Evelyn Alsop, she/her

Northwestern '28

Maine East '24

Add me to the email chain: evelyn.a.alsop@gmail.com and mehsdebate@gmail.com

General philosophy: Contextualizing evidence in round is the most convincing way to win a debate. Please don't make me say "two ships passing in the night" in my RFD.

DAs:

I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.

Counterplans:

I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.

Kritiks:

I debated policy affs and neg strategies throughout high school, which means I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.

Topicality:

I'm very familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.

Theory:

I'm open to theory debates as long as both teams point to specific in-round abuses and have proper interps/counterinterps. If you're going for theory, please make sure you have strong arguments on standards.

GBN '24

Dartmouth '28

2A/1N, she/her. Please do not address me in the second person.

In accordance with guidance from my employer, please use a SpeechDrop or Tabroom initiated fileshare, NOT an email chain.

Everyone should aim to make the round an enjoyable and educational opportunity.

Flow.

Tech > truth. However, I will not vote on racism/sexism/etc good or things that happen outside the round.

Complete arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not evaluate arguments that do not have a claim, warrant, and impact.

You do you in terms of argument type/style/performance and I'll make my decision based on the line by line at the end of the debate and try to be as least interventionist as possible. Judge instruction shouldn't be missing from any type of debating.

I do however, find myself increasingly annoyed by "gotcha" based strategies (like hidden ASPEC). I'll (begrudgingly) vote on just about anything, but higher speaker points go to well thought out strategies (ideally topic specific).

I will flow on paper without the doc open. I will read evidence at the end of the round if the line by line does not sufficiently yield a decision or when explicitly instructed to do so in the final rebuttals. This means if I miss something, that's on you for not articulating, going too fast, etc.

Predispositions:

T -

Voting to normatively limit the topic is less persuasive to me if the negative argues I should ignore predictability.

Instruction on how I should read evidence in the round is important.

Reasonability must be adequately warranted.

CPs:

Fine for process counterplans (I went to GBN lets be real), but realistically lean aff on permutations, especially if the counterplan text is obviously plan plus, fiats the plan, etc.

I would prefer specific counterplan strategies over 400+ advantage counterplan planks.

Theory:

Condo is the only reason to reject the team not the argument (probably). However, keep in mind "reject the argument not the team" is a warrantless claim.

DAs:

I greatly enjoying judging these debates.

Ks:

I am better for Ks that depend on thoroughly explained links, especially if the theory revolves around identity, economics, ecology, etc. than high theory/post-modernism. I vote for the K more than I anticipated. I am immensely frustrated with the mutilation of critical theory in how they are deployed as debate arguments.

T-USFG/Framework:

I have rarely gone for non-T positions against planless/K affs. This means I have limited experience in K v K or other strategies and will require a greater degree of guidance if you go for these strategies.

LD Tricks:

why?

Feel free to ask questions about my decisions. But keep in mind that debate is ultimately a communicative, persuasive activity, and if I have voted against you, that means you have failed to communicate to me the merits of your argument no matter how good you thought your debating was. In other words, stay humble ☺️

Have fun and good luck!

1/15/2025 update...please read - i am now several years removed from the point when i was actively involved in debate and kept up with the topic. i judge a combined total of around 20 policy/ld debates per season. i only coach a handful of times per season, with my coaching usually being for our first/second year teams. my exposure to the topic starts and ends with each debate that i judge. my knowledge of the topic on any given season is essentially nonexistent, and my knowledge of post-2018 debate in general is probably diminishing with time (especially online debates since that wasn't a thing at the time. i took a hiatus from judging during the height of covid). i wouldn't call myself a lay judge by any means, but a few steps above. the safest way to win a debate in front of me is to slow down (not to the point where you aren’t spreading at all, but still a bit more slow than you’d normally speak), and focus on the quality of arguments over quantity. pick a few arguments to explain in depth as opposed to having lots that aren't explained well. line-by-line in the style of "they say...but we say..." will also get you a long way with me...overviews/"embedded clash"...not so much...you can feel free to scrap your pre-written overviews entirely with me. also answer the other side's arguments in the order that they're made. if you want the decision in a debate to come down to the quality of evidence, please make that clear in your speeches because i won't do that on my own (i usually don't open the speech docs anymore, nor do i ever flow author names/card dates. keeping that in mind, statements like “extend the chikko evidence” with little to no elaboration are meaningless to me, as i won’t have any idea what that specific evidence says without an explanation). i won't vote on arguments that i don't understand, miss because of speed/lack of clarity, and so on. i have voted against teams in the past because they went for arguments that i either couldn’t flow or couldn’t understand, even if they may have “won” those arguments if i’d had them on my flows. attached below is my old paradigm, last updated around january 2019. it is all still applicable…

my old paradigm from january 2019:

Happy new year.

