than you would for a highly competitive college debater/coach. Make the impacts clear and make it clear where on the flow things are coming from. Debate jargon and terms that are clear to you may not be clear to me. Overexplain the arguments you want me to vote on.

3. Just because the argument is on your flow does not mean that it made it on to my flow. I'll vote on what's on my flow...not yours. You can help make sure your arguments are on my flow by: a) giving clear road maps; b) numbering your arguments; c) ensuring you are doing clear line by line debating with clear verbal signals about where you are.

4. I am a big believer in extending and building upon arguments. I likely will not vote on new arguments in the last two rebuttals, or if I think they are new in the last two rebuttals. Make it clear where on the flow your arguments are coming from....failure to do so risks me now weighing them because they seem new.

5. Your job is to adapt to me. Regardless of if you are right or you "won," if you didn't adapt to me and my background, you didn't win. I'm usually good at giving you visual feedback. It might be good to pay attention to those cues.

More Specific Debate Stuff

T - I will vote on it as long as you prove to me: a) that the plan is not topical; b) that your interpretation is better than their counter-interpretations; c) that there is some impact (either in round or potential) that will happen.

K/Framework debates - I'm open to these arguments and will vote on these. I'm not deep in the literature so don't assume I know things. Provide clear explanations of links and impacts. Negs often fail to be able to explain how the alt truly solves. I'm less likely to believe do both perms on Ks, though I'll vote on them if you win the argument in the round.

Identity/more modern K debates - These have developed in more depth after I left competitive debate. I'm open to the ideas though am not sure how to evaluate and make sense of them in a debate round. If you want me to vote on these, a) make sure you read my notes above about the role of debate; b) make sure you understand that I am an educator first; I care about these issues in real life far more than I care about them as a competitive argument that will help you win a debate round. Trivializing these issues could convince me to vote against you and give you extremely low speaker points.

DA/CP Debates - I'm new to the idea of multiple advantage specific counterplans. I'll happily vote on CP/DA. Prove to me why perms can't solve and do good impact calculus of net benefits v. case/perms.

Case debates - make them meaningful; I hate blippy case arguments that have little explanation. You probably know the details of the case way better than I do. Don't assume I know the details and specifics. Make it clear to me (on either side) so I know what you are talking about.

Underview - These guide my general approach but details of what happens specifically inside of a debate round could change my approach. Please use this as a guideline, not as a hard and fast rule book.

Debate background

Debate teacher and educator for almost 20 years

Current coach at Druid Hills High School (we are rebuilding a competitive policy program)

Coach at Rockdale County High School (Part of AUDL) - '15 - '18

Heavily involved with running urban debate leagues (Atlanta, Los Angeles, Boston, Baltimore) '00 - present

Limited college debate at Emory (00 - 04) - I was not very interested in doing competitive college debate...no NDT/CEDA, etc. experience

High school debater at Iowa City West (97 - 00);

Eric Forslund Pace Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

Andrew Gollner Woodward Academy 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 9:30 AM EDT

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

Rahul Gudapati Woodward Academy 6 rounds

Sam Haley-Hill Capital City 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 10, 2022 at 5:06 AM EDT

TLDR VERSION

I've been around a long time. I've seen a lot of conventional wisdom come and go. I don't always agree with the consensus of the moment. Be fast, be clear, read a K and/or a counterplan.

Remote Debates:

I flow on paper and actually make an effort to watch you and listen to the words you are saying. It's hard to give speaker points to a glowing dot, so turn on your camera when speaking if possible. I will not follow the speech doc as you are talking, so be clear.

Want to be on the email chain? - Yes, but know that I won't look at the docs until the debate is over.

Please send docs to: samhaleyhill@gmail.com

Speed? - Yes

Open CX? - Sure, but if you aren't involved somewhat, your speaker points suffer.

When does prep time stop? - When you cease to alter your speech doc and to talk about the debate with your partner.

Judge Disclosure - Unless the tournament has some terrible counter-educational policy preventing it (looking at you, NCFL).

Can I read (X argument)? Yes, if it's not offensive.

T? - Reasonability (whew - really feels good to be honest there)

Will you vote on disclosure theory? - No. Disclosure is a good community norm which I support, but I do not think ballots can or should enforce this norm. The exception would be if you can prove that someone straight up lied to you.

Tech over truth? - Yes, but I think people often take this way too far.

FULL VERSION

Biography

Years Judging: 16
Years Debated: 4

I debated for four years in high school for Nevada Union (1998-2002) during which time I made two TOC appearances. I did not debate for Berkeley during my time there, but I was an assistant coach for the College Preparatory School from 2002-2006. After that, I was off the circuit for a few years because I moved to Hong Kong for a year and then went to graduate school. 2010-2011 was my first year back. I worked for New Trier for a year after that and at Nevada Union from 2011-2012. After that I went back to CPS for three more years. I then spent four years running the program at St. Francis. I now work with the Washington Urban Debate League. I have judged a lot for a long time.

Tech Over Truth - This is not dogma

I think that the phrase "tech over truth" is just as vacuous as its inverse, "truth over tech." I honestly have no idea what either of these slogans is trying to say, but I do know that people who repeat either of them incessantly tend to make decisions that I don't get.

"Tech" is just as subjective as "truth" because whether someone's embedded clash has answered something, whether an argument has a warrant, whether someone has explained something enough to have extended it, etc. are all judgement calls at some level anyhow.

I think that dropped arguments are conceded. I think that I should refrain from dismissing arguments that I don't agree with. I think that arguments which I think are bad should still win the debate if the debater advancing them has argued better than the opponent. I guess that's tech over truth?

At the same time, I am the kind of judge who thinks that one compelling, well-developed argument can be more important than three specious, underdeveloped ones. I don't think that the concession of a less significant argument necessarily outweighs a more significant argument that is won despite contestation. Is that truth over tech? Is this whole tech vs. truth binary kind of pointless?

My bumper sticker slogan would be something like: "Analysis over blips."

Speaker Points - No, you can't have a 30.

It used to go without saying that I award speaker points solely based on how well I feel the debaters performed in each round. These days, it seems that I need to say that I will continue to do this regardless of what anyone else does and regardless of what debaters tell me to do during the debate.

I think that there's a performative/communicative aspect to this activity. Speak persuasively and your points will improve.

Try to be nice.

Judge Disclosure - I do it.

I'll disclose my decision and talk about the round with you in depth afterwards. I remember getting a lot out of post-round discussions when I was a debater, and I hope I can pass something along. If your analytics are in your speech docs for my later reference, I'll even give you my flows.

Speed - Go ahead, but be clear

I can flow any rate of delivery.

Lately, someone out there has been telling high school debaters to slow down and emphasize tags. Stop it, whoever you are. This advice implies that I don't care about the text of the card. In fact, I care about how you tagged the card far, far less than I care about what the text of the card actually says. When you slow down for the tag, but slosh unintelligibly through the card, you are implying that I can't understand high speed and that the actual card text is a mere formality. If this is so, you may as well just paraphrase the card like a PF debater.

Believe it or not, I actually can understand your card at high speeds if you read it clearly. I'm actually flowing what the card says. Often as not, I won't flow your (often misleading) tag at all.

I'll yell "clear" at you if you're not being clear. I'll do this twice before putting my pen down and pointedly glaring at you.

Line By Line - Please and Thank You

I'll look at evidence, sure, but I will be grumpy if you make me sort out a huge rat's nest of implied and unexplained clash for you. I am a believer in directly responsive line-by-line debate. I think that explaining warrants is good, but comparing warrants is better.

Framework - Can't we all just get along?

I am one of the last folks out there who won't take a side. I vote neg on framework sometimes; I vote aff on framework sometimes. I think framework debates are kind of fundamental to the activity. I'm up for any kind of argument. I love a good K debate, but I'm equally pleased to adjudicate a game of competing policy options. Run what you love. In my heart, I probably don't care if there's a plan text, but I'll vote for theory arguments demanding one if the better debating is done on that side. Please don't read offensive/amoral arguments.

Conditionality - Yeah, sure, whatever

I think one or two conditional CP's and a K is just fine. You can win a debate on conditionality being more permissive than that or being bad altogether. I won't intervene.

T - I am different from the folks at Michigan

I think that winning complete or nearly complete defense on T is sufficient for the aff even in a world of competing interpretations. If the aff meets, they meet. I'm unlikely to give this RFD: "Even though you're winning a we meet, the neg interpretation is better, so any risk that you don't meet etc etc." Ever since someone told me back in 1999 that T should be evaluated like a DA, I have not agreed. It's a procedural issue, not a predictive claim about the consequences of implementing a policy. As such, I evaluate T procedurally. Whether or not the aff meets is a binary question, not a linear risk.

I think sometimes people think that "competing interpretations" means "the smallest interpretation should win." To me, smallest is not necessarily best. Sure, limits are a big deal, but there is such a thing as over-limiting. There are also other concerns that aren't limits per se, like education, ground, and predictability.

I can be persuaded otherwise in a debate, but I think we should evaluate T through the lens of reasonability.

Open Cross Ex - Yeah

Just make sure that you're involved somewhat or I'll hammer your speaks.

Disclosure theory

Stop it. People choose to disclose as a courtesy. It is not and should not be a requirement. I tell all my teams to disclose. I think you should disclose. If you choose not to, so be it.

If you make a disclosure theory argument, I will ignore you until you move on to something else. I will never vote on a disclosure theory argument, even if it is not answered.

I always find it sadly hilarious when big, brand-name programs tell me that disclosure is good for small schools. It most definitely is not. The more pre-round prep becomes possible, the more that coaching resources can be leveraged to influence debates. That's why the most well-resourced programs tend to be the most aggressive about disclosure theory.

New Affs

New affs are fine. I will not consider arguments which object to them, even if the aff team never answers such arguments.

Jeremy Hammond Pine Crest School 2 rounds

Charlie Harris Landmark Christian School 2 rounds

Reid Wylie Hornsby Hire 3 rounds

Emma Huey Alpharetta HS 6 rounds

Shunta Jordan Hire 1 rounds

Jordan Keller Chattahoochee High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 4:52 PM PDT

Jordan | UWG 26 | 2x CEDA quarterfinalist

jrelleks2@gmail.com

Before anything else, I am a fan of ruthlessness when debating. If a team drops an entire process counterplan, please just extend the counterplan, answer any offense they have elsewhere, and collect the W. This mindset also applies to other TKOs like theory.

TL;DR is anything goes, I anticipate I will judge a lot of clash debates. I further anticipate that I will be best for technically skilled critical teams and policy teams that engage with the theoretical substance of critical arguments. For whatever this information is worth, I read the largest affirmative on the college nuclear weapons topic and exclusively go for the K on the negative.

I am a debate judge. I am not a policymaker, anti-ethicist, or public speaking educator. I evaluate debates as faithfully to the line-by-line as possible, but recognize that nobody can leave who they are at the door. I challenge everyone to consider what it means to be "tabula rasa"--blank slate--when the status quo is characterized by racism, ableism, sexism, trans/queerphobia, and the like. I could never in good-faith wholly abandon my experiences as a queer disabled person, alongside the personal research informed by that subject position, for the sake of a debate round.

That being said, I prefer technical, tricky debating over all else. I strongly believe that both teams should take whatever necessary action to maximize their chance of winning. Importantly, the quality of an argument does not reciprocally determine the quality of necessary responses--you should respond bravely and efficiently. "Bad arguments" are "bad" because their counterarguments are "good". I am--and have been--more than willing to vote on "no cause and effect," "death is good," "the United States refers to the United States of Mexico," etc.

Fair warning--while I think I am a good flow, I have an auditory processing disorder. Sometimes I just won't catch things.

Topicality.

Competing interpretations vs. reasonability. Winning reasonability sets the bar much lower for an affirmative victory, especially when they have defense elsewhere. Unless the negative is winning the full magnitude of a violation and a large (and convincing) limits story, it would be very difficult for them to come back from a concession or mishandling of reasonability. On the contrary, competing interpretations makes it much easier for the negative to win--I believe the best terminal impact to topicality is debatability, which limits has a very convincing internal link to.

