Policy debater at Bellarmine

Ryan Mills Note: I understand the basics of LD, just debate as you normally would

Also, my views are firmly aligned with Andrew Wen

For debate, please refer to Derek Qian's paradigm

For speech, please refer to Derek Qian's paradigm

Big Child enslavement guy

Go slow and be clear. Don’t be rude or super uptight, especially in cross.

Make sure you weigh and tell me clearly which VIs/Stock Issues are winning you the debate.

Have fun!

I'm open to bribes.

i'm hungry

Rhetoric Policy Debate:

1. Be respectful and kind towards each other
2. Do what you learned from all your time in Rhetoric

---Bellarmine Rhetoric Policy Debate Tournament---

Focus on your story. Your story is more important than any individual line-by-line argument. Don't get lost in the weeds, look at the big picture.

Treat me like I am a parent, I can follow along with any argument you want to make, just have a good explanation of your argument and why it matters because if I cant understand your argument then I cant vote for it, have some weighting as to why your argument means you should win the debate

Make sure to be kind to each other in round!

bellarmine '22

dartmouth '26

Please add this email to the chain:

ramgorthi@gmail.com

For Nationals:

Congratulations on making it to Nationals! It's a huge accomplishment and you should be very proud of it.

My approach to judging policy debate is as a policymaker considering implementing the affirmative through the United States federal government. I could be persuaded to view the debate through an alternative framework. (I'm adding this to clarify that stupid question on the Nationals paradigm form).

I debated in high school for 4 years and went to the TOC/Nationals, and I'll probably be able to follow the debate. The ideal nationals debate in my eyes is a well-researched aff vs. a disadvantage and a thorough case debate. But I understand if you need to debate differently to win the round.

Please adapt to the most 'lay' judge on the panel.

This is from my high school debate coach's paradigm for debating at Nationals. I agree completely.

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold:1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's argumentsand2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

My views are aligned with Adarsh Nallapa's.

I vote based on impact framing, depth of analysis, and uniqueness. Be tangible.

Bellarmine '21

Harvard '25

Assistant coach for Bellarmine.

Email for the chain: ahiremath35@gmail.com. It would be great if you could make the subject "Year -- Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team."

Some people who have heavily influenced my views on debate: Surya Midha, Tyler Vergho, Debnil Sur, Dhruv Sudesh, Rafael Pierry, and Anirudh Prabhu. Feel free to check out any of their paradigms too.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Berkeley Tournament '24 Update
- I haven't judged any rounds on the topic. Don't assume I know any topic specific jargon or accept any community consensus.

- Beliefs about AI: AGI is inevitable, actors like OpenAI are most likely to achieve AGI, it is possible to regulate AI, most open source AI is good, and misaligned AGI can pose an existential risk.

- I despise the trend of ad hominem attacks in debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General thoughts

- I don't care what you read. While my partner Surya and I mostly read policy arguments, we occasionally read K affs and even went for the Baudrillard K in our TOC bubble round.

- Rebuttals should acknowledge and address the weakest parts of your own arguments. Reduce the debate to 2-3 core issues and clearly explain why winning those issues mean you have already won the debate.

- Hard numbering arguments is beautiful and makes it very easy to flow the debate. "One, two, three" > "first, second, third."

- Answer arguments in the order presented.

- Don't waste time calling arguments "terrible" or "stupid" or anything like that. Just directly explain the reason why the argument is poor.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FW

- Clash, fairness, and movements can all be great impacts. If you go for fairness, lean into the "debate is a game" framing. If you go for movements / skills, explain why that solves their offense better.

- Please don't just read blocks straight down. Contextualize as much as possible, wherever possible. The first lines of your 2NC/2NR overview should point out a central problem in the aff construction or strategy.

- Impact comparison is crucial, especially in final rebuttals.

- I generally vote for the team that is more offensive in these debates.

- Counter-interpretations need to have a somewhat clear caselist. Negative teams should make fun of counter-interpretations that don't.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CP

- Send all perm texts in the 2AC.

- Textual and functional competition are great standards to hold CP's to. 2A's should also be prepared to go for textually non-intrinsic but functionally intrinsic perms.

- Counterplans can solve for an advantage's internal links or an advantage's impacts. The best CP's do both.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

K

- The negative only gets to weigh the impacts of their links. How large the impacts are is up for debate.

- I don't have great background knowledge on the majority of these literature bases, so please be clear when explaining dense concepts. If I can't understand your arguments then I won't vote for you.

- 2A's should be mindful of what they need to win given 2NR pivots. They kick the alt? Winning framework basically means you auto-win the debate. They go for the alt? Winning a substantial DA to the alt can help you in multiple areas of the debate.

- Pick 1-2 pieces of offense on the framework debate and explain them well in the final rebuttals. These debates get muddled when either side tries to do too much.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

T

- Predictable limits are more important than limits for the sake of limits.

- Interpretations need to have a clear intent to exclude, otherwise the affirmative will have a much easier time winning "we meet." Surya's paradigm has a great explanation of this.

- Plan text in a vacuum is a better standard than most people give it credit for. If the alternative to plan text in a vacuum justifies the negative procuring violations from non-underlined portions of cards, then the aff should make fun of that.

- The 2AR/2NR should isolate 1-2 pieces of offense, explain why they outweigh, and explain why they solve/precede the other team's offense.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Theory

- Please be as slow as possible.

- Things that are good: conditionality, 2NC CP's, kicking planks, CP's without a solvency advocate.

- Things that are bad: international fiat, multi-level / multi-actor fiat.