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

I don't time anything. Not prep time, not speeches, nothing. If no one is timing your speech and I notice in the middle of it, I'll make you stop whenever I think the right amount of time has passed. The same is true for prep time.

I have no opinions on arguments. I know nothing about the topic whatsoever outside of the rounds I judge. I don't do research and don't cut cards. I'll vote for anything as long as it's grounded in basic reality and not blatantly offensive. Speak slightly less quick with me than you usually would. I'm 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating (just because of my background knowledge, not ideological preference). But I'll vote for anything if it's done well. My biggest pet peeve is inefficiency/wasting time. Please direct all complaints to nathanglancy124@gmail.com. I’m sure he’d love to hear them. Have fun and be nice to your opponents/partner/me.

I'm an Assyrian. A big portion of my life/career as an educator consists of addressing and supporting Assyrian student needs. That influences my thoughts on a lot of real-life topics that regularly end up in debates. That's especially true for debates about foreign policy and equity. So do your research and be mindful of that.

Don't say/do anything in front of me that you wouldn't say/do in front of your teacher.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have questions about anything.

gbn '24

she/her

please put me on the chain: mnf.debate@gmail.com

niles 2024 update: i have minimal knowledge about the topic (i've done some basic research) so don't assume that i have the same understanding about certain issues or that i understand your acronyms and references

most important things!

- be nice to each other, your opponents and me

- flow!

- impact calc and judge instruction should always be a part of your speeches

- tech over truth (BUT i think that truth influences how thoroughly you need to answer something)

- open cross is fine with me, as long as its fine with your opponents. having said this please don't completely take over your partner's cross

- any of the thoughts i have below can be changed with good debating. you do you and i'll do my best to adjudicate the round fairly

aff stuff

- explain your case well. i should be able to explain what the aff does (and its internal link to whatever scenario is extended in the 2ar) at the end of the debate, if i can't then you haven't done this.

- tricky mechanisms are great as long as they can be explained (same goes for questionably topical affs)

- probably not the best judge for k affs. i like t-usfg debates and tend to find clash and fairness arguments pretty persuasive.

counterplans/theory

- willing to listen to anything (<3 process cps) but if the cp is really cheating you should be able to beat it with perms/theory

- you don't need to read the perm texts but they should be in your doc

- condo is probably good (i was a 2n) and it's probably one of the only theory violations that a team should be rejected for. i think most other theory violations are a reason to reject the argument but rarely the team

- if you decide to go for theory please don't just read your blocks straight down, actually answer your opponents argument. you should also be investing substantial time into it

disads

- impact calc and turns case are always part of the best explanations

- explain the story of the disad well, especially if it's more confusing/complex (<3 tricky politics das)

kritiks

- i'm familiar with some of the more common stuff (security, fem, cap, set col, etc.) but anything more complicated please explain well ( you should be doing this regardless)

topicality

- explain your standards and impacts well please! i think t debates can be interesting if executed well

at the end of the day these are just some of my thoughts and i'd rather see you debate well than over adapt and debate poorly. if you have any questions please feel free to ask me! good luck!! have fun!!

leah.debate@gmail.com

GBN ‘24

Dartmouth ‘28

What you should know:

1. Read whatever you want to read.

2. I’m not familiar with the IPR topic. I don’t know your acronyms.

3. If I have the doc open, it’s to read your cards and write down authors. I will not use the doc to fill-in speeches that are unclear.

4. The burden for a full argument is claim + warrant. “Extinction” is a claim without a warrant. “Reject the argument, not the team” is also a claim.

5. The above applies to cards. I will read non-highlighted parts of cards if necessary to resolve a relevant contextual question. I will not reconstruct sentences that are highlighted into shreds.

6. I will default to probability x magnitude unless told I should do otherwise. That applies cumulatively across internal link chains.

CPs:

1. I lean aff on competition/theory for CPs that can be read on any topic.

2. I lean neg on counterplans that compete creatively based on a resolutional phrase.

3. Not all, but many theory arguments make more sense when couched in competition.

Theory:

1. Your interpretation matters. I am more persuaded by theory arguments that are specific enough to solve some of the other team’s offense. “Uniform 50 state fiat bad” is more persuasive than “50 state fiat bad.” “3 condo” is more persuasive than “condo is good.