Impact calculus. Judge instruction is just as important in these debates as anywhere else. Direct comparison along the lines of "aff ground outweighs neg limits because x, y, z..." is how topicality debates under competing interpretations are won and lost.

Evidence comparison. Absent clear judge instruction or a "precision"/"grammar" standard, I will not read evidence or compare it on my own. Evidence comparison is crucial in close topicality debates, and that goes further than "their ev has no intent to define." I much prefer arguments along the lines of "their ev has no intent to define, therefore it cannot be an accurate nor predictable vision of the topic."

Plan text in a vacuum is intuitive, but oftentimes poorly debated. It is unclear to me how you determine topicality if not by the relationship between the plan text and the resolution.

Counterplans.

The negative can do whatever they can theoretically justify, but the more extreme an offense, the harder to justify--such is the logical implication of tech over truth. I will curtail my disdain for "generic" positions for the sake of an accurate decision. Anything that rejoins the affirmative is legitimate.

As far as theory goes, most arguments are so poorly developed in the 2AC that they can be readily dismissed as reasons to reject the argument rather than the team. I will not arbitrarily abandon the offense/defense paradigm for questions of theory unless justified by reasonability. If the 2NR drops "dispo solves" or some other terminally defensive TKO, you can--and should--swiftly win on conditionality. I do not share the popular predisposition that any answer to conditionality is sufficient, and 2Ns are getting away with murder in these theory blocks. In truth, though, conditionality is probably good...

DAs.

I am increasingly frustrated with lack of impact calc and turns case analysis. They are of crucial importance.

2Ns can do whatever as long as they have evidence supporting the causal chain of events that connects the passage of the plan to some negative impact. That includes a wide range of arguments from politics to links to fiat to whatever disadvantage is most popular on the topic. DA + case 2NRs are fun and far too rare.

2As should capitalize on the variety of tricks at their disposal. "DA not intrinsic" and "fiat solves the link" are short arguments that 2Ns underestimate the value of.

Please don't insert rehighlightings--read them. When judging I try not to open speech documents until the round is over.

Critiques v policy affs.

Do not assume superior knowledge on my part. Explain your argument, preferably without a minute+ long overview.

Critical teams have many tricks at their disposal to win these debates. I prefer techy, tricky, quick K debate. I will quickly vote negative if they are dropped or poorly answered--there are some concessions from which the 1AR and 2AR, no matter how valiant, cannot recover. Dropping "vote neg to do the aff without the links" or "you link you lose" are examples of these. Tech over truth does not falter just because the negative is reading critical theory rather than the politics disadvantage.

Framework is the most important consideration. I will never settle on a middle ground, however I think the best interpretation is one that weighs the consequences of the plan against the link arguments the negative is making to the affirmative's rhetorical and epistemological commitments. Critiques either need to fully moot the 1ac or "artificially" generate competition for some counterplan-style alternative in order to win. Otherwise, it's a nonunique DA that is easily outweighed by the case.

Link specificity is a must. Links can be to anything--the plan, their rhetoric, etc.--but they should always implicate the passage of the plan.

I am a K debater. I have experience in literature bases such as queer theory, disability studies, critiques of anthropocentrism, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, prison abolition, and Marxism.

The best 2AR is probably framework.

Tabroom will not allow me to use the language I require to articulate my disdain for "give me a 30" style arguments.

Framework and planless affs.

On the affirmative--pick a strategy. I have read and judged both impact turn strategies and counterinterpretation + link turn strategies. I prefer the former. By the 1AR it is often true that your counterinterpretation does not serve any defensive purpose--i.e., it cannot solve limits--but it can generate uniqueness for your impact turns, which is important. In impact turn debates I am better for "topicality is unenforceable, competing interpretations is a fantasy" than "our model is better"--affirmative teams tend to have more success when they call into question some of the tension underlying strict framework interpretations.

On the negative--framework on the negative is just as much a medium for "tricks" as critiques on the negative are. You should use everything you have at your disposal, whether that means "vote neg to vote aff, no ballot key warrant," "can't know if the aff is true if we can't test it, vote neg on presumption," or "judges don't have the jurisdiction to vote on non-topical affirmatives."

In truth and as much as my sympathies lie with critical affirmatives, most of them lose to the TVA or they lose to SSD. The affirmative should critique the form of debate (or the process of debating under a given resolution) as much as possible--otherwise, a 2N that correctly identifies the affirmative's weakness will quickly win.

I will evaluate fairness as an impact if told to. However, is the point of debate not to minimize fairness for your opponents? And in doing so, are we not as well minimizing clash?

I am interested in more creative approaches to framework. What does it mean that teams write critical affirmatives around the existence of framework? There are certainly teams that write critical affirmatives specifically so that they can have the framework debate often. Perhaps this insight could provide uniqueness for the negative, or nonuniqueness for aff impact turns?

If the aff links to one of the topic disadvantages, please just go for that instead.

KvK debate is fun and it is what I pride myself in researching most. Lack of predictability does not abdicate the negative of responsibility for link specificity, but because establishing competition is hard I am far more amenable to floating PIK style arguments in these debates. These critiques should have built-in framework arguments that set a different standard for competition.

Other.

I give speaker points based off vibes and nothing else. I hope my average is higher than most.

I've found that when people do the thing where one partner--the non-speaking one--says something, and then the speaking partner repeats it, it makes it really difficult to flow.

UWG Debate. If you have any questions about debating at the University of West Georgia, don't hesitate to reach out to me. We are a storied, long-standing debate program about an hour away from Atlanta that offers cheap tuition.

Music. Feel free to play it if we are in person. If I like your music, I might increase your speaks. I personally listen to a lot of hyperpop, fifth-wave emo, and indie music, but I enjoy mostly everything.

Be nice people.

Nick Lepp Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 11:52 AM EDT

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

I use he/him pronouns.

Last updated: 1/31/2024

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

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

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

Top level things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I decide debates:

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

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

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

Other misc things:

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

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

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

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

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

I do not follow along with speech docs during debates.

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

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

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

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

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

Some specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Challenge Addendum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raleigh Maxwell Montgomery Bell Academy 3 rounds

Beth McMahon Decatur High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 2:31 PM EDT

Atlanta Urban Debate League (UDL). Decatur, Ga. Currently I teach AP Lang and direct a small AUDL program without a ton of institutional support but in a previous life I coached mostly policy on the national circuit. In fact, I've been around long enough to see the activity go from notecards in ox boxes to xeroxed briefs to some computerized debates to having everything online. I prefer to flow on paper because that's how I learned back in the dark ages.

You can put me on the E mail chain: mcmahon.beth@gmail.com.

For UDL tournaments:

I am an old school policy coach and do not love the K (even though my teams do run it) because teams just read their blocks and don't evaluate the round. That said, if you run the K, awesome -- be ready to debate the line by line and go for something other than framework. See my note below about having an advocacy of some sort.

For the Barkley Forum: If you are in speech events, know that my background is in policy. If you are a policy debater, know that I haven't judged a lot of varsity debates this year so watch the topic specific acronyms. From what I've seen it will be fine but just wanted you to be aware.

Old stuff:

Current Urban Debate League coach (Atlanta/AUDL) but a long time ago (when we carried tubs, no one had a cell phone, and the K was still kinda new) I used to coach and judge on the national circuit. I took a sabbatical from coaching (had kids, came back, things have changed, no more tubs). I still flow on paper and probably always will. FYI -- I have not judged national circuit varsity debates consistently since 2008 when I worked at a now-defunct national circuit program that had some money for travel. I've been told I'm more tech over truth and although I enjoy listening to K debates I don't have a K background (my national circuit experience has all been old school policy so like DA plus case plus CP). If you are a K team I expect some sort of ADVOCACY not just a bunch of block reading and a framework dump. If you don't have a plan you still need to advocate FOR something. Theory dumps are very frustrating to me because I don't know how to evaluate the round.

Crystalizing the round in rebuttals is an important skill - especially in front of a judge like me that did not spend 8 weeks at camp nor has read all of the lit. Or maybe any of the lit. You absolutely will be more familiar with your evidence than I will so please don't expect that kind of deep dive into the post round discussion. There was a point in my life when I could have those discussions, but I'm not there anymore. I am however more likely to buy your case attacks or a topicality argument so there's that.

Notes for IE/LD -- I judge more policy debate than LD/IE/PF/Congress but at some point this year have judged all of the above. I tend to be more tech over truth with LD and am looking for some sort of impact analysis of the values presented. My policy team does not run the K and debates more traditionally -- one of the most underutilized strategies in LD is to debate the other team's case.

Henry Mitchell Pine Crest School 4 rounds

Jack Mruz Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 9:30 AM EDT

ctrl + f "Planless Affs v. T", “Policy Aff v. T”, "Policy Aff v. CP/DA", "Policy Aff v. K", or "K v. K" for relevant sections

Cambridge '20

Georgia '23 (https://comm.uga.edu/debate/recrutiment or email jstupek8@gmail.com) Go Debate Dawgs!

they/them. ask your opponents what pronouns they prefer before the round and stick to them. pls call me jack or big dawg not judge

jackmdebate@gmail.com - please have the 1ac sent by the round start time.

mc hammer reads philosophy, you should too

i am autistic, don't read into my facial expressions as a reliable predictor of the ballot. apologies in advance for any confusion

IF YOU READ GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF VIOLENCE, INCLUDE A TRIGGER WARNING AND HAVE A VERSION OF THE CARDS OMITTING THE GRAPHIC DETAILS READY IF SOMEONE INDICATES IT'S AN ISSUE. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE TRAUMATIC FLASHBACKS BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO TYPE OUT A SENTENCE ON THE WIKI/AT THE TOP OF THE DOC.

*i have hearing difficulties, please either send the doc you're reading from or SLOW DOWN. i.e. you probably don't need to send your T-USfg 2NC analytics but make sure you're reading them at a speed that people that don't have the exact blocks you're looking at in front of them can still understand

**LD/PF - i only competed in policy and i'm unfortunately unfamiliar with the particular nuances of LD/PF debate so i am more likely to vote for substantive arguments than procedurals that rely on an understanding of LD/PF debate norms.

Top Level

- debate is too serious. i enjoy fun rounds, i greatly appreciate jokes. kindness is underrated - opponents are (most likely) not your enemy but rather fellow participants in an extracurricular activity who have decided to spend their weekend debating with you instead of doing literally anything else. please treat them that way.

- you get three perms per arg. new 1AR articulation of the perm warrants new 2NR responses.

- i am uncomfortable with being asked to adjudicate things that occurred outside of the round. (note: i consider the round to start when the pairing comes out, so disclosure theory etc. are still fair game i just have the same institutional (lack of) capability to handle things like Title IX violations as you). i take ethics violations very seriously. if you believe your opponents have behaved in a manner inconsistent with ethical participation in this activity, let me know and i'll contact tab instead of starting the round.

- racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anything that makes the round unsafe is a quick way to earn an instant L and zero speaker points. i will not hesitate to intervene.

- speaker points: my range is generally high-27s to mid-29s. i would probably be considered a point fairy but occasionally it goes the opposite way so warning you in advance. making and executing strategic decisions in rebuttals is the best way to get higher speaks in front of me. i reward taking risks. while i try to hold the line on new args, most judges are inherently suckers for a lying 2A. contextualizing your arguments to the other side’s will earn you more points than just spreading through a K or CP explanation written by coaches four years ago devoid of context or specificity. i.e. "CP solves advantage 1 because [warrant], solves advantage 2 because [warrant]" as opposed to "CP solves entire topic because [warrant]" or "K solves our links and case because [warrant]" and not "THEY DROPPED THE ALT (they probably didn't if we're being honest), WE WIN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT'S JUST HOW DEBATE WORKS I GUESS".

Scale based on my immediate reaction after the speeches:

30 - Perfect. I do not want anyone I coach to hit you in elim rounds because it's gg.

29.9-29.5 - Woah. You're almost done! The summit is near and you'll be there with a few more practice speeches.