- Theoretical objections other than conditionality can be made into better substantive arguments. A CP doesn't have a solvency advocate? Probably means your deficit is more credible. A CP uses an archaic process to establish a precedent? Probably means the perm shields.

rhetoric:

don't call me judge, call me andrew

debate how you were taught in rhetoric

hearing clear signposting will make me a happy judge

explain your arguments - my favorite debates will have concrete and multifaceted explanations of arguments, not surface-level statements about how your affirmative plan is great for poverty or why it's horrible for the economy

tell me how to make my decision - your rebuttal should guide me through every stock issue and explain why you have won those stock issues and why that means you win the debate. i want you to explicitly tell me a reason to vote for you. i'm a lazy person so if i have to figure that reason out myself, i'll be upset.

don't do sketchy things. i don't want to see any lying about what your opponent has said or making up things that are not based in evidence. spin is fine but lying is not.

please be nice to your opponents and everyone else in the room. if you are being mean, then i will be mean when grading.

brownie points if you reference kpop

have fun!

bellarmine '22, cornell '26

akhiliyengar2004@gmail.com

for nats:

1) judging debates as a policymaker, most well-versed with traditional policy arguments centered around the resolution.

2) subject email chain as following: “Year -- Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team”

3) broadly speaking, my views on debate are influenced by Anirudh Prabhu, Tyler Vergho, Surya Midha, and Adarsh Hiremath.

4) please adapt. do not treat me as a purely circuit judge if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions.

5) i don't like contrived internal link scenarios, squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in CXs and speeches. i like nuanced case debating, clean/structured line-by-line (number arguments like one, two, three, etc), cohesive storytelling/impact framing, and, in an ideal world, case-specific negative strategies (although i recognize that may not always be realistic, in which case neg strategies creatively contextualized to the aff suffice).

I've done Public Forum debate (mostly slow) for 3 years

Dear Debaters,

To ensure a fair and productive debate, I'd like to share my judging philosophy and argumentative preferences:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I highly value clear communication. Please speak at a pace that allows for proper articulation and understanding.
   • Maintain a well-organized structure in your speeches. Signpost your arguments and provide clear transitions.

2. Content and Substance:

   • Strong arguments are the cornerstone of any debate. Focus on developing clear, well-researched content.
   • Provide solid evidence to support your claims. Quality trumps quantity - I'd rather hear a few well-supported arguments than a flood of weak ones.

3. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. Show why your case is stronger or provide effective rebuttals.
   • Don't just extend your own arguments; address the key points raised by your opponent.

4. Critical Thinking and Analysis:

   • I appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and the arguments presented by your opponents.

5. Adaptability:

   • Be ready to adapt your strategy if needed. Flexibility in response to the flow of the debate is a sign of effective debating.

6. Evidence Quality:

   • Cite credible, relevant sources to bolster your arguments. I value well-researched positions supported by reputable evidence.

7. Strategic Use of Cross-Examination:

   • Cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and gather information. Utilize it strategically to strengthen your case or expose weaknesses in your opponent's.

8. Impact and Weighing:

   • Clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. Explain why they are more significant or relevant than those of your opponent.
   • Weigh the most important issues in the round. Tell me why your case should take precedence.

9. Time Management:

   • Allocate your time wisely. Ensure you have sufficient opportunity to present your points, engage in rebuttal, and conclude effectively.

10. Ethical Conduct:

    • Maintain a high level of ethical conduct throughout the round. Respect your opponents, the rules of the tournament, and the judging process.
    • Be mindful of the language and content you use. Avoid any form of discrimination, hate speech, or offensive remarks.

Remember, I'm here to evaluate your arguments based on their merits. I don't have any preconceived biases, and I'm open to being persuaded by well-reasoned and well-supported arguments.

Good luck, and let's have a great round!

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.

:D

Bellarmine '24, he/him

I'll flow. Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com.

Speed is fine.

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. Ideologically, I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion.

I don't care how well you can read blocks straight down. Line-by-line arguments, and respond to them in the order presented.

Tech > Truth. No argument is off limits, but don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc.

CX is underutilized. Exploit concessions.

Judge instruction is paramount. Debates without comparative analysis explaining what arguments I should prioritize over others are difficult to resolve. Technical concessions matter, but explain why they implicate my ballot. Be concrete and comparative.

Case debate is a dying art. Doing it well - on either side - will be rewarded.

CX Paradigm:

***Full disclosure: I'm not in Policy anymore...I'm unfamiliar with the new resolution, so make sure to define acronyms/shortened phrases in your constructive so I can follow.

I'll be judging Rhetoric like a normal lay judge because that's who you'll have for the rest of the year.

Please make sure to weigh: state why your VIs & how that wins you the stock issue --> winning the debate. I haven't done policy in a minute, so please say your speech order before starting speaking(state the order of stock issues that you'll go down in your speech).

I will evaluate solely argumentatively...although if delivery is very subpar, that will factor into the ballot.

Most importantly, make sure to have a consistent story through your speeches & have fun.

Also, be kind.

Email - benmanens@gmail.com - put me on the chain

Note for NSDA - “In a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation” -Debnil Sur. More than happy to judge a faster, more technical debate, but if you find me on a panel with less experienced judges, it would be a travesty to blow past the lay judge for my ballot. Adaptation is a lost art - about half my debates in high school were on the national circuit, but the other half were in front of local parent judges, and it would make me just as happy to judge a stock issues debate as it would a full fast round, and everything in between.

General thoughts:

1) Tech over truth - I like certain arguments and dislike others. This does not change how I evaluate them in the context of a debate and my ideological predispositions are easily overcome by outdebating the other team. That being said, while adapting to my argumentative preferences will not affect my likelihood to vote for you, it may improve the quality of my judging for both sides absent clear explanation and judge instruction.