T:

1. I am less persuaded by the argument that I should vote to normatively limit the topic even if unpredictably.

2. I can be persuaded by reasonability, but not if it’s just the aff whining. “Reasonability” is really just an impact to arbitrariness that lowers the bar for “predictability outweighs limits.” That is, if the neg has arbitrarily attempted to exclude the aff in a manner that could easily exclude a different set of affs in a different debate, it might be more “unreasonable” to vote on limits for the sake of limits.

3. Both teams can get a lot of mileage out of describing which metrics are most significant for determining predictability.

Ks:

1. I’ll do my best to evaluate whatever you read. But, I have never read a planless aff. On the neg, I have very rarely gone for an argument that’s not T.

If I am judging you at a tournament with preferences, then you should strike me if you do not agree with all of the following:

-I am an educator first. If anything happens in the debate that I deem would not be okay in a high school classroom, I will stop the debate and vote against the team that engaged in the inappropriate behavior.

-The affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend the implementation of the plan.

-Affirmative plans these days are too vague. You only get to fiat what your plan says, not what it could mean or what you want it to mean. If you clarify your plan in cross-x, the negative can use that clarification to setup counterplan competition.

-The negative should prove why the plan causes something bad to happen, not why it justifies something bad. In other words - most of your Kritks are probably just FYIs.

-I evaluate debate in large part based on the line-by-line. If you cannot flow, I am not a good judge for you. If you cannot specifically answer the other team's arguments and apply your arguments to them and instead just read pre-scripted blocks, I am not a good judge for you.

-Debate is a communicative activity. I don't follow a card document. I listen to what you say. I will only read evidence if I cannot resolve something in the debate based on how it was debated.

-For something to count as an argument it must be complete and explained. I also must be able to understand what you are saying.

-My lifetime speaker point average range is probably lower than what you are used to.

-Cross examination and prep time start when the speech ends.

-Your technology should be working in order to debate.

-If you are visibly sick during the debate, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.

Jonah Jacobs

Glenbrook North 2017

University of Michigan 2021

11/6 Update

I've judged at more tournaments in the past year than the previous 4, have never judged at the college level, and have been out of debate since leading a lab at Michigan in the Summer of 2020. Some suggestions --- in addition to my earlier thoughts and feelings about debate listed below this --- that could be used to your advantage:

-I am corporate but know nothing about anti-trust law

-I've always found Topicality/Framework arguments more compelling than their affirmative answers

-CX is awesome; asking about lines of evidence that don't impact the debate is lame

-Most claims of "X was conceded" are lies; lying is not only a violation of one of the 10 Commandments, but extremely irritating and impacts speaker points

-Please slow down on T in the 1NC and 2AC - I don't like trying to figure out what's happening in the block

-Arguments have way more cross-applicability than usually suggested and tension between them is often not capitalized on

-I am a sucker for: carded turns case arguments, all the 1AR cards, judge instruction, absurd uses of fiat, Game of Thrones

Stuff I wrote a few years ago that I still agree with

Policy>K

The flow is the only thing that matters - your ability to explain the arguments imbedded in your evidence and articulating why they are superior to your opponents' matters more than the quantity and quality of evidence you have read in the debate.

Judge intervention is awful, I refuse to do it. If the "sky is pink" is unanswered by your opponent, I will presume the sky is pink. If "Topicality - Agent Specification" is unanswered by your opponent, I will presume that teams must specify their agent in order to be topical. But, if you don't explain why this argument wins you the debate, I will not presume it does. Again, the flow is the only thing that matters.

Clarity and persuasion matter immensely to me.

So does impact comparison. I care much less about "magnitude" and "timeframe" than "economic collapse causes a nuclear war faster than democratic backsliding" and "U.S.-Russia war kills more people than U.S.-China war

hi, i'm betsy!

she/her

please put me on the email chain! betsydebates@gmail.com

senior at glenbrook south, in my fourth year of debate

clash clash clash clash! your top priority should be actually responding to the other team's arguments.

simple arguments that you actually understand & can explain > weird complicated blocks that your varsity wrote for you

do not steal prep

stand when you speak

be nice!!!!!! and speak clearly above all - if i can’t understand you i can’t vote on any arguments you make.

i'm pretty comfortable judging most arguments, as long as they're explained. this is particularly true if you're reading high theory ks, weird technical cps, etc - it needs to be adequately explained if you want me to vote on it, don't assume i already know about it.

join the women & gender minorities in policy debate collective! ask me about it or email wandgminpolicydebatecollective@gmail.com, follow the Instagram @women.genderminoritiesincx

NN '19

DePaul '23

Quick things:

Please put me on the email chain: hajirahk0914@gmail.com

I'd prefer if you read a plan, I read mostly policy arguments and I'm not well versed in the lit

Tech>truth

I'm also not super familiar with the topic so explaining acronyms and nitty-gritty concepts are probably important.