29.4-29 - Yo that was fire. Y'all did your thing and executed well. Good job!

28.9-28.5 - Nice!

28.4-28 - Pretty Good.

27.9-27.5 - Needs some work.

<27.5 - If I've given you this, you know what you did.

- the roughly two hours that i am in the room are your time. if you want to post-round me, go for it (although once i submit the ballot there's nothing i can do to change the decision) but please be courteous regarding your opponents' desires and make sure any more immediate concerns they may have have been resolved before we get into it

- read whatever you want. although i personally lean in certain directions on common debate args, i try to check as many biases as possible at the door and base my decisions on the actual debating done. i want to limit judge intervention as much as possible so comparison and telling me how i should resolve the debate is very important. if i don't have judge instruction coming out of the 2XR, i intervene to resolve the round the best i can. condo is probably the arg you are least likely to win in front of me but i'll vote for it if it's mishandled

- the status quo is always a logical option unless you tell me it isn't

- 2xr should start with: "[Our arg] outweighs [their arg] because"

- dropped args are true, it's up to you to make that matter though

- rather than tell you what i think about specific issues, i think it may be more helpful to disclose how i come to decisions. in the absence of a clear dub for either team, i evaluate the flow. if i can't come to a decision based purely on my flow and memory of the round, i read the ev for each arg and decide whether the cards support the args that are being made as well as which team has better ev for each specific arg. if i still can't come to a decision based on reading cards, i'll reconstruct the debate and necessarily fill in gaps for both sides based on my understanding of the best version of each team's args. YOU DO NOT WANT THIS. there is a non-zero probability that your cards are not as good as you think and potentially a very large probability that filling in the gaps works out better for the other team. to avoid this, DO GOOD COMPARISON. compare ev quality, risk of impact scenarios, EVERYTHING. i understand how frustrating it is when you catch an L after a super close debate because it feels like the judge did slightly more work for the other side. i do not want this for you. you do not want this for you. work with me and you'll probably be much happier with the result. in the absence of judge instruction, i will intervene as necessary to resolve the round.

Planless Affs v. T

- planless affs typically beat T in front of me with nuanced impact turns or a C/I based on counter-definitions of words in the resolution with a DA. i am not a good judge for C/Is that aren’t based in definitions of words in the rez as i am typically persuaded by the 2NR argument that it’s arbitrary and self-serving (which is irrelevant/actually good if you go for the impact turn to T). i'm most persuaded by fairness and clash as impacts to T. TVAs are defense, i won't vote on that alone so make sure you have offense against the aff's model (even if it's just that the TVA is good and the aff's model precludes reading it). i believe that procedural fairness is a terminal impact although i can be persuaded that it’s only an i/l if you make the arg

- i will vote on presumption if the neg proves that the aff just results in the squo

- i went double 2s most of my debate career. my favorite neg rounds in college were 2NC T/1NR Case but i read planless affs my senior year and prepped against T so i think i'm pretty 50/50 in these debates when equally debated

Policy Aff v. CP/DA

- affs typically beat the CP/DA strategy in front of me by either winning a solvency deficit to the CP that outweighs the DA or proving that the CP is not competitive. I will vote on zero risk of the DA but only if there's offense against the CP.

- probably a better judge for theory than most against CPs. i default to believing that CPs must be textually and functionally competitive but can be convinced otherwise absent aff warranted argumentation

- note for soft-left/K affs with a plan - although i am convinced by framing that says we should prioritize structural violence or reject util/extinction logic, you're not going to win on that alone if the neg has a CP that resolves the aff's impacts especially if the neg is winning that i should view CP solvency through sufficiency framing

Policy Aff v. T

- i am a grammar nerd, args that are based on grammatically incorrect definitions are unlikely to win in front of me i.e. i can't vote for "United States" is an adjective because that's wrong

- models are important

- i tend to do the most intervention in these debates. absent a 2NR/2AR that completely writes my ballot, i find myself resolving the round by going through my flow and the docs and reconstructing the debate with the best version of both sides' arguments.

Policy Aff v. K

- 2AR should be either fwk + case outweighs/offense OR fwk + perm + no link/alt fails. if the negative wins framework but the affirmative wins that the aff is a good idea it likely means that the aff's knowledge production is good which often solves the link.

- specificity is the most important thing is these debates. well-warranted analytics contextualized to your argument as well as the other team's will get you further than shotgunning cards with no explanation.

- if your 1AR/2AR framework explanation is entirely "you link, you lose bad" but they're going for links that have uniqueness you are probably going to lose.

- the vast majority of my college debate rounds involved cap sustainability debates so i am very familiar with the args made and ev read by both sides. although i personally believe that the cap bad cards are better, i've always cut the cap good file and will vote happily for McAfee (despite my personal belief that the card is garbage) if the other side doesn't explain their offense adequately.

- i tend to be persuaded by smart turn args regarding trivialization or cruel optimism when links seem especially contrived i.e. it's bad to say a team reading a soft left aff on a reform vs. rev topic is literally enacting physical violence against marginalized peoples "outside of the debate space" (this isn't to say i'm not persuaded by those same link args as i have and will continue to vote for "you link you lose" logic when it's debated well despite 2As whining)

K v. K

- these are the rounds i judge the least (although i find them to be interesting and wish i got to judge more) so i don't have many predisposed biases aside from defaulting to allowing the aff to read perms until the neg convinces me they shouldn't get them.

- i (believe i) am familiar with most lit bases, although this might work against you. for example, i do not want to vote for you if you read ev by José Esteban Muñoz and then claim that he makes a blanket "utopia bad" arg because that's the literal opposite of everything the author has written.

- if the neg wins the alt solves the aff, i vote neg.

- 2N - do not forget that the squo is a logical option. i.e. if you're winning that the aff doesn't solve and that there's risk of a link (for example, that the aff would cause backlash against [x] people), the squo is probably better than the aff regardless of whether or not you're winning alt solvency.

Theory

- condo is a yes/no question (i am unlikely to vote for "the negative gets [x] number of conditional advocacies", you should instead say "the negative gets NO conditional advocacies or dispositional advocacies etc"). i default to weighing the aff against the alt/squo but can be convinced to disregard the theoretical implementation of either of those options. probably not going to convince me that the neg should not get to read a K wholesale but that's more logical than some of the fw interps i've seen so ????...

- you probably should not read conflicting interps in the 1NC. 2AC to "T-read a plan" and "fiat bad" is really easy which negates any of the time skew benefits

- fiat - both sides get it until someone tells me they don't or wtv idk no neg fiat never really made sense to me but i'd vote on it if it's mishandled

authors whose work i found enjoyable or informative in no particular order: sylvia wynter, nietzsche, toni morrison, enriqué dussel, dahlma llanos-figueroa, judith butler, karl marx, gilles deleuze, felix guattari, jafari s. allen, josé esteban muñoz, reinaldo arenas, nina maria lozano, vine deloria jr., guy hocquenghem, desiree c. bailey, langston hughes, manuel zapata olivella, nicholas guillén, josé martí, colin dayan, kit heyam, ishmael reed, maggie nelson, viola f. cordova

helpful notes on a few of these authors: http://www.protevi.com/

Matt Munday Westminster 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 5:15 PM EDT

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

Affiliations and History

Director of Debate at Westminster. Debated in college between 2008 and 2012. Actively coaching high school debate since 2008.

Debate Views

I am not the kind of judge who will read every card at the end of the debate. Claims that are highly contested, evidence that is flagged, and other important considerations will of course get my attention. Debaters should do the debating. Quality evidence is still important though. If the opposing team's cards are garbage, it is your responsibility to let that be known. Before reading my preferences about certain arguments, keep in mind that it is in your best interest to do what you do best. My thoughts on arguments are general predispositions and not necessarily absolute.

T – Topicality is important. The affirmative should have a relationship to the topic. How one goes about defending the topic is somewhat open to interpretation. However, my predisposition still leans towards the thought that engaging the topic is a good and productive end. I find myself in Framework debates being persuaded by the team that best articulates why their limit on the topic allows for a season's worth of debate with competitively equitable outcomes for both the aff and the neg.

Disads/Case Debate – While offense is necessary, defense is frequently undervalued. I am willing to assign 0% risk to something if a sufficient defensive argument is made.

Counterplans – Conditionality is generally fine. Functional competition seems more relevant than textual competition. If the affirmative is asked about the specific agent of their plan, they should answer the question. I increasingly think the affirmative allows the negative to get away with questionable uses of negative fiat. Actual solvency advocates and counterplan mechanisms that pass the rational policy option assumption matter to me.

Kritiks – I teach history and economics and I studied public policy and political economy during my doctoral education. This background inherently influences my filter for evaluating K debates. Nonetheless, I do think these are strategic arguments. I evaluate framework in these debates as a sequencing question regarding my resolution of impact claims. Effective permutation debating by the aff is an undervalued strategy.

Theory – A quality theory argument should have a developed warrant/impact. “Reject the argument, not the team” resolves most theory arguments except for conditionality. Clarity benefits both teams when engaging in the substance of theory debates.

Speaker Points

(Scale - Adjective - Description)

29.6-30 - The Best - Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. (Top 5 speaker award)

29-29.5 - Very, Very good - Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well.

28.6-28.9 - Very Good - Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.

28.3-28.5 - Good - Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors.

28-28.2 - OK - Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others.

Below 28 - OK, but major errors - Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention.

Advait Naik '22 Alpharetta HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 6:41 AM EDT

Alpharetta '22

UGA '26

Put me on the email chain: advaitnnaik@gmail.com

stole from Hargunn Sandhu from Emory:

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1.Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2.Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3.Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4.Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5.Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

a. K Affs: Clash > Fairness > Education/Skills. I'm more inclined to vote on t usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model. Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

b. Ks: Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan. Who cares if fiat isn't real. Specific links, pulling quotes from the 1AC, and in-depth explanation at every level are very important. Avoid large overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

4. T - Assuming even debating, competing interps > reasonability. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg, but especially the aff if there's a substantial limits differential. Read cards. Both sides should be clashing over their visions of the topic and the impacts to it.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6.Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .2

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues

Donald Pierce Montgomery Bell Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 3:32 PM CDT

Please put me on the email chain: donpierce2025@gmail.com and debatemba@gmail.com.

Tech > Truth

Recently, I have become generally more K oriented, but I have made both policy and K arguments, so I have some knowledge in both areas. I will do my best to follow along to any argument that is made. That being said, if the argument has not been explained to the point where I would feel comfortable explaining why I am voting for it at the end of the round, I am not going to vote on it. Explain acronyms.

My ballot generally will start with framing/impact calc and/or framework, where you should be comparing/debating out both which sides framing is better and what that means for my ballot. This sets a threshold for what I should look for on the other pages and minimizes intervention. I can be convinced to build offense from the bottom up, meaning I consider each level of offense as a yes/no question and then consider who access more offense at the end of that chain and then do framing/framework/impact calc, but that is not my default.

Policy

The most important things:

Theory---I will be fine if you want to go for theory but please slow down on it especially if you don't send analytics in the speech doc. Outside of conditionality, I generally don’t think theory arguments are reasons to reject the team, and it would be difficult to persuade me to vote on it.

Ks---you can read Ks in front of me but do not use excessive jargon or just assume that I understand the underlying theory. The framework debate is often ignored or not fleshed out, which means I generally have to give the aff their plan and the k their links.

K affs---I have read both policy affs and K affs, so you should run what you want to run in front of me. The focus of these debates need to be on clashing and comparing the two sides. Avoiding excessive jargon and using many examples will be the most useful. I generally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be persuaded away from it, like most things.

Other things:

CPs---they are great. If you say judge kick and say I could in the 2nr, you should do that impact calc/framing for both a ballot with the cp + da and da + case defense. Generally speaking, I think the literature determines which counterplans are legitimate and which aren’t, but I can be persuaded that against that

DAs---also great. DA plus case is an underrated strategy vs bad affs.

Ts---a good T debate is really fun to listen to, but it requires a lot of judge instruction in order to not intervene.