1b) Dropped arguments are true, but only so long as they are attached to a claim, warrant, and impact. My threshold for what constitutes those three components is low if left unanswered.

2) I have near zero experience with the topic. Err on the side of overexplaining rather than underexplaining.

3) I flow on paper, and have never been very neat. I will reward good signposting* and clear judge instruction that frontloads the most important arguments in the debate.

*From Surya Midha's paradigm: "Number everything. 'One, two, three' is preferable to 'first, second, third.' If your gripe with numbering is that it 'interrupts the flow of your speech,' you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice."

4) Final rebuttals should identify the most important issues in the debate and coherently flesh them out. 2NRs and 2ARs too often get lost in the weeds of line by line and forget to extend complete arguments and/or instruct the judge on why the debate so far should lead them to a decision one way or the other.

5) I flow CX. It's a lost art. You can go ahead and waffle or use it as prep time, but smart, well-thought out CX strategies that impact the course of the debate will be rewarded.

Topicality:

1) I default to competing interps, but have recently been more and more open to reasonability if the aff invests time in fleshing it out and making it a part of their strategy. I'm most compelled by aff explanations that use reasonability to weigh substance crowdout as offense against whatever the negative goes for.

2) Reading a piece of evidence that defines a word in the resolution is a very basic threshold for a T interp, but one that less and less T interps are meeting. If you have to spin what the words in your interp card say, you're probably stretching it. Not only does it make it a nightmare to watch, it should, if executed properly, make it very easy for the aff to win on predictability.

3) I've gone back and forth on plan text in a vacuum - I lean neg but oftentimes teams are underprepared for a 2A bold enough to go all-in on the argument.

4) It is the negative burden to establish a violation. Please don't make your 1NC shell say "Interp: [x must do y], Violation: they don't."

Theory and Competition:

1) Condo can (or can not) be a voting issue, everything else is a reason to reject the argument. I dislike that a 15 second argument in the 1AR can be blown up to a 5-minute 2AR, and will hold the line on egregious overextrapolation.

2) I'll vote for dropped ASPEC (and other arguments of the sort), but I will not be happy doing so. Don't drop it.

3) Slightly neg-leaning on condo and process CPs, solidly neg-leaning on PICs, multiplank, agent, solvency advocate, and concon theory, solidly aff-leaning on delay and international fiat. Still, dropped arguments are true, and I will happily vote on conceded or undercovered pieces of offense.

4) The 2NC is a constructive, 1NR is not.

5) You will be best served by ditching whichever blocks you stole from a college round to spread at top speed and instead collapsing down to your best one or two pieces of offense, fleshing that out, and comparing it to your opponent's main piece of offense.

6) I'll default to judgekick unless debated out.

7) I generally prefer competition over theory, but theory bolsters whatever arguments you make about competition. Positional competition is a hard sell, limited intrinsicness, PDCP, and all the other typical process CP perms can go either way. It is the neg burden to establish competition.

Counterplans:

1) Sufficiency framing is both underrated and overutilized. It is extremely helpful in establishing burdens and thresholds in regards to judge instruction, but is only valuable insofar as you apply it to specific internal links rather than a 5-second buzzword-filled explanation at the top.

2) I will reward long, creative advantage counterplans that throw a curveball at 2As. I will also reward 2As that respond with deficits that demonstrate they've thought through the strategic value of their advantages and can creatively apply them. On that same note, solvency deficits are underrated vs process CPs if you've written your aff correctly.

Disadvantages:

1) Try-or-die, impact turns case, and other impact framing arguments of the sort are rhetorically compelling, but not very helpful in terms of evaluating relative risk. The question I ask myself in these debates is which side I vote for will prevent the greatest impact. This also means that saying "timeframe - intervening actors/live to fight another day" absent a specific warrant behind that is not super helpful.

2) Specific link analysis and contextualization is indispensable. Carded evidence is the gold standard, but cleverly spinning generic evidence can suffice in a pinch. Storytelling is key.

3) I don't believe in zero risk unless something damning is dropped, but that doesn't tend to matter much. Quantifying the risk of disadvantages only matters insofar as it is necessary to make a comparative claim, and oftentimes the arbitrary difference between zero and near-zero risk does little to change that comparison.

4) Always down for an impact turn - am not a huge fan of spark/wipeout, but will still evaluate it. Organization of these debates is key, and especially in later speeches collapsing down to a couple of core claims and clearly explaining how they implicate the debate.

5) I have a soft spot for politics and the rider DA. Doesn't mean I'll vote for it (the rider DA goes away if the aff says the right things), but I'll be happy to see it well executed.

Kritiks:

1) The quickest way to my ballot on the aff is winning that your case outweighs. The quickest way to my ballot on the neg is winning a framework interp that mitigates that. I find that oftentimes they are poorly answered and implicate the other, so taking advantage of that will do you a lot of good.

2) I don't mind long overviews in the right circumstances if flagged beforehand. They're helpful to explain necessary thesis-level components of your argument, but counterproductive when they begin replacing line-by-line.

3) I'm somewhat familiar with most common kritiks - afropess, setcol, security, cap, etc. Err on the side of overexplaining if unsure.

4) From Anirudh Prabhu's paradigm, "All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so." Specific link analysis is not only satisfying to watch, it will make it more likely that you win.

5) The Cap K is my pet peeve. I find it ridiculous that someone labeled capitalism bad a kritik and then could basically read that as an impact turn versus almost any aff. At the same time, aff teams tend to do a poor job at exploiting the tensions between the impact and framework, link magnitude and the perm, etc. I say this not to stop you from reading it, but be aware when it's strategically valuable to extend.