More stuff:

Kritiks:

I am probably not the best judge for you if you primarily go for kritiks or read a planless affirmative. I will do my best to keep my predispositions out of the round however I am not well versed in the literature. That being said if you do go for a kritik the more specific to the affirmative the better not really a fan of Baudrillard/Bataille or other generic kritiks. You should explain how the alternative functions and how it is able to resolve the link claims. The alternative resulting in the affirmative is probably a reason to reject the alt or the team.

If you're reading a planless affirmative the most important thing is explaining why you don't need to read a plan and how you are able to access your existential impacts through your model of debate. I went for framework most of the time when I hit a planless aff so I am more familiar with the neg side of things. If you are going for framework you need to explain your impact thoroughly and how your model of debate is able to resolve the impacts outlined by the affirmative.

I have never judged a K v K debate and I'm not the best judge for that. I am not well versed on the literature however if you find yourself in this situation the more thoroughly you explain things the better.

CPs:

The more specific to the affirmative the better. I won't kick the cp unless you tell me to or tell me to do otherwise. Your solvency deficits should be impacted out and explained thoroughly. In terms of theory I guess I'm pretty Aff leaning but if your cp is rooted in the lit you should be fine.

Theory:

Most things can be a reason to reject the argument and not the team except for condo obviously.

Topicality:

Again, I don't know much about this topic so making it clear why their aff is a bad image of the topic is important. Impacting things out is good and explaining that in terms of the aff is good as well.

DAs:

The more specific to the aff the better. There can be zero risk of a DA. There should be a coherent link and internal link story and I think impact calc is super important (answering it is too).

Other general stuff:

Be nice and respectful of everyone I won't tolerate any disrespect and if you have any other questions feel free to ask me or email me.

General Info:

Pronouns - she/her

Email - sarakhandebate@gmail.com

Senior at Glenbrook South High School, 4th Year Policy Debater

- I will not flow while reading off speech docs - I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Stand when you speak and be clear.

- Do not steal prep, clip, touch, or anything of the sort. Be respectful to your partner and the opposing team.

- No arguments that are offensive to others should be read.

- Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

Novices:

**Be responsive to the other team's arguments if you want good speaks. For me, novice year is all about learning clash.

**I'm comfortable with all arguments, so read what you like. I tend to understand disads, counterplans, topicality, and all kinds of kritiks better, but just be able to explain and defend what you have in your 1ac/1nc in your own words.

**Will not judge kick for you automatically. Make the argument for me to do so, and then I'll consider.

**Have fun. ☺️

gbn '24

nu '28

use share.tabroom.com to create the email chain, not my personal email. thank you!

Note: I have minimal knowledge about the topic this year and I haven’t debated in two years--do with this as you will.

Keep debate an enjoyable and educational experience for everyone in the round.

Tech > truth, but no sexism/racism/death arguments please.

Prioritize clarity over speed--I will not flow what I cannot understand.

Complete arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. If they don't, I won't evaluate it.

Flow.

Specifics

This likely will not persuade you to run/not run your prepped arguments, but if you'd like to read more:

T:

Explain your standards and impacts clearly and well -- if you're going to just spread your blocks incoherently you might as well send them out.

K:

Pref me VERY low if you want someone to judge a very techy K round.

I am familiar (but rusty) with common K's like fem, cap, security, set col, etc. Still, do your best to explain everything well and engage with your opponent's arguments to create a cohesive K debate.

It is the burden of the neg to prove that the plan causes your impacts, not simply that it justifies something bad.

I prefer K's with alternatives that solve the affirmative's links and impacts.

K affs:

I don't really get them, but this probably won't change the fact that you're going to read a k aff anyways. I’ll try, but the RFD will probably not be as detailed or as educational as you’d want.

If that bothers you, you know where to put me on your pref sheets.

DA/CPs

basically anything is fair game -- explain the links and compare impacts and I'll probably understand it.

glhf!

Katharine Morley -- she/her

katharine.morley.debate@gmail.com

Northside '24 ~ Dartmouth '28

I know nothing about this topic, but I'm debating in college!

If you are debating at dartmouth next year you should conflict me

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

Thoughts:

I will prob give inflated speaks, bc im a first-year out.

Tag team cx is fine as long as you don’t start talking over cross-ex.

I LOVE impact turns, but... I will not vote on dedev unless you win transition. I don't want to judge death good debates.

I'm probably not the best for all non-capitalism or security critiques, but I will do my best. I prefer clash as an impact over fairness.

I think that a smart analytic can take out a stupid card.