I have no background in PF. My policy paradigm will help shed light on what I have the best background on, content wise, but ultimately, I am fairly open to anything. Given my lack of background in the activity, I will need more explanation on arguments/acronyms that are isolated to the activity.

I flow closely and track argument consistency throughout the round. If the argument you are going for is brand new in your last speech, I will be very skeptical of it.

Joe Rhee Montgomery Bell Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed May 1, 2024 at 11:06 AM EDT

update 4/30/24: made paradigm shorter. a more detailed judging record (including arguments read) is here, poached from David McDermott.

LD: familiar with trad, policy/larp, prog/K, not as much with phil or skep. theory is fine

must reads:

joe, not judge. i'm not that old. yes, email chain. joerhee779@gmail.com
email subject should be include tournament, round, teams, and codes. ex: 2021 TOC - Round 4 - Mitty AP (Aff) vs Little Rock GR (Neg)
safety and integrity are prior. do not touch each other, me, or anyone's property, say slurs, misgender, etc. outside help is prohibited. each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal, unless there's a maverick situation that has been pre-approved. speech times are non-negotiable. do not clip. clipping = misrepresenting evidence. if you skip a word on accident, don't worry. if you skip a sentence, several words, or even paragraphs, in more than one card, i will be less forgiving. these are an auto-L and lowest speaks possible.
send out the 1AC and be ready to give it at start time. deleting analytics and excessive downtime between the email being sent out will incur prep.
communication first. pausing for pen time, not spreading through blocks like they're cards, and being clear when reading cards is imperative. rehighlightings that explain warrants beyond the tag should be read.

me:

little rock central '22, vanderbilt '26. human and organizational development major, minoring in data science and asian american studies. you can ask me about vandy if you want after a decision has been made or through email.
read basically everything in high school as a 2A and 2N. did two tournaments in college. did the toc once. broke there. qualed twice. read about 55-60% K/45-40% policy args, so I'm familiar with most of what you'll say. i actively coach both K and policy teams for MBA, but I research more Ks and K answers than anything else. i judge about 40% policy v. policy, 35% policy v. K, and 25% K v. K debates (adjusted for varsity debates alone). i am probably ideal for an impact turn or policy v. K debate, but am confident i can evaluate anything.
my judging opinions are very similar to Debnil Sur, Daniel Gallagher, and Texas DK.

argument evaluation:

tech over truth. arguments must have a claim, warrant, and implication. i must be able to explain what i flowed to the other team, not agree with it. worse warrants should be (and are) easier to beat. yes, you can win death/war/warming good, no condo, racism outweighs T, fairness is an impact, etc. however, if i didn't hear/understand the argument (including clarity), i won't vote on it, so hide arguments at your own risk. debaters don't explain the implication of "true"/dropped arguments enough. explaining the importance of dropped arguments 1-3 is more important than extending dropped argument 4. if i can't resolve the debate using tech alone, something has gone horribly wrong.
i will not judge personal character. i lack the resources and willpower to discuss debaters' personal lives. barring a debater saying we ought to openly hate entire groups of people online on a publicly accessible website (screenshots are not evidence), i am unwilling to vote on minors' actions. if someone says something that could be problematic, i will likely correct it after the fact, not drop the debater. you are free to make this a link argument or voting issue, but i will evaluate it like any other argument.
evidence quality matters and is under-debated. a good analytic can beat a bad card, but no cards decreases the chance of a win. evidence comparison is underutilized, but if no one mentions it in the debate, i will not make it part of my decision, nor insert my personal opinion on the evidence unless someone only says "read it after the round" with no further explanation.
i am very expressive. if i don't like an argument, it will show, but i have still voted for teams i made faces at, so don't be discouraged.
debaters work hard, so i will not give a lazy decision. if you disagree post-round, please explain why and i will walk through my reasoning with you.

specific arguments:

Ks: i've read many, but won't fill in the blanks for you. framework is important, and i will only vote on an interp introduced in the debate. affs should either go for framework + case/impact turn outweighs or the perm/link turn. negs should go for a link that turns, outweighs, or brackets the case [with framework], or a mutually exclusive alt that solves an impact that outweighs. in K v. K debates, unsure why framework and impact calculus suddenly disappears and why "no perms in a method debate" is a truism.
K affs: you can read them if you justify it. vs. T, choose either a counter interp or impact turn strategy. i am ok with fairness, clash, or education when actually explained. TVAs are usually meh unless the aff is close to the topic. SSD is slightly better but may link to DAs. impact turns like heg/cap/state good are fine.
T: offense-defense. reasonability doesn't make sense without a counter-interp. thoughts on theory are essentially the same, except that because they lack evidence, most claims like aff and neg bias are usually unwarranted.
CPs: not as fluent as the Michigan bros of the world, but my thoughts are. a. solvency deficits must be real, otherwise write a better aff. b. most theory objections would be better phrased as competition c. i've heard enough competition debates to know what's happening. not sure why people aren't reading more advantage counterplans.
DAs/case: many DAs and affs are fake, especially the internal link. presumption/zero risk is possible, but is a high bar. 2As - during the 2AC please actually explain line-by-line warrants. half the time it is incomprehensible. 2Ns - exploit 2A posturing and bad evidence quality. read more than just impact d. impact and straight turns are fun, but stay organized.

speaks:

speaker point inflation is terrorism. i will use a wider range than the average judge.

below 27.0 - reserved for clipping and the like.

27.0 - 0.0 percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.5 - 17th percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.0 - 33rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

28.5 - 50th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.0 - 67th percentile speaker at the tournament.

29.5 - 83rd percentile speaker at the tournament.

30 - 100th percentile speaker at the tournament.

this is the baseline based on your speeches. how to get higher or lower:

1. good CX. "tag team" cx is fine, but if one debater is taking every question, speaks will suffer. don't ask a bunch of questions like "what cards did you read" or "can you explain the aff". hard limit is 2 before speaks start dropping.

2.humor, kindness, and demeanor. don't have to be nice all the time because i get debate's competitive and tensions are high, but making a good joke, being generally respectful to others and making debate a better place are all great.

Hargunn Sandhu Woodward Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 12:24 PM EDT

Alpharetta 21. Emory 25.

Email chain: hargunn.sandhu03@gmail.com

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1. Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4. Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5. Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6. Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .1

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues

Pratham Saurabh Alpharetta HS 6 rounds

Adam Smiley Alpharetta HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM EDT

Coach at Alpharetta High School 2006-Present
Coach at Chattahoochee High School 1999-2005
Did not debate in High School or College.

E-mail: asmiley27@gmail.com

General thoughts- I expect debaters to recognize debate as a civil, enjoyable, and educational activity. Anything that debaters do to take away from this in the round could be penalized with lower speaker points. I tend to prefer debates that more accurately take into account the types of considerations that would play into real policymakers' decision making. On all arguments, I prefer more specifics and less generics in terms of argument choice and link arguments.

The resolution has an educational purpose. I prefer debates that take this into account and find ways to interact with the topic in a reasonable way. Everything in this philosophy represents my observations and preferences, but I can be convinced otherwise in the round and will judge the arguments made in the round. I will vote on most arguments, but I am going to be very unlikely to vote on arguments that I consider morally repugnant (spark, wipeout, malthus, cancer good, etc). You should avoid these arguments in front of me.

Identity arguments- I do not generally judge these rounds and was traditionally less open to them. However, the methods and messages of these rounds can provide important skills for questioning norms in society and helping all of us improve in how we interact with society and promote justice. For that reason, I am going to work hard to be far more open to these arguments and their educational benefits. There are two caveats to this that I want you to be aware of. First, I am not prima facie rejecting framework arguments. I will still be willing to vote on framework if I think the other side is winning that their model of debate is overall better. Second, I have not read the amount of literature on this topic that most of you have and I have not traditionally judged these rounds. This means that you should not assume that I know all of the terms of art used in this literature or the acronyms. Please understand that you will need to assist in my in-round education.

K- I have not traditionally been a big fan of kritiks. This does not mean that I will not vote for kritiks, and I have become much more receptive to them over the years. However, this does mean a couple of things for the debaters. First, I do not judge as many critical rounds as other judges. This means that I am less likely to be familiar with the literature, and the debaters need to do a little more work explaining the argument. Second, I may have a little higher threshold on certain arguments. I tend to think that teams do not do a good enough job of explaining how their alternatives solve their kritiks or answering the perms. Generally, I leave too many rounds feeling like neither team had a real discussion or understanding of how the alternative functions in the round or in the real world. I also tend towards a policy framework and allowing the aff to weigh their advantages against the K. However, I will look to the flow to determine these questions. Finally, I do feel that my post-round advice is less useful and educational in K rounds in comparison to other rounds.

T- I generally enjoy good T debates. Be sure to really impact your standards on the T debate. Also, do not confuse most limiting with fair limits. Finally, be sure to explain which standards you think I as the judge should default to and impact your standards.

Theory-I am willing to pull the trigger on theory arguments as a reason to reject the argument. However, outside of conditionality, I rarely vote on theory as a reason to reject the team. If you are going for a theory arg as a reason to reject the team, make sure that you are impacting the argument with reasons that I should reject the team. Too many debaters argue to reject the team without any impact beyond the argument being unfair. Instead, you need to win that it either changed the round in an unacceptable way or allowing it changes all future rounds/research in some unacceptable way. I will also tend to look at theory as a question of competing interpretations. I feel that too many teams only argue why their interpretation is good and fail to argue why the other team’s interpretation is bad. Also, be sure to impact your arguments. I tend towards thinking that topic specific education is often the most important impact in a theory debate. I am unlikely to do that work for you. Given my preference for topic specific education, I do have some bias against generic counterplans such as states and international actor counterplans that I do not think would be considered as options by real policymakers. Finally, I do think that the use of multiple, contradictory neg advocacies has gotten out of hand in a way that makes the round less educational. I generally believe that the neg should be able to run 1 conditional CP and 1 conditional K. I will also treat the CP and the K as operating on different levels in terms of competition. Beyond that, I think that extra conditional and contradictory advocacies put too much of a burden on the aff and limit a more educational discussion on the merits of the arguments.

Disads- I generally tend towards evaluating uniqueness as the most important part of the disad debate. If there are a number of links and link turns read on a disad debate, I will generally default towards the team that is controlling uniqueness unless instructed by the debaters why I should look to the link level first. I also tend towards an offense defense paradigm when considering disads as net benefits to counterplans. I think that the politics disad is a very educational part of debate that has traditionally been my favorite argument to both coach and judge. I will have a very high threshold for voting on politics theory. Finally, teams should make sure that they give impact analysis that accounts for the strong possibility that the risk of the disad has been mitigated and tells me how to evaluate that mitigation in the context of the impacts in round.

Counterplans-I enjoy a good counterplan debate. However, I tend to give the aff a little more leeway against artificially competitive counterplans, such as consult counterplans. I also feel that a number of aff teams need to do more work on impacting their solvency deficits against counterplans. While I think that many popular counterplans (especially states) are uniquely bad for debate, I have not seen teams willing to invest the time into theory to help defeat these counterplans.

Reading cards after the round- I prefer to read as few cards post round as possible. I think that it is up to the debaters to give clear analysis of why to prefer one card over another and to bring up the key warrants in their speeches.

Rebecca Steiner Pace Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:39 PM EDT

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Clay Stewart Galloway 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 6:49 AM EDT

E-Mail: cstewart[at]gallowayschool[dot]org

Disclaimer #1:I am a mandatory reporter under Georgia law. If you disclose a real-world risk to your safety, or if I believe there is an imminent threat to your well-being, I will stop the debate and contact the Tabroom. Arguments that talk generally about how to engage systems of power in the debate space are more than okay and do not violate this.

Disclaimer #2: I am partially deaf in my left ear. While this has zero impact on my ability to flow in 99.9% of debates, exceptionally bad acoustics may force me to be closer than usual during speeches.

Speaker Points Update (November 2023):Moving forward, I will be following Regnier's speaker points distribution (see below). This should align my points with national trends and ensure I am not unfairly penalizing (or rewarding) debaters I am judging.