K Affs/Framework:

1) Ideologically, probably not great for the aff. I've never read a K aff nor gone for anything other than FW against K affs, and I believe affirmative teams should affirm the resolution. However, I will do my best to evaluate these debates independent of my own beliefs. Good framework vs K aff debates are my favorite to watch, and many of the judges I look up to are quite middle-of-the-road in these debates so I strive to reach that standard myself.

2) Packaging and framing in framework debates is just as important as the arguments themselves. The team that is more offensive in final rebuttals gains a massive advantage.

3) I find impacts grounded in debate's form more compelling than those related to the content of the debates themselves, not out of personal belief, but in terms of strategic utility. Fairness is probably good, but whether it is an impact is left up for debate - I've gone back and forth, can be persuaded either way.

4) I have a slight preference for the aff to forward one or two impact turns rather than a counter-interp with numerous shoddily extended disads, but oftentimes negative teams do far too little to exploit the offense they could generate from the counter-interp. Regardless of which route you take, the best way to persuade me and excise any of my implicit skepticism is to phrase your offense as if you were answering the question, "why not read it on the neg?" It is not necessary, but it will go a long way to help me vote for you.

5) Specificity, specificity, specificity - on both sides, please explain in concrete detail what debates would look like under each team's model: what affs and off-case positions get read, what those debates come down to, etc.

6) I have never been in a K v K debate, nor have I ever judged one. Please overexplain, and then explain a bit more just for good measure.

Hey, my name is Anirudh (Ani) and I'm a sophomore at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I've been doing speech and debate for around one and a half years now, so I'm somewhat experienced.

At the top, there are a couple of things I look for.

- One, all your evidence should be highlighted in pink.

- Two, winners win.

Now on to the more specific stuff.

Speech:

- I've been doing extemp for a while now, so I might know a little more about the topics than your average judge. That said, I also know at least the basics of other events such as Expos, OA, and OO.

- I'd like you to have a clear structure in your speech that makes it easy for me, the judge, to understand. I want to know what I'm writing down before I write it down.

- Make sure to project yourself with confidence. One, two, even ten mistakes is fine as long as you recover with confidence.

- Content matters; if doing extemp, make sure points are distinct from each other and that each point has at least 2 cites.

- Make sure to seem like you're enjoying yourself so it's engaging to the judge.

Policy:

I do policy debate, so I'm definitely most comfortable with that.

I will flow the debate to make sure that I have all the arguments; if I miss anything, I'm sorry, but please don't ask me to change my mind after I submitted the ballot.

I stress the affirmative team hitting all of the stock issues: topicality, harms, inherency, solvency, and the disadvantage. That said, I won't just vote neg if the neg wins one stock issue. I want the neg to win the stock issue and show why it matters more than the aff's harms. This means that framing the debate is extremely important to tell me how I should evaluate it. I will automatically vote neg if the neg wins on topicality since it is a fundamental rule of debate.

I'm not going to vote on how I perceive an argument, but rather how you argue it. For example, even if I believe that the Deterrence DA for the Death Penalty aff is false, I will still vote neg if the neg argues it better than the aff and why it matters more than the aff's harms.

Set up concessions in cross-ex. This is extremely important for me because CX is a great time for me to look on the debate and understand the main points of contention. Once you get the opponent to concede something in CX, bring it up in the next speech to show why it matters. This is a great way to gain credibility, but a lot of debaters forget CX even if they decimated the opponent. On the topic of CX, please be polite to the opponents. Do not insult them whatsoever, or speaker points will be docked. Please do not scoff like you're better than the opponent; that seems like ultimate arrogance. That said, I am all right with you bringing a little bit of passion into the CX if the opponent is deliberately avoiding your questions.

I think that the block should be split into different stock issues per speech. For example, if solvency is in the 2NC, DA should be in the 1NR, not solvency again.

Please define stock issues: I want to understand what they are and why they matter. It may seem repetitive, but every time you transition from one stock issue to the other, explain what each of them is.

During the rebuttals, especially the 2NR and 2AR, I think you should explain how you already won the debate in all of your previous speeches. These rebuttals should be a lot about looking back on the round, and explaining how you won and how your arguments matter more than the other teams.

Do not spread; I can flow it but I won't because it's not good practice for League tournaments. Also, please do not keep using jargon. Once again, I will probably understand it but I do not want you guys to say things like "impact outweighs" or "we win the framing contention" because that's a) not good practice for league and b) it's going to keep you guys in bad habits.

Please add me to the email chain. My email is ani.mani23@bcp.org I would prefer if the debate goes in a timely fashion, where the evidence blocks are ready to be sent on time. I will check the evidence if the debate comes down to the quality of evidence (which it probably won't) or if the evidence highlighting seems sus.

I will NOT tolerate any improper behavior, such as racist or gender-insensitive statements. This will be reported and your speaker points will not be fun to see.

Direct any further questions to the aforementioned email address.

At the end of the day, have fun. Whether you lose or win isn't the big thing; it's the experience you got out of debating.

LD:

I have tons of experience in LD (judged precisely one debate).

At the top of each of your speeches, specify what your value contention is, and list your main arguments as to why you have won on the value contentions.

In later speeches (e.g. the 1AR, please refer back to evidence read in previous speeches to support your argument). Please point out potential concessions the other team made and why they're so important.

CX is super important, so reference concessions gained from there into future speeches.

The last few speeches shouldn't be about making new arguments (which I won't count anyway), but rather explaining why you have won the debate by weighing your impacts on the value contention to theirs.

Extend your main arguments into the last speeches; don't extend everything you had in your first speech if you're clearly losing on the line-by-line. Pick your most important arguments and stick with them.

Don't do dumb stuff like demeaning your opponent or shouting in cross-ex.