RETIRED FROM DEBATE COACHING/JUDGING AS OF FALL 2024. WAHOOOO!!!!

Please put me on the email chain:eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

email: picklara4@gmail.com

- she/her

Glenbrook North '20

Northwestern University '24 (not debating)

- name chain logically (pls include name round and turney)

-- Novices/JV: if you follow my labeling advice for docs I will give you +0.1 speaks

-- if you can, pls send your analytics so I can flow better - if helps me and you, I promise

- clarity > speed (especially when online), seriously go slower or I will probably miss much of what you're saying

- impact everything out!

- no hateful language, don't clip, don't steal prep, death is not good, etc

- tech>truth (within moderation)

-- if I don't understand any part of what you said, that means you did not sufficiently explain your arguments

-- if you want me to flow every word of your analytics, send them in the chain

- Novices: don't read condo if there's only one counterplan or kritik (one advocacy)

- its probably fair to assume I'm not particularly well-versed in your kritik (especially if high theory) and need more explanation to fully understand your arguments. Be mindful of

- not read up on this topic so be sure to explain arguments fully

Glenbrook North- he/him

I don't know what has happened to wiki disclosure but current practices are unacceptable. Rather than hard and fast rules, I've decided to just incorporate wiki disclosure into speaker points. The baseline is round reports for all your rounds, including what was in the 1NC, the block, and the 2NR, with full text of your 1ACs and cites for all your off-case. Going beyond that will boost your points. Not meeting that baseline will hurt your points.

Use the tournament's doc share if it's set-up, speechdrop if it's not.

I won't vote for death good.

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text per CP into the debate. Those need to be sent out prior to the 2A getting to those perms. The idea that you can "make" a perm but then actually write it later is absurd. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Avi Shah — New Trier '24 — Michigan '28 — He/Him — 2A

Add me to the chain:

avishahdebate@gmail.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

Please title the email chain something relevant — "Tournament Name, Round #, Aff Team versus Neg Team"

Evaluating Debates

Please don't say or do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Tech over truth in every instance. I won't stop rounds unless you tell me to.

I would protect the NEG from new 2AR arguments at my own discretion. Otherwise, it's up to you to point out new arguments.

I won't read evidence unless you tell me to.

I will judgekick even if you don't tell me to.

Planless Affirmatives

I am good for "quick tricks" on either side — microaggressions, fairness paradox, truth testing, etc. Identify these tricks and extend/answer them when necessary.

Topicality

I think about reasonability as additional education offense for the AFF.

Tend to think that predictability matters more than debatability, but 1ARs often debate this poorly. A large limits DA can outweigh a small predictability DA even if the AFF wins that predictability outweighs debatability in a vacuum.

Kritiks

I have no ideological dispositions against kritiks. The ones that seem most strategic to me try to moot the plan using an alternative framework to evaluate the 1AC. If you don't try to do that, I will likely be good for aff permutations.

Aff teams would be well served going for theory against alternatives that clearly fiat a lot more than the plan does. "Utopian" fiat seems a little arbitrary to me, but more nuanced and specific interpretations like international actor/private actor fiat will likely be persuasive.

I am familiar with/have gone a lot of kritiks (cap, security, antiblackness, settler colonialism, etc), but anything based on postmodernist literature will likely require more explanation if the nuance of the literature base is relevant to the decision.

Kritiks of utilitarianism/consequentialism are very confusing to me. Not to say you shouldn't go for them in front of me, but rather that overexplaining instead of assuming I know the nuanced of your specific kritik of utilitarianism is probably the right move.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will reflect the division I'm judging in, my perception of how nationally competitive the tournament is, and, above all, the performance of the debaters in the room. Speaker points are growing to be entirely more arbitrary — so I'll try to define some parameters that, at least in front of me, will earn you high speaker points (or at the very least, will prevent you from losing speaker points).

Answer arguments in the order they were presented. This doesn't preclude you from reading long overviews or generalizing the debate in broad, sweeping themes, but rather just means I would prefer to judge debates in which those overviews were contextualized to the other teams arguments (in the order they were presented). For example, kritik overviews should change based on whether the aff is built to go for framework and extinction outweighs versus the permutation and link turn.

Identify win conditions and relevant portions of the debate. Often, final rebuttals completely misdiagnose what the important questions of the debate are. Correctly identifying these portions and explaining their implications to me will substantially increase your chances of winning and your speaker points.

There are certainly other factors that influence how I give speaker points. Clarity, speed, technical execution, effective cross-examinations, persuasive speaking, quality of research, and, unfortunately, the performance of the team before this tournament and whether I know them personally or not, are among the factors that I probably consider in my mind whether I like to or not. I will try to be as objective as possible in assigning speaker points — including minimizing the prior knowledge and bias I have to or against any particular partnership.