--- Fabulous (29.7 - 29.9) / Excellent (29.4-29.6)

--- Good (29.1 - 29.3) / Average (28.7 - 29)

--- Below Average (28.4 - 28.6) / Poor (28 - 28.3) / Very Poor (27.6 - 27.9)

Experience

Debate Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 3 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate: 4 Years of College Policy Debate (Georgia State University)

-- 2015 NDT Qualifier

-- Coached By: Joe Bellon, Nick Sciullo, Erik Mathis

-- Argument Style: Kritik (Freshman / Sophomore Year) & Policy (Junior / Senior Year)

-- Caselist Link (I Was A 2N My Senior Year): https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda14/GeorgiaState/StNa/Neg

Coaching Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 4 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate

-- University of Georgia - Graduate Assistant (3 Years)

-- Atlanta Urban Debate League (3 Years)

-- The Galloway School - Head Coach (3 Years)

Preferences - General

Overview:

Debate is a game; my strongest belief is that debaters should be able to play the game however they want to play it. I remain committed to Tabula Rasa judging, and have yet to see an argument (claim/ warrant) I would not pull the trigger on. The only exception to this is if I could not coherently explain to the other team the warrant for the argument I'm voting on. Unless told otherwise, I will flow the debate, and vote, based on the line-by-line, for whomever I thought won the debate.

What follows are my general thoughts about arguments, because for some reason that's what counts as a "judging paradigm" these days. Everything that follows WILL be overridden by arguments made in the debate.

Evidence:

Evidence is important, but not more than the in-round debating. Substantial deference will be given to in-debate spin. Bad evidence with spin will generally be given more weight than good evidence without.

Theory:

No strong predispositions. Run theory if that's your thing, there's actual abuse, or it's the most strategic way out of the round. I have no default conception of how theory functions; it could be an issue of competing interpretations, an issue of reasonability, an RVI, or a tool of the patriarchy. Given my LD background, I likely have a much lower threshold for pulling the trigger than other judges. Defaults such as X is never a reason to reject the team, RVIs bad, and a general disregard of Spec arguments aren't hardwired into me like the majority of the judging pool.

If you're going for theory, easiest thing you can do to win my ballot is to slow down and give an overview that sets up a clear way for me to evaluate the line-by-line.

Counterplans:

Read 'em. While I'm personally a big fan of process CPs/ PICs, I generally default to letting the literature determine CP competition/ legitimacy. If you have a kickass solvency advocate, then I will probably lean your way on most theoretical issues. On the other hand, as a former 2A, I sympathize with 2AC theory against CPs against which it is almost impossible to generate solvency deficits. 2ACs should not be afraid to bow up on CP theory in the 1AR.

DAs:

Specific DAs/ links trump generic DAs/ links absent substantial Negative spin. Love DAs with odd impact scenarios/ nuanced link stories.

Politics:

I functionally never read this as a debater, but my time coaching at UGA has brought me up to speed. Slow down/ clearly flag key points/ evidence distinctions in the 2NR/ 2AR.

Topicality:

Read it. Strategic tool that most 2Ns underutilize. Rarely hear a nuanced argument for reasonability; the T violation seems to prove the 1AC is unreasonable...

Kritiks:

I do not personally agree with the majority of Kritiks. However, after years of graduate school and debate, I've read large amount of Kritikal literature, and, if you run the K well, I'm a good judge for you. Increasingly irritated with 2ACs that fail to engage the nuance of the K they're answering (Cede the Political/ Perm: Double-Bind isn't enough to get you through a competently extended K debate). Similarly irritated with 2NCs that debate the K like a politics DA. Finally, 2ACs are too afraid to bow up on the K, especially with Impact Turns. I often end up voting Negative on the Kritik because the 2AC got sucked down the rabbit hole and didn't remind there was real-world outside of the philosophical interpretation offered by the K.

Framework (2AC):

I am generally unpersuaded by theoretical offense in a Policy AFF v. Kritik debate. You're better off reading this as policymaking good/ pragmatism offense to defend the method of the AFF versus the alternative. Generally skeptical of 2ACs that claim the K isn't within my jurisdiction/ is super unfair.

Framework (2NC):

Often end up voting Negative because the Affirmative strategically mishandles the FW of the K. Generally skeptical of K FW's that make the plan/ the real-world disappear entirely.

Preferences - "Clash" Debates

Clash of Civilization Debates:

Enjoy these debates; I judge alot of them. The worst thing you can do is overadapt. DEBATE HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEBATE. My favorite debate that I ever watched was UMW versus Oklahoma, where UMW read a giant Hegemony advantage versus Oklahoma's 1-off Wilderson. I've been on both sides of the clash debate, and I respect both sides. I will just as easily vote on Framework as use my ballot to resist anti-blackness in debate.

Traditional ("Policy" Teams):

DO YOU. Traditional teams should not be afraid to double-down against K 1ACs,/ Big K 1NCs either via Framework or Impact Turns.

Framework (As "T"):

Never read this as a debater, but I've become more sympathetic to arguments about how the the resolution as a starting point is an important procedural constraint that can capture some of the pedagogical value of a Kritikal discussion. As a former 2N, I am sympathetic to limits arguments given the seemingly endless proliferation of K 1ACs with a dubious relationship to the topic. Explain how your interpretation is an opportunity cost of the 1ACs approach, and how you solve the 2ACs substantive offense (i.e. critical pedagogy/ our performance is important, etc.).

Non-Traditional ("Performance"/ "K" Teams):

As someone who spent a semester reading a narrative project about welcoming veterans into debate, I'm familiar with the way these arguments function, and I feel that they're an integral part of the game we call debate. However, that does not mean I will vote for you because you critiqued X-ism; what is your method, and how does it resolve the harms you have isolated? I am greatly frustrated by Kritik Teams that rely on obfuscation as a strategic tool---- even the Situationist International cared deeply about the political implications of their project.

AT: Framework

The closer you are to the topic/ the clearer your Affirmative is in what it defends, the more I'm down with the Affirmative. While I generally think that alternative approaches to debate are important discussions to be had, if I can listen to the 1AC and have no idea what the Affirmative does, what it defends, or why it's a response to the Topic beyond nebulous claims of resisting X-ism, then you're in a bad spot. Explain how your Counter-Interp solves their theoretical offense, or why your permutation doesn't link to their limits/ ground standards.

Fairness/ Education:

Are important. I am generally confused by teams that claim to impact turn fairness/ education. Your arguments are better articulated as INL-turns (i.e. X-ism/ debate practice is structurally unfair). Debate at some level is a game, and you should explain how your version of the game allows for good discussion/ an equal playing field for all.

Misc. - Ethics Violations

Ethics Violations:

After being forced to decide an elimination debate on a card-clipping accusation during the 2015 Barkley Forum (Emory), I felt it necessary to establish clarity/ forewarning for how I will proceed if this unfortunate circumstance happens again. While I would obviously prefer to decide the debate on actual substantive questions, this is the one issue where I will intervene. In the event of an ethics accusation, I will do the following:

1) Stop the debate. I will give the accusing team a chance to withdraw the accusation or proceed. If the accusation stands, I will decide the debate on the validity of the accusation.

2) Consult the Tabroom to determine any specific tournament policies/ procedures that apply to the situation and need to be followed.

3) Review available evidence to decide whether or not an ethics violation has taken place. In the event of a clipping accusation, a recording or video of the debate would be exceptionally helpful. I am a personal believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's definitive evidence proving otherwise, I will presume in favor of the accused debater.

4) Drop the Debater. If an ethics violation has taken place, I will drop the offending team, and award zero speaker points. If an ethics violation has not occurred, I will drop the team that originally made the accusation. The purpose of this is to prevent frivolous/ strategic accusations, given the very real-world, long-lasting impact such an accusation has on the team being accused.

5) Ethics Violations (Update): Credible, actual threats of violence against the actual people in the actual debate are unacceptable, as are acts of violence against others. I will drop you with zero speaker points if either of those occur. Litmus Test: There's a difference between wipeout/ global suicide alternatives (i.e. post-fiat arguments) and actually punching a debater in the face (i.e. real-world violence).

Johnnie Stupek Westminster 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:20 AM EDT

Head Debate Coach - University of Georgia

jstupek8@gmail.com

Top Level

- Clarity and flowability are the strongest qualities that drive my speaker points. I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that enhance their flowability such as: structured line-by-line, slowing down when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing particularly important lines in the body of evidence, and descriptively labeling off-case positions in the 1NC.

- Arguments do not always need cards to be impactful. I care about logical analytic arguments, particularly those that are set up well in cross-examination.

- Plan and counterplan text vagueness is an under-exploited issue. As such, I'm likely more amenable to specification arguments than your average judge.

- While no judge is a true blank slate, I have and am willing to vote on basically anything.

Disads

- I begin resolving these debates by comparing the relative risk of the internal link chains of the disadvantage and the advantage(s) the 2AR went for. All things being equal, I frequently resolve these debates without turning to questions of impact comparison or impact interaction. The advice I often find myself giving after debates is that second rebuttalists should spend less time on traditional impact calculus or turns case arguments and more time making sure you win your advantage or disadvantage. Of course, all things are not always equal and second rebuttalists should point out when there's a tangible timeframe or magnitude distinction between impacts.

- Brink + link uniqueness is not an adequate substitute for traditional uniqueness and link claims.

- Always been a fan of agenda politics, probably always will be.

- For affirmatives reading framing arguments, your time is almost always better spent making substantive answers to the disadvantage rather than meta arguments about the complex nature of disadvantages.

Counterplans

- Please stop starting your counterplan 2ACs with consecutive permutation arguments delivered at top speed. This is the single most difficult thing to flow properly in my experience. The easiest fix here is to read cards in between each different permutation and slowing down when communicating perm texts.

- I have no inherent aversion to process counterplans. I think that at times these debates can be really interesting, especially when contextualized to the topic.

- I still believe in an abstract academic sense, that the benefits of conditionality outweigh its costs. This issue, however, is so rarely evenly debated that more affirmative teams should consider going for conditionality bad.

- My default view is that counterplan theory arguments that are not conditionality bad are reasons to reject the argument rather than reasons to reject the team. This presumption can be overcome, but the bar is high.

- My default view is that I will judge kick the counterplan and compare the aff vs. the status quo. I can and have been persuaded not to do so when the affirmative team advances that argument.

Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives

- Including resolutional language in your plan text does not in and of itself persuade me the aff is topical.

- Caselists are incredibly useful for articulating just how under or over limiting a particular interpretation is.

- For affirmative teams, I would rather hear impacts about the benefits of a broader topic for affirmative innovation and flexibility than appeals to education about the affirmative's content. I am unlikely to be persuaded that I should reject a negative topicality interpretation because the affirmative would have a difficult time constructing solvency deficits to a particular counterplan under said interpretation. That argument seems to be a theoretical objection the counterplan rather than a topicality standard.

- Teams articulating a "precision" standard should take care to clearly explain what their threshold for a "precise" interpretation is, why their interpretation meets that threshold, and why the opposing team's interpretation does not.

Kritiks On The Neg

- I care about the alt quite a bit. Teams that have persuaded me to vote for kritiks have often done so on the basis of strong alt debating.

- The way "framework" arguments are currently deployed is somewhat puzzling to me. Most aff/neg framework standards seem to get more at the question of "how much" weight I should give to a particular impact than to whether I should consider a particular impact in the first place. I've never been persuaded that framework means I don't consider the merits of the 1AC. I've equally never been persuaded that framework means the alt has to be policy.

- Kritiks that derive their offense from the affirmative not doing enough or being too incremental are vulnerable to permutations.

- Alt causes are not link arguments. Link arguments are not "disads."

Planless Affirmatives

- I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to read a plan or say USFG should, but I have not encountered a situation where I have been persuaded that the aff doesn't have to be topical. Having some sort of counter-interpretation, even if it's just "resolved means to analyze," is important for how I ground and resolve aff arguments about the neg's interpretation. I want to hear in detail about what the affirmative's model of debate might look like. I would rather hear one or two conceptual impact turns to the negative's model, than eight different "DA's" that are difficult to distinguish between.