The more prepared you seem, the better your speaks. You can appear more prepared by talking fluently and (maybe) taking less prep.

Enjoy!

The most important thing is to IMPACT OUT all of your arguments. Don't just tell me that a Federal Jobs Guarantee will be expensive. Explain to me WHY this argument should win you the debate and why it is more important than the Aff's claims. By the rebuttal speeches, tell me what arguments you are winning, why they are the most important arguments in the debate, and why that means you have won.

The next most important thing is to EXPLAIN your arguments. Do not just read a card and move on. Explain to me the implications of the evidence, and why it's relevant to the debate.

Delivery obviously matters, but I tend to place greater importance on well-prepared strategies, and thorough analysis/explanation.

If I'm nodding my head, your argument makes sense and you're explaining it well. If I'm squinting my eyes or shaking my head, I am confused by your argument/not following. Make of this what you will.

My views are aligned with Neal Dwivedula - just ask whatever questions you have in the round, I've debated policy for a few years and have some experience judging novice policy and LD.

- email: shivenpandey21@gmail.com (include me in all email chains)

For Bellarmine Rhetoric Frosh Tournament:

- I believe debate is a game. Every argument is true until proven false (unless the argument is blatantly false). For example, if you tell me that the United States only contains 30 states, I will not count that argument. However, if you tell me that Congress can withdraw money and give it to a certain private institution even if in reality they can't, I will believe you unless the other team is able to disprove that argument.

- Make the debate organized. A debate is always more fun to watch if it is organized. Flow properly, signpost arguments, don't flipflop between stock issues, and make it clear as to what you are responding to.

- After your first speeches, you need to frame. Tell me why the aff world is preferable to the neg world, and vice versa. I want to see this incorporated in most of the speeches, and especially the 2NR/2AR.

- Write my ballot for me. The first few lines of your 2NR/2AR should clearly explain to me exactly as to why you have won this debate. If you tell me how and why to vote, I am more likely to vote in a way you prefer.

- Utilize CX. Don't ask questions for the sake of asking questions. Set up stories and arguments, poke holes in your opponents' arguments, and always, always remember to reference CX. I will not consider anything from CX if you do not reference them at least once in your speeches. Also, Inherency should be in every 1AC CX. And, most importantly, be respectful in CX. Do not be aggressive.

- I am a firm believer in the "neg only has to win 1 stock issue to win the debate" rule of policy debate and I will use this to determine my decision.

- Make sure you have clear stock issue overviews.

- Split the block effectively. I don't want to see the 2NC and 1NR cover the same arguments.

- Answer the line-by-line. Make sure you aren't dropping arguments and you respond to everything on the flow. If you do drop an argument, the other team is responsible for pointing it out AND explaining why you dropping the argument should heavily sway the debate in their favor.

- Identify the main points of clash in your 2NR/2AR. Explain the most important arguments and why you are ahead on those.

- Most importantly, BE RESPECTFUL. I don't want heated CXs. I will be more inclined to vote for respectful teams.

- Good luck guys.

***April 2023 TOC—I haven’t judged in 2 years and don’t know much about the topic.

***April 2021 rewrite—there’s a pretty good chance something I say in my RFD is going to be on here somewhere.

Bellarmine ‘16

Stanford ‘20

I have had many circuit debate influences, including folks who lab led or otherwise taught me, my debate teammates, students I’ve coached, judges I’ve had, debaters I watched a lot, and many others. Some of the strongest include Debnil Sur (who taught me circuit debate), Vinay Ayyappan, Albert Li, Rafael Pierry, Dhruv Sudesh, Tyler Vergho, Abhishek Rengarajan, Taylor Brough, Amber Kelsie, Ken Strange, Rishab Yeddula, Devansh Taori, Joshua Joseph, and Michael Koo.

General Experience: I debated at Bellarmine in San Jose, CA. I traveled on the national circuit my junior and senior year debating with Vinay Ayyappan. I read K arguments on the circuit, went for policy strategies at tournaments like state/nationals, and debated stock issues in front of parents at local tournaments. I went far at the NSDA tournament and qualled to the TOC. In college, I briefly debated with Tony Hackett reading K arguments and qualled to the NDT my frosh year. This is my fifth year coaching at Bellarmine (where I’ve been the main coach for circuit debate) and I have primarily coached teams reading policy arguments. I have been both a 2A and a 2N.

Topic Experience: I have a good amount of experience with both the policy and K lit on the CJR topic.

Deciding Rounds:

1. Tech over truth. But...

2. Debate is subjective and arbitrary. I consider “dropped arguments are true” to be not particularly helpful. Every judge has a different threshold for what a sufficient warrant is and a different understanding of the implication of every argument. The response will be, “Limiting subjectivity/arbitrariness is still good.” I partially agree. There are different kinds of subjectivity/arbitrariness. Using my knowledge of a particular subject area to navigate a complicated debate seems good. Using my personal opinion on a particular subject area as the sole grounds to make my decision seems bad. In some cases, there is a clear consensus on how judges will evaluate an argument (e.g. dropped Topicality). If there’s a gray area you fear may not go in your favor, you’re best served being as specific as possible in explaining the argument and its implication. All of this being said, my threshold for what constitutes an argument is probably lower than the average judge.

3. I try to line up arguments on my flow despite flowing on a laptop. Please keep that in mind. Specificity in roadmaps is appreciated when needed (e.g. if you’re about to spend 3 minutes on the perm in the 2NC, let me know beforehand so I can add more cells).

4. I prefer final rebuttals that have substantial (not inefficient) overviews to frame the debate.

5. “Specific brightlines and warranted calls for protections (anytime) will be zealously adhered to”—Michael Koo. Your 2NR shouldn’t say “new 2AR analysis is bad,” it should say, “The 2AR can’t apply the uncertainty deficit to the announcement plank, the plank was introduced in the block with an explanation of why it solves certainty and the none of the 1AR uncertainty warrants assume announcement.”