Please number your arguments. It makes my flow 10 times less messy and makes it very obvious to me when one conscious thought has concluded and where the next has begun. Strict adherence to line-by-line and numbering will earn you extremely high points.

Based on how I have historically assigned speaker points, it seems as if speaker points > 29 means I think you are going to break, and speaker points > 29.3 means I think you are going to win at least one elimination round.

-0.1 for every 2 minutes late the round starts. I like having decision time and there’s a start time for a reason.

Miscellaneous

"Try or die" is triggered when extinction is guaranteed if I vote for one side — which will almost certainly guarantee a ballot for the other team. This presumption towards try or die can be flipped by debating as to why timeframe or probability should come before magnitude, but this way of evaluating impacts seems so intuitive to me in debates where both teams agree that extinction is the most important impact to avoid that it'll be hard to do so. If try or die is not a claim made by either team, but the conditions for try or die have been triggered (e.g. 2NR only extends solvency takeouts to warming and 2AR extends warming), I am pretty sure that I would consider it to be try or die to avert warming. This is because, to me, try or die isn't an "impact framing" or "impact calculus" argument but rather just an argument that is logically triggered when a certain set of arguments are present in the debate. I am pretty sure this is not interventionist, but am open to changing this view.

she/her

northside college prep '24- 1N/2A

ucla ‘28

claireshankdebate@gmail.com

Top line

• If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise you will be voted down and given the lowest speaks possible idc.
• tech> truth
• Frame the round for me in rebuttals- explain why i should vote for you and why you're winning the round. Judge instruction makes both of our jobs easier.
• Arguments need to be warranted out- I will not vote on "they dropped this so we win" without a full explanation of what that argument is and what the implication of dropping it means for the round.
• please flow. i will scream if you ask in cx "what did you read".

CPs

• A smartly crafted advantage CP is one of the best things in debate. Solvency advocates ARE necessary, even if it's 1AC rehighlighting.
• I like process CPs but they have to have some relation to the topic for me to buy that an intrinsic perm doesn't solve. If you write a creative perm i will be happy.
• I won't judge kick unless you tell me to

DAs

• I will vote for the team that does the better comparative impact analysis that implicates the case and incorporates quality evidence and defense. These are some of my favorite rounds to judge, but can also be my frustrating if a team doesn't provide me with a full story and gets too caught up in the impact.

T

• T debates can either be very quality or very frustrating. It's important to explain how the aff exactly violates with engagement with the other teams definitions. A good T debate includes topic specific caselists, impact debating to the model the aff creates, and evidence comparison.
• The best standards are limits, predictability and ground probably, and it's important that both teams are not just reading blocks but actually comparing their standards and explaining why theirs are better.
• Explain your violations to me as if I don't know the topic, because I haven't done a ton of research on what exactly the resolution means.

Ks

• I’m probably not the best judge for K affs- ofc you do you and i will do my very best to evaluate the round but you are going to have to over explain the aff especially on framework. I think the best K affs are ones that have some topic link.
• I went for the Cap K v K affs a lot of the time, so those debates are probably where I am most comfortable, but I can judge framework or whatever generic K aff strat as well.
• I like Ks more on the neg but I'm not super well versed in high theory stuff- if you're reading baudrillard, deleuze, or some other philosophical frameworky K, you're going to have to be really specific. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't read the K. I love myself some fem IR, Cap , antiblackness, set col, all the basic stuff. It's super important to explain your K's story and links should be articulated and used as offense.

Theory

I'm good for theory debates- esp ones like condo, PICs bad, perm theory, etc. However, it's super important to explain impacts and interps. If theory is your strategy, you have to go all in on it in final rebuttals for me to vote on it. I'm also going to be hard to convince that stuff like agent CPs, multiplank CPs or utopian fiat are abusive unless they are completely dropped.

BE NICE AND HAVE FUN!!!

Free Palestine

Niles West '23

Michigan State '27

Coaching at Berkeley Prep

Email Chain: hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com

Specific Args

Kritik:

Framework determines whether links need to be unique. Dropping AFF impacts on case put you in a hard position if you are not winning that they shouldn't be able to weigh case. Teams should not allow the neg to act like/say they fiat 'movements' or 'mindsets' otherwise the debate becomes an uphill battle for the aff. If your overly offensive with no defense it makes evaluating the debate hard. Negative kicking the alt and going for links as DAs can be strategic but understanding uniqueness and framework in these debate is key. A lot of the times the ontology, link, extinction bad debate all are also reasons why the affs education is bankrupt---its strategic to integrate these examples into framework for me. KvK rounds for the most goes which ever side has more perm + no link work, specific links are super important in these rounds. Can we do line by line? I don't get heavy theory of power debates absent specific link explanations to the aff and line by line. This is my hot take — I think perms should have some sort of net benefit to it. I don’t think it’s needed everytime if there is a lack of link debating, but often times a net ben to the perm helps me better evaluate the perm vs the alternative.