- For the negative, I would rather hear arguments about the value of procedural fairness than than some of the more "substantive" framework arguments.

- The vocabulary of "internal link" and "impact" is not particularly useful in a debate about theory. Certainly the negative needs to explain why fairness is a valuable concept, but that explanation does not have to involve the same kind of cause and effect logic chain we encounter in advantages or disadvantages. The "just an internal link" pejorative often applies just as well to arguments forwarded by the affirmative. As a whole, these debates would be so much better if no one used the words "impact," "internal link," or "disad."

Speaker Points

- I hesitate to offer some sort of static scale for speaks because I think that speaker points are relative and I am constantly reflecting on whether my speaker point distribution is in line with the rest of the judging community.

- Debaters who debate technically and make good strategic decisions will receive good points.

- Debaters who debate with style (humor, passionate rebuttals, exceptional clarity) will receive good points.

Closing Thoughts

If you've made it this far, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for the work you do as debaters and coaches. I know how hard everyone works to prepare for debates and I strive to provide judging and feedback that lives up to that standard.

"As I look back at the contours of my own life, many things about it I would change if I could. But not this. The long hours, the demanding schedules, all that goes into effective debating and effective coaching, the lost weekends. I would do it all again. I would do it all again not for any particular tournament or trophy, not for the specifics of any topic, not even for the intellectual benefits debate bestows upon its participants, critical thinking and the like. I would do it all again for the chance to work with hard-working, dedicated, and committed students like those assembled in this room." - Scott Deatherage

David Trigaux Capital City 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 10:57 AM EDT

David Trigaux

Former (HS + College) debater, 15+ years experienced coach / increasingly old

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

15 Sec Summary:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am somewhere in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates. I have some slight preferences (see below), but do your best and be creative. I am excited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

Recent Update: 2/6/24

**New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the exchange -- you should put some effort into writing it, wording it correctly, etc. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made, and heavily reward the wit and research to prepare such arguments. Obviously flawed texts just come off as lazy, sketchy, or both. This also includes circular plan texts -- "we should do X, via a method that makes X successful" isn't a plan text, it's wishful thinking, but unfortunately repeatedly found in 3-1 debates at TOC qualifiers.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I work with 700+ students per season, ranging from brand new ES and MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community and accessibility is a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship and strategies as presented to me in round, but folks gotta be able to get into the space and be reasonably comfortable first.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now, but it doesn't mean that full speed is always best) 75% Speed + emotive gets more speaks.
Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well.
Theory: I often find these debates shallow and trade-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
Creativity + Scholarship: *Moving up for emphasis* I heartily reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research. Be clever, do something I haven't heard before. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads you can't contextualize) Go do some research!
Performance: “Back in my day….” Performance Affs were just being invented, and they had a lot more actual “performance” to them (music, costume, choreography, etc.). Spreading 3 lines of poetry and never talking about it again doesn't disrupt any existing epistemologies, etc. I have coached a few performative teams and find myself more and more excited about them....when there is a point to the performance. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.
Shadow Extending: I intentionally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here; I am always down to help folks develop the fundamentals. Try extending things even if it isn't perfect.
Email Chains: This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your evidence.
About "the State": I was born and current live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues outside debate. This has shaped a pre-disposition that "governance" is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state always bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specific and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
Artificial Intelligence: I am going to flesh out these thoughts as the season goes, and as I talk to the great, thoughtful peers in the community, but initially, reading rebuttals written by generative AI seems to be cheating, and actively anti-educational, so if you are doing that, don't, and if you suspect the other team is, raise it as an issue.

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

Being Mean -- I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. Its bad policy writing, and continues a racialized history of erasure and abuse of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible.

If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful.
This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person. This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot especially post pandemic, many of our debaters still use paper files.

Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by someone who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
Multi-Minute Overviews: Don't.
Extinction Good: Don't be a troll, get a better strategy that isn't laced with nasty racial undertones. This is a place where theory makes sense -- show me why they don't give you another choice.
Intentionally Trolly High Theory or Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how good you are that you can make up nonsense and win anyway, strike me. There should be a point to what you say which contributes to our understanding of the world.
Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.
**New Pet Peeve** Plan / Counterplan Flaws: The plan text / advocacy statement is the focus of the exchange -- you should put some effort into writing it, wording it correctly, etc. I've found myself very persuadable by plan flaw arguments if a substantive normal means argument can be made. It just comes off as lazy, sketchy, or both. This also includes circular plan texts -- "we should do X, via a method that makes X successful" isn't a plan text, it's wishful thinking, but unfortunately repeatedly found in 3-1 debates at TOC qualifiers.

In the Weeds

Disadvantages:

· I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ Research! Cut Updates! Quote a card from this week! I am a huge sucker for new evidence and post-dating, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§ Read something random off Open Ev, Read an Elections DA after the election / not know when an election is, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs. I wouldn't have to put it here if it didn't keep happening folks....

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily, enjoy C-SPAN, and many of my best friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

· I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or have some topic specific nuance for Generics (like Courts).

§ Use questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) that are supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§ Forget to perm.

§ Fake a net benefit

§ Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively. If you go into the average round hoping to win on Condo, strike me.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Have qualified evidence and intent to define

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations

o Don’t:

§ Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially if this isn't Varsity.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

§ Make fun impact and link turns that aren't arguing that racism / sexism, etc. is good.

o Don’t:

§ Concede the case for no reason

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every Aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another and don't have a consistent theory of power.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words or one that you can’t articulate why it is being discussing a competitive forum or what my role listening to your words is.

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Security, Cap, Fem, Anti-Blackness, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech.

· Update: I find myself judging a lot of psychoanalysis arguments, which I find frustratingly unfalsifiable or just hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

Public Forum: (Inspired by Sim Low, couldn't have said it better)

I'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. Something went wrong in tournament admin, and they made me feel guilty enough that I haven't found a way to get out of judging this round.

I did enough congress and LD in high school to assure you I am not a policy debate supremacist from a lack of exposure to other formats, but because peer reviewed research says that it is the most educational and rigorous format that benefits its participants. I also find the growing popularity of the format that is proud of its anti-intellectualism and despite research that shows it is discriminatory against women and minorities reprehensible.

As a judge, I'll be grumpy and use all of your pre-round time to tell you how PF was created as a result of white flight and the American pursuit of Anti-Intellectualism far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF). If you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you happen to ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, and vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I agree with more. I also might extend my RFD to the length of a policy round to actually develop some of the possibilities of your arguments. Without academic integrity, this is a Speech event and will be judged accordingly.

Kenny Tsao Hire 3 rounds

Judson Turner Landmark Christian School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 11:35 AM EDT

Jud Turner

judsonturner@jtcounsel.com

I am a practicing attorney by trade and have been around policy/CX debate for about 6 or more years. While I have been around debate for a bit, I may not be your typical debate coach/experienced judge. While I know some of the debate jargon, do not assume that I do. Moreover, while I know it is tempting to use debate terminology and jargon to save time, you may lose me on the strength of your argument in doing so. Assume that I don't have any subject matter expertise. Tell me what is important and why, use evidence to support your position and to counter your opponent and do not play fast and lose with evidence in terms of what it actually says.

I know that many progressive debaters want to spread in CX debates and use that tactic to gain an advantage relative to dropped arguments, etc... I will not decide a debate round on the basis of a dropped argument that may have been a mentioned in rapid fire/auctioneer style spreading. CX is a great debate format that certainly places important emphasis on research and preparation; however, that does not mean that the debate round should be 75% completed based on elaborate constructive speeches only one quarter of which can be presented a speed that one can comprehend.

A large part of the value of debate in general and CX in particular surrounds competitors being able to think on their feet, determine what are the most important arguments that one's opponent is putting forth, responding to those and/or offering a better plan to solve the harms at issue. A large part of the value of debate is determining which arguments are more important than others and responding to those. A great debate round, in my view, happens with both sides respond pointedly (and in a manner and speed that I can understand) to each other and see the clash on the salient arguments through to the end, while using cross examination effectively to undermine the arguments by the other side and to position yourself for your speeches to follow.

Roman Vale Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:16 AM EDT

Out of round:

I'd like to be on the email chain: romanvale24@gmail.com

I don't need an evidence doc at the end of the debate

This shouldn't need to be said, but ethics violations end the round immediately and are not extra arguments.

In round arguments:

My default framework is that the judge's role is to decide who did the best debating by weighing the advantages of a topical aff against its disadvantages and/or a competitive alternative. Judge direction is always advised, tell me how to decide between arguments, otherwise, I'll end up filling in and I typically fill in favor of the aff.

On the topic of filling in, I'm not always familiar with all the literature, so explaining out evidence is going to be very important.

Filling in and judge intervention are two different things. I try to keep my judge intervention to a minimum except when an argument runs blatantly against basic logic or my lived experience, not only am I going to not consider these arguments depending on their content I often find myself biased against the teams that read them. With that it mind, because of my lived experience, I will almost never vote on cap good unless it goes dropped. Read it if you need to waste the teams time but if it’s in the 2AR/2NR there’s a 90% chance you’ve wasted your own time.

Claims with no warrant or reasoning can be dismissed with no warrant or reasoning. Meaning I'll allow new answers against blippy claims and when it comes to judge filling these are the first that get slashed.

I do read evidence. This also means if I'm deciding between arguments and the evidence that you have to back up your argument is not really saying what its tag says it is or is highlighted to say literally the opposite of what the author intended then I will shift against you (and in the case of blatantly lying about evidence I will deduct a whole speaker point). Incomplete citations and one paragraph in a card will basically count as an analytic to me. That all being said, I do prefer if teams call out their opposition's misuse of evidence so I know what to focus on after round.

I lean toward Condo good, but can be persuaded otherwise, especially if the neg is abusive with their conditionality (ie total contradictions in off case). Nobody knows what dispositionality means within debate so don't waste time talking about it.

PICs/PIKs must PIC/PIK out of something in the plan text. I am overwhelmingly unlikely to vote on non-plan text based word or justification PICs/PIKs

I default to reject the arg, not the team unless instructed otherwise except in the case of condo theory where I will always just reject the arg.

On topicality, I can be convinced that reading non-topical affs is good and can be convinced of a lot of counter-interpretations

Your K should interact with the affirmative being read, not against the debaters, as above, out-of-round abuse should warrant an ethics violation, not another argument. I default to thinking that the alt is severable from the K and that I can still vote on presumption even if I'm not convinced that the alt is a good idea.

In round debating:

Neither bigotry nor malice is allowed in the debate space. I will automatically vote down a team and give the lowest possible speaker points on blatant bigotry or human dignity violations. Also, there are times when things can straddle the lines and I may not make the best call so I do encourage debaters to raise ethics challenges.

Speaker Points: I'm pretty generous with these, if you ask for 30s though the highest you can get is a 29.5, also keeping the debate fun will earn you higher speaker points. Things that are fun: getting along with the other team, a funny takedown of an argument, good engaging cross-x. Things that are not fun: insults to the other team, threats/edginess, lack of clarity

30 : Perfect!

29.5 - 29.9 : Well-articulated arguments and very clear speech

29 - 29.4: Some flawed arguments and somewhat unclear speech

28.5 - 28.9 : Arguments were poorly articulated and speech was more often unclear than clear

Kristopher Wallen Montgomery Bell Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 12:58 PM EDT

Coral Glades 20 Emory 24

Yes, put me on the chain: wallenkrisedu@gmail.com

General

If you're wondering 'will Kris vote for x position,' the answer is yes 99 percent of the time. I have run nigh-every flavor of argument in my own time debating, but ultimately, my argumentative predispositions are secondary to the debating occurring in-round. Debate should be fun, and my favorite rounds to judge are rarely ever specific to round content, but rather reflect a joy and passion for the activity on display between competitors regardless of the style of debate being conducted.

Have the chain up and ready to go when the round starts. Label it reasonably.