6. Spin over evidence, although some issues require evidence more than others. If you really want to make evidence matter on a specific question, then tell me why. Smart analytics can save you the time it takes to read multiple mediocre cards.

7. I usually flow CX.

8. I don’t mind postrounding. I take a lot of time to decide and carefully think through my decisions, and I’m ready to defend them. Fair warning though: most of you are bad at postrounding.

Speaker Points: I’ll roughly follow this scale.

29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-29.0 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.6-28.7 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.2-28.5 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.9-28.1 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

1. Slow down in online debate.

2. Cheating means you will get the lowest possible points. You need a recording to prove clipping. If you mark a card, say where you’re marking it, actually mark it, and offer a marked copy before CX.

3. In general, debaters who do good line-by-line will get higher points in front of me. It’s not the only way to debate, but I find it tougher to resolve debates where there is less direct clash, and I think only a few debaters can effectively create clash without lining up arguments. If you think you’re up to the challenge then go for it.

4. Use specific language, don’t hide behind jargon. Sufficiency framing on CPs is incredibly powerful but is useless 95% of the time. Cite 1AC evidence to define the solvency threshold: “The threshold established by their X evidence is that the US needs a significant concession on prolif to China. This means the aff winning they’re a bigger concession doesn’t matter because the CP is sufficient to get China to the negotiating table.”

Topicality

1. I like watching T debates, but they’re kinda weird on the CJR topic.

2. I will evaluate T through interpretations. However, consider Ken Strange’s refrain, “The negative must show that the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate.” This seems like a higher burden than how competing interpretations is usually understood (e.g. “their interp is slightly larger so any risk of limits means you vote neg”). The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps. Note that reasonability is about the interps, not the aff. It means the aff gets their interp comparison offense plus substance crowdout as bonus offense. Quantify how much substance crowdout matters in the debate (for example, it matters more if topic education is a relevant impact in the debate). Also, the risk of substance crowdout is higher if there’s a strong aff predictability argument (because one implication of aff predictability is causing more T debates). Debate all of this out in round.

3. Relatedly, T is a negative burden which means it is the neg’s job to prove that a violation exists. In a T debate where the 2AR extends we meet, every RFD should start by stating clearly what word or phrase in the resolution the aff violated and why. If you don’t give me the language to do that in your 2NR, I will vote aff on we meet.

4. I observe a lot of grammar issues in both T and competition debates. For example, two things being distinct doesn’t mean they’re exclusive. I’m not going to go through all the common examples I’ve observed here, but if you’re the one initiating one of these debates, be especially thoughtful and precise about your language and your logic.

5. Debatability matters a lot on T, but the definition needs to meet some basic quality threshold (the criminal justice is distinct from criminal law interp probably doesn’t meet it, but that requires good debating by the aff to establish). This is best impacted by aff predictability.

6. Functional limits, aff predictability, and reasonability are under-utilized by the aff.

Theory and Competition

1. I’m probably more willing to listen to a theory debate than most judges, but...

2. Theory blocks are terrible. Theory blocks spread at top speed are even worse. Theory blocks spread at top speed over Zoom are so bad that you just shouldn’t bother.

3. I largely concur with what Rafael and Tyler say about theory and competition on their philosophies. I’ll list a few key points below.

4. Just like with T, both teams should think carefully about what the interpretation and violation actually are. The burden is on the team advancing the argument.

5. Make relevant cross applications from other theory arguments and topicality.

6. Dropped theory arguments are an easy out, I won’t evaluate the substance if I don’t need to. I’m not going to feel better or worse about my decision depending on which team was ahead on substance.

7. Positional competition is hard to justify unless the aff very clearly grants it.

8. Going for competition is generally better than going for theory.

9. Limited intrinsicness (either functional or textual) is probably best to check against any number of “artificial” CPs. But there are also convincing neg arguments about the bad practices this justifies, so it’s a debate to be had.

Counterplans

1. A lot of aff teams simply do not work hard enough to generate deficits to various counterplans. Imagine the political blowback as a result of invoking X random political process (see parole CP...). You think that would be good for the business confidence scenario in your 1AC? If you’re struggling to apply your advantages in this way, then write more strategic advantages. 2As should be thrilled in the absence of specific neg ev applying the CP’s process to the aff. You then get a ton of leeway to spin deficits and the neg will struggle to push back.

2. Presumption goes to less change. Debate what this means in round. Otherwise, it goes aff in the event of an advocacy.

3. Decide in-round whether I should kick the CP.

Disadvantages

1. There is such a thing as zero risk. I think about this like I think about significant figures or the signal-to-noise ratio.

2. Make sure that turns case arguments are actually turns case arguments.

3. I like substantial impact turn debates (heg/dem/war/etc.). Organization is obviously a concern there, try to group the debate early on.

4. Minimize overviews, put as much as you can on the line by line.

K’s vs. Policy

1. All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so.

2. I’m fairly well versed in most common K’s.

3. One common reason affs lose is by being too defensive. Think about how your heg advantage interacts with a settlerism K.

4. Overview length needs to be well justified, I generally will tell you that it should have been smaller. If you can speak for 3 minutes and explain every issue in the debate clearly without line by line, go for it. But most of us can’t do that very effectively.

5. “Recognize when it’s a horrible idea to kick the alt”—Albert Li.