Framework:

I find myself in the back of clash debates 85% of the time.For me Impact articulation matters---when teams blend impacts and become repetitive/generic it often will make you lose these rounds. These debates should make it clear whether its about models of debate, just fairness in this round or both etc. I believe that "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. Competitive incentives may overdetermine actions but you need to win it and explain what it means to the round, inserting it 40 times isn't going to get you anything. I find TVA's to be wayyyy more persuasive than SSD but no matter what at least one of them should be extended because you definitely need to be able to access at least some of their offense. Aff you should just go ham on the impact turn, but it gets hard to evaluate debates where the 2AR is extending every DA and not unpacking/comparing impacts---explain the intrinsicness between your aff and the topic. I think the best way to beat neg standards is by turning predictable limits. Judge instruction is SO important in the 2AR in these debates, it'll always seem like somehow the aff is behind on some part of the line by line in FW debates but this doesn't mean you have to lose? I am so sympathetic to instruction on how I should evaluate the debate and why on the tech level things don't matter. I do think debate can create subject formation, but you still obviously need to win it. Oh I love it when the Aff team CX's on how fairness is an impact, framework teams seem to struggle on articulating the impact to it seems very circular by the end of it. I have started to dislike t = microagression strat, Its hard for me to understand why it needs to be elevated to that? If something is violent or a bad "idea" I dont think it needs to be called a microagression to be rejected and voted against. I also am not the biggest fan of the 'models k' often time it seems defensive, I would much rather just have you tell me why just this one round matters more and explaining how that outweighs their "model's" approach. This being said don't over adapt, do what you're good at. Im fine with 2n's going for clash or fairness, have been feeling like fairness is just easier to win recently.

Topicality:

I am not very familiar with topicality on the IP topic, thus things like TVA, list of good AFFs under your interpretation, list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams are helpful.

Disadvantage:

yes plz. don't feel like you can only go for the k infront of me! ev comparison matters in these debates when its close so do it for me! I am not a fan of teams reading a bunch of definitions to get out of links, but if you justify it then fine...

Counterplans:

I just don't think I am that good for competition debates, process counterplans confuse me. Rehighlighting 1AC evidence is a good way to show the CP overcomes solvency deficits. If you think the CP does not solve all of the aff, you should probably have some impact d/turns or whatever on what you don't solve. If you go for the perm over explain for me. Big fan of advantage cp's. Yes judge kick if unless I am advised not to. Do you need a solvency advocate? Probably. Will I vote for you if you justify not having one? Maybe...

Miscellaneous

Ramadan is coming up and I know it's not easy to debate or even judge while fasting so its good to just be aware. If you are fasting and theres anything I can do to help accommodate please let me know.

I have read both k and policy oriented args throughout highschool and college. I would say more k in highschool and have been more flex in college.I will vote for anything---I refuse to intervene and leave my own bias's at the door before debates. Obviously I believe if an argument is dropped it gets 100% weight. But If I can not explain the argument after the end of your speech then you most likely didn't do enough work for me, I dont vote on claims without warrants. Also like judges are also human, we make mistakes, to avoid this clear clear clear judge instruction is so so so important.

I have started to flow on paper and most likely will when judging unless I forget flows. This being said if you don't give pen time, or enough indepth explanation for me to jot down a warrant (especially in rebuttals) it is your fault! I usually wont flow the 1AC. I DONT FLOW OFF THE DOC! I'll read cards if I need to.

I have a high threshold for voting on theory other than probably condo, but I think condo is probably good but ill vote on it, I think the aff is in a bad spot when the 2AR is making new extrapolation on it, this is often what makes teams going for condo lose on.

I don't clear people its weird to interrupt flows of speeches imo but this means if ur unclear and i cant flow you its just not my fault. If you prefer being cleared please let me know before the round starts so I know everyone is on the same page.

Tech > Truth

Clipping is a weird issue to resolve, its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.

I find myself giving high speaks, getting away from blocks, your knowledge about the topic, organization are all the big things that go into how I give speaks.

For other forms (pf, ld) I will evaluate rounds like I would a policy one. I am not familiar at all with either topic and am not great for weird theory things, trix etc.