Speed is great, but should never be sacrificed for clarity. Do not max spread card tags or analytics. Do not expect me to flow from speech docs, or to fill in gaps of incoherent spreading (I won't). Err on the side of slower in online debates.

Speaks go up if you are timely, organized, use cross effectively, display in-depth knowledge about arguments, execute strategic final speeches, provide judge instruction, etc. Expressing your debate personality, whether it be humor or intensity, also aids a lot here.

Speaks go down if you're rude or condescending.

My non-negotiables. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Don't clip. Don't cheat. There are speech times. I don't evaluate out-of-round occurrences.

Ask me any specific questions pre-round, or email me.

K (on the Aff) --- Affirmatives should have an explicit defense of what they are endorsing, and ideally take a stance on the resolution. Clarity about what the 1ACs method/performance does and how that is solvent, at whatever scale the 1AC selects, is key. I often find Affirmatives become so busy critiquing Negative positions that the central question of 'why vote Aff' becomes muddled or altogether disappears, and in those instances presumption becomes compelling.

Topicality/framework debates can be both incredible and incredibly stale. The former is characterized by in-depth engagement and specificity over generic block reading. Fairness is an impact if made an impact, although I often view clash as better interacting with Affirmative offense. Both sides should respect the TVA/SSD more. If Affirmative, you should choose between an impact-turn or a counter-interp, and use that choice to cohere your rebuttal strategies. If Negative, contextualization to the 1AC makes an enormous difference. I would also always highly consider the viability of other positions in-round before the 2NR. It's extremely frustrating to vote down a team who was massively ahead on the Cap K/Case Turn/etc because the 2N chose to go for T.

For K v K debates, the Negative should establish what aspect of the 1AC is mutually exclusive with the K, and the harms to that aspect. I am highly receptive to rejecting the perm and to PIKs. Pointing out Affirmative shiftiness between speeches, and academic or argumentative inconsistency, raises my receptiveness.

K (on the Neg) --- There are a plethora, but making your critique specific whether through evidence (ideally) or contextualization, is the key. Regarding framework, I will not arbitrarily generate a middle-ground interpretation in my head. Instead, I will weigh the pros and cons of either side's interpretation, as instructed by the debaters.

For Negatives, ensure final rebuttals collapse. I'm fine for framework reject the Aff, alternative solves case, link alone outweighs, etc, but I would advise against attempting to shotgun too many strategies in the 2NR.

For Affirmatives, impact turning the K is completely viable, as is the perm. Both have strategic uses, but I would do well to identify the value in either and use that identification to make a consistent choice in rebuttals. I often find the Affirmative forgets they have read a 1AC in these debates---make sure to leverage as much as possible against the K. Unsure why performative contradictions justify severing reps if the Negative agrees the debate should be a referendum on the 1ACs desirability at some level.

CP --- If it's a process CP, explain your competition argument well and in-depth. Conditionality is good.

DA --- Spin matters. Evidence indicts matter. Do both. Logical take-outs to more frivolous DAs are underutilized.

T --- I have limited topic knowledge, or you should at least act as if that is so. Default to competing interpretations. Often, T debates can devolve into frivolous claims to an Aff or Neg side bias - that is usually a secondary question to the debate over limits/predictability/ground.

For LD: Everything above applies - I enjoy 'larp' debates as well as K debates. I'm not the best for tricks/phil, but that's more so because debaters often speed through blippy analytics without really engaging and explaining - if you're gonna go for these types of arguments, DO THEM WELL and you'll be fine. Otherwise not the best idea.

Allegro Wang Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 9:13 AM CDT

U of MN ’21, current grad student in Communications/debate coach at UGA

Last updated: February '24

Please include me on email chains/contact me if you have questions: allegro.wang [at] gmail

Coached Wayzata '17-'18, coach at Minneapolis South '18-'20

Top Level

I have experience in both policy and critical debate and have coached teams going for a wide range of arguments as well. Most of my HS experience consists of K debate, but I was generally more flex and policy leaning in college and will judge each round as objectively as possible. Doing what you do best is more likely to win you the debate than reading arguments you think I'll "enjoy" listening to.

Tech > truth

Ev quality > quantity

An unwarranted claim isn’t an argument

Please don’t call me “judge,” call me by name

Slightly less dead on the inside than Buntin (though at this point, it's a very slim margin)

In terms of language in rounds, using problematic language (i.e. saying something racist, trans/homophobic, ableist, misgendering someone, etc.) will result in docked speaks.

Below are some random thoughts about specific arguments if it helps

Framework and K Affs

I don’t really have predispositions in a framework round – I’ve both read K affs and gone for framework. That being said, I generally find clash and fairness the most persuasive impacts to framework. TVAs and switch-side arguments can be useful for the neg, but I don't think they're necessary to win the debate.

I think case should be grappled with in some way in the 2nr, either by directly going to case or telling me why your impact on FW turns case, or a TVA/SSD resolves at least some of the aff's offense.

Don’t really have a specific opinion on truth or arg-testing as impacts. I think at best this is generally a defensive filter for how I should evaluate the aff's offense, not a reason to vote on presumption.

I'm most compelled by critical affs that engage the resolutional question in some way. The further the aff is from the resolution, the more compelling I find procedural arguments by the negative.

Ks vs K Affs

Controlling the link debate is probably the easiest way to win for either side.

“No perms in a methods debate” – not super persuaded by the arg on face

If going for the perm, it's helpful if the aff contextualizes what the world of the perm looks like in comparison to the alt alone, and what the net benefit to the perm is. The opposite applies for the neg---explaining what the alt looks like and how it solves/interacts with the aff helps a lot.

Theory/“Ethics”/Speaker Points

I’m pretty neg leaning on theory unless there’s substantial in-round abuse

Condo is usually the only reason to reject the team (though, as I've debated and judged more, I've realized I still have a very high threshold to voting on condo. I am predisposed to thinking infinite conditionality is good and the aff has an uphill battle to win otherwise)

If going for theory, tell me what your interpretation looks like for debate and why that's good

If raising an in-round ethics violation, there should be a record of what the violation was (ex. if you think your opponent clipped, there should be a record of where they clipped).

I flow CX and will reward smart CX execution with higher speaks

I will not make decisions based on events that happened outside of the debate

Kritiks

I have familiarity with most lit bases, both in identity arguments and postmodernism/high theory, but you should still avoid being overly reliant on buzzwords and make sure to contextualize arguments/links. Don't assume I've read your lit in-depth.

Experience in K debate means I tend to have a higher threshold for explanation, especially on the link debate. I don't think alt causes are link arguments--they are defensive reasons the aff or perm don't solve at best.

I don’t think the alt is necessary in the 2NR for the neg to win, but if you aren’t going for it, you probably need a heavy framework push and/or well-developed contextual links.

I'm also definitely down to judge an aff that goes all on on deterrence, heg good, etc. to turn a K - it seems like teams are too willing to read an unfamiliar aff to try and avoid links, which often results in worse explanations. If you're more comfortable going for a hard-right impact on the aff, it will likely result in a better debate - don't over-adapt.

If possible, try to keep overviews short and stick to the line by line. If there's a long overview, let me know I need space for it.

Topicality

I lean towards competing interpretations as a framing to evaluating T - if the aff is going for reasonability, it helps to articulate what your vision of a “reasonable” resolution looks like and why it’s good for debate/sufficient to resolve the neg's offense.

*The next part on the impact to T is shamelessly stolen from Ezra Serrins because he sums up my thoughts so well*

"The resolutional wording defines affirmative ground. Topicality arguments that speak to a predictable and precise definition of the topic, and teams that win their definition is a more literature supported, predictable definition of the topic will have success with me judging. These arguments carry a burden of proof only that one definition is better than the other definition."

Counterplans

CPs should probably be both functionally and textually competitive.

I default to judge kick (including individual planks) unless told otherwise.

In terms of CP theory specifically, I tend to err neg unless the neg has done something uniquely abusive in the debate. If you think theory is your best way to win in the debate, go for it.

DAs/Case Advantages

I love a good topic DA and case debate

Card quality > quantity is especially relevant on DA/case debates. I also think rehighlighting opponent's evidence is underutilized in high school debate (inserting rehighlighted ev does not count---it needs to be read out loud at some point---CX counts)

Presumption/zero risk arguments exist, including through the use of smart and well-warranted analytics (i.e. disconnect between the opponent’s evidence, missing internal links on the DA/advantage, etc.)

Impact turn debates are one of my favorites to judge (since I went to Minnesota). That being said, arguments like “racism good” and “misogyny good” aren’t real arguments and will severely hurt your speaker points.

Ansley Warnock Hire 3 rounds

Josh Weintraub Westminster 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 8:38 AM EDT

4x debater @Georgia, 2x NDT Attendee

Please send your hate mail to --> jhweintraub@gmail.com

I was a 2a for my entire 8 yr debate career, so i'm also willing to do the work to protect the aff from what I see as abusive strategies.

I think I get a reputation for being a hack judge because I end up resolving debates by doing work for either team to try and untangle messy parts at the end, usually by reading a lot of evidence. My biggest issue is in these complex and messy debates when neither side is really making an attempt to clarify the story of what's going on and just speed through the line by line, so the debate ends and I have to make arbitrary decisions on evidence and internal link chains because neither side has told me what the ballot ought to be for. If you can do that I'm significantly more likely to vote for a scenario that is illucidated well and untangled for me.

Ex: Willing to vote on theory against arbitrary and contrived CPs that don't have a solvency advocate or try to skirt clash on the core issue. Willing to vote for the Aff on framework against the K because even though fiat isn't real the game of debate itself is useful.

I like good mechanism debates. Process CP's not my favorite cup of tea but if you've got a CP that you think does actually solve better than the aff i'd be pretty interested in hearing it.

Framework makes the game work and fairness is an impact. If the game isn't fair and both sides don't stand an equal chance of winning what's even the point of playing. At that point we're basically playing blackjack but one side gets to be the house and the other the player, and Idk about you, but I don't wanna play that game.

Coaching is not my full time job so I'm not as tuned in to everything going on on this topic as I would like to be, which means that if you wanna go for T It might be useful to do a little extra work to explain why the aff is far outside the bounds of what we know the topic is. That being said though, i'm definitely willing to pull the trigger on it if I think the aff is overly contrived in an attempt to skirt the core neg ground.

The aff almost always gets to weigh its implementation against the K. The neg gets to link representations but you also need to justify why that matters against the aff or some tangible impact of that.

My background and day job is in cybersecurity (blockchain and encryption engineering) so if you're gonna read arguments about technology i'm gonna expect you to have at least some understanding of how tech works and will almost certainly not be persuaded by tech > truth. Most cyber arguments are stupid and completely miss the nuance of the tools. If you want more explanation i am happy to explain why.

For Novice Only: To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Whit Whitmore Pace Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM EDT

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

Sam Wombough Woodward Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 9:43 AM EDT

Email: womboughsam36@gmail.com

UGA Law '27

Georgia Tech '23 (History and Sociology)

Woodward Academy ’20

Topic Knowledge: I have judged a lot of debates and worked at ENDI this past summer.

Last Substantively Updated: 1/7/24

ㅤ

Short Version + Novices (est. 45 sec. to read)

"Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge, clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates." — Bill Batterman

Flow.

Be nice.

Be clear.

Have fun!

Time yourselves.

It’s probably not a voting issue.

If you read a plan, defend and clarify it.

Do not request a marked copy in lieu of flowing.

Be an evidenced, well-reasoned critic, not a cynic.

If you stop prep and then re-start prep, take off 10 seconds of prep.

If you don't have your video on in online debate, I will struggle to stay engaged.

An argument must be complete and comprehensible before there is a burden to answer it.

Focus on depth in argument. It's more engaging and is the only reliable way to beat good teams.

Write my ballot for me at the top of your late rebuttals, without using any debate jargon or hyperbole.

"Marking a card" means actually clearly marking that card on your computer (e.g. multiple Enter key pushes).