6. Framework is a critical part of many K’s. I’m not “over framework” like a lot of judges. How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense. But really think about how your arguments interact. I’ve seen neg teams make the argument “reps shape plan implementation” and then non-ironically explain that as a reason to ignore plan implementation, which makes absolutely no sense. If the neg wants me to devalue plan implementation, then your arguments should actually be reasons why prioritizing evaluating plan consequences is bad. Treat framework less like a theory argument and more like a substantive one.

7. If the neg’s link offense centers on evaluating plan consequences, then I will have to evaluate the positive consequences of the plan as well.

8. The perm is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy, but it is almost always a no-cost option you can include somewhere in the 2AR.

9. When applicable, the perm double bind can be a powerful aff argument. There are some cases it clearly doesn’t apply (for example, if the K is a very direct impact turn to the aff, or if there’s a robust neg framework argument). However, if you are reading a Cap K alt centered entirely on workers movements against an aff that reduces police funding, you need to explain why the plan prevents those movements from being successful. Otherwise, the perm will capture the offense of the K and whatever contingent offense the plan has.

Framework vs. K Affs

1. I’ve been on all sides of this debate.

2. Framework debates, like K debates, are much more about storytelling than about technical concessions because the implications of those concessions will often not matter in the grand scheme of things. This is particularly important for 2Ns to remember.

3. An impact is an outcome that is self evidently bad enough to matter. Pick the most strategic version of framework depending on your audience and your opponent. When I’m your audience, you can convince me that many things are bad enough to matter, ranging from fairness to skills. The teams I coach usually have: 1) a more procedural clash thesis impact, 2) an impact about how clash over the content of the topic is particularly educational. But stick to what you’re good at.

4. Impact comparison. If the aff’s model makes it substantially harder for the neg to engage but the neg’s speech act was problematic, which way do I vote?

5. All this discussion of “TVA,” “switch-side debate,” and “ground versus our aff” tends to miss the point. These are merely vehicles for each team to explain what debates under their model actually look like and why they are better than debates under the other team’s model. As the neg, you should explain to me what specific debates occur under your model (i.e. give examples of affs and neg strategies against them) and why that solves your impacts and theirs. Perhaps the debates we have where we critique specific policy reforms are better for critical education than comparing structural theories. As the aff, you should explain to me why the specific debates they say occur under their model don’t solve your or their offense. Perhaps the Courts CP doesn’t prepare us to engage movements and sidesteps discussion of the substance of the aff. The aff should describe debates under their model in concrete terms, not just list off structural K’s as neg ground and make vague references to “DA’s to our method.” It is odd to me that framework debates lack discussion of the specific kinds of debates that actually happen in each world.

6. Relatedly, “TVA solves” doesn’t answer every aff argument, especially if they have a K of your performance.

7. You don’t need to counter-define every word in the resolution. The justification for this is functional limits, which is an under-utilized aff argument in framework debates. For all practical purposes, I probably don’t need to worry about insert big policy school reading a new K aff every debate. I also probably don’t need to worry about an aff arguing the state government of Alabama should enact criminal justice reform. However, I may have to worry about every journal article advocating a mindset shift in the context of criminal justice turning into a K aff (depending on what the aff interp is). Everyone is best served by being realistic about their impacts and not jumping straight to hyperbole.

8. Policy T and Framework aren’t perfectly analogous. A world without courts affs (endpoint of T-enact) is far more plausible than a world without planless affs (endpoint of T-USFG). Some aff arguments (like the Floodgates DA) take advantage of this. It’s at the very least a conversation worth having and something all teams going for framework should reflect on.

9. Collapse down in the 2NR. You are more likely to lose because you insufficiently answered aff offense and didn’t compare impacts than you are because you didn’t extend an additional impact.

10. If a team going for framework also reads 5 contradictory off in their 1NC, chances are you can concede claims on some of the other off to undermine their framework argument.

K’s vs. K Affs

1. These were my favorite as a debater.

2. Debate more about what the perm means. Affs need to be held to a higher standard for explaining the perm. In fact, you should be explaining the perm as of the 1AC. What I mean by that is that you should be setting a framework for how I think about your advocacy/performance in relation to other advocacies/performances. Residual link analysis on the perm makes a ton of sense in policy rounds but doesn’t make sense in most K v K debates. Don’t discuss the perm as an abstract theoretical question, discuss it in the context of the specific debate you are having. These thoughts are vague, debate it out on your own terms.

3. It’s not enough that disagreements exist between your literature bases. Explain to me why that means the aff is undesirable.

Soft-Left Affs vs. Policy

1. The main difficulty for many of these affs is answering CPs, not DAs.

2. For most affs, the best way to debate framing in front of me is to treat it like a well-contextualized Security K. Rather than saying war in general is unlikely and that security reps in general are bad, construct a compelling critique of the particular DA scenario(s) they’re reading. Just like with the Security K, this involves winning significant defense to the DA itself. If executed really well, the K becomes sufficiently offensive and this can help you get out of a CP that solves all or most of your aff.

3. In general both sides end up agreeing consequentialism is good. This is fine for the aff as long as you are doing the above to generate offense against the DA.

4. For the neg, it seems more strategic to weigh 7-8 billion against the aff instead of “extinction is categorically first,” but it’s your call.

Misc

1. If you correctly use the term “nchtr” in round, you will get a 0.2 speaker point boost. Don’t use it unless you’re gonna do it properly.

2. Email ani dot prabhu98 at gmail dot com if you have questions.

3. Please put me on the email chain and send cards in a Word doc (not in the body of the email).

4. Emailing isn’t prep but don’t take forever.

5. I concur with Tyler’s policy for re-highlightings. Essentially, the closer a re-highlighting comes to being a new argument that you’re advancing, the more likely it is that you should be reading it instead of inserting it.

Go slow and be clear. Don’t be rude or super uptight, especially in cross.