I don't think I would be the person I was without the people around me who supported me and helped me through these years of debate. That being said it would be selfish to not want to give back. Debate is expensive, time consuming, has biases so if you ever need help, support etc. Don't hesitate to reach out.

Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!

I will give you higher speaks if you make a funny joke about Zaria Jarman

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

ME

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

RANDOM

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

Jon Voss

Johns Creek

I've been around for a long time. Debate is not my full-time job anymore – I mostly sell vintage Pokemon cards – so with the unique exception of literature related to the Tiffany decision and the intricacies of running a small business on eBay/Mercari/Whatnot, my topic knowledge is limited to what I know about IPR from coursework completed earning my MBA and the years I spent in debate. I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, and I certainly don't know who is supposed to be good. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "barely."

Stanford LD Update: I participated in ~5 LD rounds as a high school student in 2005. I've since judged about ten rounds of the event. I imagine I would be out of my depthsjudging anything other than something resembling a 1v1 policy debate.

Yes email chain: consult.australia at gmail. Please CC your coach if you are contacting me for feedback about a debate or something. Please also consider contacting someone with a better grasp on contemporary debate trends; my takes were last hot during the Obama years if they were ever hot at all.

Trufanov flowing thing: -- I don't read along during the speeches, ever. On my laptop, in an excel template. It was is and forever shall be titled"Sheboygan North Debate Flowing Template_Working_110907.xlt." I might poke around during prep time to read counterplan/permutation texts or verify something that was said in CX. Beyond that, I won't open the doc until the debate ends unless I think you're clipping. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

> 95% of high school debates are not so close that my argument preferences would matter a whole lot. Your ability to identify the argument made by your opponent in the order they made the argument and respond to it in the next speech in the order the argument was presented ("tech") is the only thing that matters except at the margins and maybe not even then. The better team will win most rounds regardless of the judge, the arguments selected, etc. There are a handful of things that may matter to you though, especially if you are reading this anticipating that the debate I'm about to hear is going to be relatively evenly matched or otherwise fly off the rails.

--IPR topic: entering December, I've seen a lot of debates on the topic and have actively worked on the argument side of the topic a fair amount. I don't have the test cases to say it with certainty, but the topic feels impossibly large and I think I'd be very good for the NEG going for T against a 2ar that has to go for a less limiting counter-interpretation. Still very good for creative "we meet" arguments from AFFs who have made strategic choices to defend a broad plan text in hopes of trading T concerns for linking to more DAs, however.

--I won't vote on arguments that call students' character into question based on behaviors outside of the specific debate I am judging. That includes introducing evidence that undermines a person's character as an argument during the debate itself. Adults who coach students to leverage screenshots and personal attacks to win debates should leave the activity. Judges who feel differently should grow tf up. Things said or done inside of a debate I'm judging are different: you can certainly make an argument that, for example, a team should lose the debate because they used gendered language. I'll stop the debate myself and let my esteemed colleagues in the tabroom handle it if it's egregious...I've had to do it twice, ever, against ~1500 rounds judged, but I'm not afraid.

-- Limited decision times and time wasting norms from the COVID years makes it more important than ever that the 2XR prioritize the easiest path to victory. I don't want to have to resolve any more issues than I absolutely have to. You want the same thing - left to my own devices, my reading comprehension and argument resolution skills will shock and dismay some of you.

-- If I can understand > 90% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the floor for speaker points is 29. If I cannot understand > 50% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the ceiling for speaker points is a 27 and you're almost certain to lose because I missed at least half of your arguments. If you debate close to conversationally and win the debate while demonstrating exemplary command of the relevant issues, I might even start throwing some 30s around. Just speak more slowly and clearly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG on T assuming reasonable 2AR execution. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read it and explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. But I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Affirmative teams should probably just impact turn everything the neg says and hope the 2N hasn't had their coffee yet. I am likely to be persuaded by the stock negative responses to those impact turns, but at least then it's just an impact comparison debate. And while that road to victory is still treacherous with me, "where there is a link there is a way."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a student and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

**It is helpful, but not imperative, that the negative prove that the affirmative's literature could have been introduced in support of a topical advocacy and/or when debating as the negative team.

This is moved to the bottom because it was written during the 23-24 topic, but it's still instructive about how you might approach a deep impact/impact-turn debate if I'm judging:

-- Broadly, unless you can't avoid it, don't. This isn't an argument preference or literature thing; I just very authentically (and, I think, correctly) believe I am much worse at judging these debates than those that involve more external interactions between arguments. I'll give it my best shot no matter what...but you've been warned.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on . I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.