If you advocate something, at some point in the debate, you need to explain the tangible results of your advocacy without relying on any debate or philosophy jargon.

There has been a significant decline in the quality of speaking since online debate started because debaters became less familiar with speaking directly to the judge and because judges gave more leeway to the absence of clarity due to the computer instrument. Judges should never have to rely on reading along with the speech document in order to flow tags/analytics. If you have no intonation nor emphasis during tags/analytics/rebuttals, you are a bad speaker.

ㅤ

More Stuff (est. 1:30 min. to read)

ㅤ

Debate

I really enjoy debate. Debate is the most rewarding activity I have ever done. But debate didn't always feel rewarding while I was doing it. Accordingly, I hope that everybody prioritizes having fun, and then learning and improving.

From Johnnie Stupek's paradigm: "I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that make the debate easier for me to flow including: structured line-by-line, clarity when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing important lines in the body of your evidence, and descriptively labelling off-case positions in the 1NC."

Purging your speech documents of analytics and then rocking through them will be just as likely to "trick" me into not flowing an argument as it will be your opponents.

ㅤ

Case

I will vote on absolute defense.

ㅤ

Critiques

Explain; don’t confuse.

It is anti-black for debaters that are not black (team) to present afropessimist arguments. This practice exists because of the anti-blackness or cowardice of some non-black educators in debate. Frank Wilderson III claims that he "grieves over" debate's appropriation of his work (“Staying Ready for Black Study: A Conversation”).

Postmodernism— Debaters often mischaracterize ornamental absolutism in philosophical writings as almost-theological dogmatisms about how the world operates. This is anti-modern, not postmodern. <— I don't know if that paragraph makes any sense.

I've seen a few debates exclusively about personal identity that were extremely distressful for both sides. I think it's really weird when a high school student prompts a rejoinder from their peers to a pure affirmation of their identity. Please don't make me adjudicate it.

ㅤ

Non-Topical Debates

"No" to aff conditionality. Defend your aff and comparatively weigh offense.

Please stop referencing college debate rounds that you only know about thirdhand.

ㅤ

Theory

The more conditional advocacies there are in the 1NC, the worse the debate usually is.

I am sympathetic to affirmative complaints about process counterplans and agent counterplans that do nearly all of the affirmative. These counterplans, with the States-multi-plank CP in mind, tend to stagnate negative topic innovation and have single-handedly ruined some topics (Education).

ㅤ

Extra

I almost always defer to technical debating, but in close debates:

I am a degrowth hack. T: Substantial against a quantifiably small aff is fun.

I am easily convinced that Bostrom-esque "extinction first" is incoherent and can justify repulsive ideologies.

I strongly believe that China is not militarily revisionist. I think Sinophobic scholarship is festering in debate.

With respect to "Catastrophe Good" arguments, "we must die to destroy a particle accelerator that will consume the universe" is less convincing to me than a nihilism or misanthropy argument. I value accurate science.

Lastly, don't purposefully try to fluster the judge if you want quality post-round answers.

ㅤ

Cheating

In the instance that a team accuses the other of clipping, I will follow the NDCA clipping guidelines (2).

Strawmanning is an ethics violation as per the NSDA guidelines.

(1) https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

(2) https://static.squarespace.com/static/53416a18e4b0aa2aaadf85e4/t/53665f81e4b03af4b79e088f/1399218049326/clipping.pdf

ㅤ

More References

https://the3nr.com/2009/11/03/judging-methodologies-how-do-judges-reach-their-decisions/

https://the3nr.com/2016/04/15/an-updated-speaker-point-scale-based-on-2015-2016-results/ (I inflate this).

https://new.debateus.org/to-consult-or-not-to-consult-on-the-theoretical-legitimacy-of-the-consultation-counterplan/

Jack Young '23 Montgomery Bell Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 10:26 AM CDT

Former policy debater for MBA. I now study political science and philosophy at Loyola Chicago. I have worked for ModernBrain, OCSA, and MBA. I have been active in debate for 7 years and have judged ~50 debates on this topic and cut a few files.

jackyoungpqw@gmail.com

debatemba@gmail.com

Please add both to chains.

I don't do speech-by-speech comments, and I will probably be briefer than most in giving an RFD. I generally don't look at evidence unless it's a 'deep' debate, and take concessions seriously. I don't envision every outcome to vote for a certain side, and if one issue has already settled the debate, I will vote on that issue immediately.

I am a fundamentals judge. I like it when debaters flow and execute intelligent strategies. I don't like it when people say "Can we have a marked copy, including you deleting cards you didn't read?" or ask for cards not read before cross-ex. I view debate as a strategy game, which should reward good competitors. Spreading should be intelligible and line by line should be organized.

The purpose of a paradigm is to detail to debaters your biases. The goal of my paradigm is to indicate where I stand, and I often do so by saying "I dislike..." or something similar. This does not mean I will never vote for a K aff (look at my judging history), but that K debaters should know that I'm not generally persuaded by them. Don't be led astray by the language of my paradigm. I will do my best to vote technically.

I. Judging Framework

I flow tags of cards, authors, and analytic "arguments." If you want to make sure your analytic argument is flowed, put it in a numeric list or make it distinct from whatever else you are saying. My flowing ability is as good as your organizational ability. A lot of kids go too fast between flows or spamming analytics.

Obviously untrue statements can be, if dropped, true. This applies to statements about the debate itself, such as "they dropped x." Some of my decisions are awkward because I attempt to apply this principle unconditionally. I don't necessarily care what I vote on--spark, the extinction K, or the econ DA--so long as it is executed intelligently.

One relevant caveat is notably what constitutes an "argument" in this context. "Condo is a voting issue" is not an "argument" because it lacks a warrant, but "condo is a voting issue for aff ground" is. This goes away when discussing factual information--"the sky is red" is not an "argument" per se because it is a claim (it lacks an impact/implication). So, for instance, if someone said "Hell is upon us: the sky is currently red" then I could logically assume, given dropped, that doomsday is near.

I don't care what arguments I vote on, nor what values I am signaling by voting for them. Debate topics are generally unbalanced, so if a team defends an 'evil' impact turn, surely their opponent can articulate why it's evil.

Inserting highlightings is fine, most of the time.

II. K Affs

I think fairness is good, individual debates have no impact on our subjectivities, and most K affs are bad. Honestly, I don't love judging these debates, but I have adhered to all of my technical principles and on many panels have become the 'swing judge.'

My opinions derive from a valuation of debate's value: I think it's almost impossible to say particular rounds have a noticeable value on political practice. Merely proposing radical beliefs does not generate revolutionary potential. But when teams claim that T is "psychic violence," or that there was an "in-round violence" that occurred, usually I have no idea what they're talking about. It's as if teams reading an untopical affirmative are surprised their opponent is reading topicality. And it makes even less sense when teams say that topicality makes kids have headaches or cardiac arrest.

Fairness can be an impact of models or individual debates. I quite like when neg teams are fine with debating this "only this round" offense by saying "sure, and we still outweigh!"

I enjoy PIKS/CPs against these affirms and have a low bar for competition with K Affs.

The more persuasive K aff arguments to me understand that individual debate rounds likely have no value, but that the individual practices of exclusion over the long-run are bad. I don't think debate has zero impact on our subjectivities, it obviously has some impact over the course of many years.

III. Theory, Competition, T

I like these debates. Most topics demand some sort of aid for either side and in principle, these debates can equal the playing field. To succeed in front of me, you should treat these debates similarly to disads, where each side has links and impacts. "Neg ground" is not intrinsically an impact.

I am a conditionality maximalist and a competition minimalist. My general presumption is that process CPs are bad, even on aff-biased topics, and if they were to be universally accepted, debate would disappear. Conditionality is good, but aff teams don't need to prove an "in-round impact," so long as they're going for models. I'm fine with neg teams defending infinite conditionality, as there aren't infinitely many CPs and Ks to be leveraged against affirmatives, and if the CP/K is bad, the 2AC should be good at answering it.

Generally, I'm more deferential to predictability than debatability. This informs a lot of other things, too: "condo is a fake rule that doesn't matter" makes more sense to me than neg flex does. I would rather see a permutation with an "aff ground" standard than a theory argument. "Small changes in predictability" are, indeed, not so small to me.

"Err aff" vs "err neg" usually means nothing to me. It seems irreconcilable.

I'm not too fond of reasonability. Competing interpretations are intuitive to me. I don't like intervening, and so why would I say a neg's interp is "unreasonable?" Time is better spent logically advancing a counter-interpretation that is defensible. The "reasonability should become offense" crowd should thus call their offense what it is, whether it's predictability or otherwise, instead of "reasonability" if it is an offensive argument.

Not a fan of plan text in a vacuum, either. This is probably my least principled T-related take, but cross-ex, tags, and pieces of evidence seem inevitable without constraints on plan-text writing. I enjoy T debates when done well, and plan text in a vacuum seems to obfuscate them.

I dislike procedural arguments, including aspec and vagueness.

Process CP competition: I'd say I'm decently good at evaluating these debates. I generally think the aff is correct, and process CPs are junk. Sometimes, junk wins debates. That's ok.

IV. Ks vs policy

I almost always decide framework, then use that framework to adjucate the rest of the debate. This seems fairly obvious to me; indeed, "framework" means "the evaluating mechanism I should use for the debate." Linkscan andshould influence the framework, especially if the aff's interpretation devolves into "no Ks." It seems like the most reasonable approach is that neg teams can get links to the plan, and the aff team can leverage offense. But often I'm forced to judge debates on the extremes, like it's a matter of mooting the aff or mooting the neg. K teams let aff teams get away with murder on this issue.

Most of my framework opinions are transferrable. Some Ks might be more permissible, however. A demilitarization K vs a heg aff seems fairly logical, contingent upon the alternative.

I dislike ideological competition because it devolves into vibes-based competition.

V. Impact Calculus and Related Thoughts

If neither team instructs otherwise, I will defer to a consequentialist utilitarian framework that attempts to maximize value and minimize suffering. Utilitarianism is defensible and logical but has valid criticisms. Criticisms should have an alternative system of value.

I agree with KHirn in that most impact calculus is mediocre and non-consequential. Most debates are probabilistic questions: when voting for either team, what's the chance the world perishes? Differences in magnitude are irrelevant if both equate to extinction, and timeframe is unpersuasive unless it's wedged within a defensive claim (for example: "warming takes a while means intervening actors can check" is better than "1% risk of war that causes extinction matters more because its quicker than 99% risk of extinction due to warming").

I don't think everything needs to result in extinction to be bad. Perhaps extinction is categorically different than death of billions--but I think probability has a role to play there. Similarly, extinction is a few categories different than smaller structural impacts, but probability should have a role. The question is how much probability should have a role. The whole .000000001% risk crowd is pretty unpersuasive.

This has implications for impact turn teams: I think I'm more of a sustainability guy than an s-risks guy if that makes sense. I also am generally reluctant to sacrifice vast swaths of the world to prevent some nanotech.

VI. Politics

Politics remains a consistently decent arsenal in the negative's toolbox. That's good! I like politics, but don't read the minutia of politics every day. Somewhere in between Asher Maxwell and Marshall Green.

How do affs get passed? Probably not instantaneously, and probably not without discussion.

VII. Misc

Speaker Points

I disdain speaker points: they're arbitrary, no one knows what a "29 debater" is because the standard isn't universal. When someone complains about a 28.7, I think it's pretty funny--even when I started debate in 2017 inflation wasn't as high. But judging is a rigged game in which I either ruin your tournament by giving you what I thought the speaker point spectrum was, or I cave to the inflationary mob. I shall cave. My speaker points are placed on a standardly derived spectrum where 28.7 is the mean, ~.25 is the standard deviation. Top teams will earn themselves ~29.6.

Disclosure

It's universally good. There's zero scenarios in which disclosure is bad, and I will vote on disclosure theory. People that are petty about disclosure are crazy. If you don't disclose, strike me.

Login to Tabroom

University of Georgia HS Bulldog Debates

2023 — Athens, GA/US

Judges Paradigm List

Judges