Make sure you weigh and tell me clearly which VIs/Stock Issues are winning you the debate.

Have fun!

For NSDA:

Debated for 4 years at Bellarmine. Please add nimai.talur[at]gmail[dot]com to the email chain.

New to the topic. Happy to judge faster, technical debates as long as you're clear. Judge adaptation's essential—keep the round accessible to lay judges if they're on the panel.

I debated with Ben Manens in HS, and our thoughts on debate largely align.

General thoughts:

1) Tech over truth—I like certain arguments and dislike others. This does not change how I evaluate them in the context of a debate and my ideological predispositions are easily overcome by outdebating the other team. That being said, while adapting to my argumentative preferences will not affect my likelihood to vote for you, it may improve the quality of my judging for both sides absent clear explanation and judge instruction.

1b) Dropped arguments are true, but only so long as they are attached to a claim, warrant, and impact. My threshold for what constitutes those three components is low if left unanswered.

2) I have near zero experience with the topic. Err on the side of overexplaining rather than underexplaining.

3) I flow on paper, and have never been very neat. I will reward good signposting* and clear judge instruction that frontloads the most important arguments in the debate.

* From Surya Midha's paradigm: "Number everything. 'One, two, three' is preferable to 'first, second, third.' If your gripe with numbering is that it 'interrupts the flow of your speech,' you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice."

4) Final rebuttals should identify the most important issues in the debate and coherently flesh them out. 2NRs and 2ARs too often get lost in the weeds of line by line and forget to extend complete arguments and/or instruct the judge on why the debate so far should lead them to a decision one way or the other.

5) I flow CX. It's a lost art. You can go ahead and waffle or use it as prep time, but smart, well-thought out CX strategies that impact the course of the debate will be rewarded.

Topicality:

1) I default to competing interps, but have recently been more and more open to reasonability if the aff invests time in fleshing it out and making it a part of their strategy. I'm most compelled by aff explanations that use reasonability to weigh substance crowdout as offense against whatever the negative goes for.

2) Reading a piece of evidence that defines a word in the resolution is a very basic threshold for a T interp, but one that less and less T interps are meeting. If you have to spin what the words in your interp card say, you're probably stretching it. Not only does it make it a nightmare to watch, it should, if executed properly, make it very easy for the aff to win on predictability.

3) I've gone back and forth on plan text in a vacuum - I lean neg but oftentimes teams are underprepared for a 2A bold enough to go all-in on the argument.

4) It is the negative burden to establish a violation. Please don't make your 1NC shell say "Interp: [x must do y], Violation: they don't."

Theory and Competition:

1) Condo can (or can not) be a voting issue, everything else is a reason to reject the argument. I dislike that a 15 second argument in the 1AR can be blown up to a 5-minute 2AR, and will hold the line on egregious overextrapolation.

2) I'll vote for dropped ASPEC (and other arguments of the sort), but I will not be happy doing so. Don't drop it.

3) Slightly neg-leaning on condo and process CPs, solidly neg-leaning on PICs, multiplank, agent, solvency advocate, and concon theory, solidly aff-leaning on delay and international fiat. Still, dropped arguments are true, and I will happily vote on conceded or undercovered pieces of offense.

4) The 2NC is a constructive, 1NR is not.

5) You will be best served by ditching whichever blocks you stole from a college round to spread at top speed and instead collapsing down to your best one or two pieces of offense, fleshing that out, and comparing it to your opponent's main piece of offense.

6) I'll default to judgekick unless debated out.

7) I generally prefer competition over theory, but theory bolsters whatever arguments you make about competition. Positional competition is a hard sell, limited intrinsicness, PDCP, and all the other typical process CP perms can go either way. It is the neg burden to establish competition.

Counterplans:

1) Sufficiency framing is both underrated and overutilized. It is extremely helpful in establishing burdens and thresholds in regards to judge instruction, but is only valuable insofar as you apply it to specific internal links rather than a 5-second buzzword-filled explanation at the top.

2) I will reward long, creative advantage counterplans that throw a curveball at 2As. I will also reward 2As that respond with deficits that demonstrate they've thought through the strategic value of their advantages and can creatively apply them. On that same note, solvency deficits are underrated vs process CPs if you've written your aff correctly.

Disadvantages:

1) Try-or-die, impact turns case, and other impact framing arguments of the sort are rhetorically compelling, but not very helpful in terms of evaluating relative risk. The question I ask myself in these debates is which side I vote for will prevent the greatest impact. This also means that saying "timeframe—intervening actors/live to fight another day" absent a specific warrant behind that is not super helpful.

2) Specific link analysis and contextualization is indispensable. Carded evidence is the gold standard, but cleverly spinning generic evidence can suffice in a pinch. Storytelling is key.

3) I don't believe in zero risk unless something damning is dropped, but that doesn't tend to matter much. Quantifying the risk of disadvantages only matters insofar as it is necessary to make a comparative claim, and oftentimes the arbitrary difference between zero and near-zero risk does little to change that comparison.

4) Always down for an impact turn—am not a huge fan of spark/wipeout, but will still evaluate it. Organization of these debates is key, and especially in later speeches collapsing down to a couple of core claims and clearly explaining how they implicate the debate.

5) I have a soft spot for politics and the rider DA. Doesn't mean I'll vote for it (the rider DA goes away if the aff says the right things), but I'll be happy to see it well executed.

Kritiks:

1) The quickest way to my ballot on the aff is winning that your case outweighs. The quickest way to my ballot on the neg is winning a framework interp that mitigates that. I find that oftentimes they are poorly answered and implicate the other, so taking advantage of that will do you a lot of good.

2) I don't mind long overviews in the right circumstances if flagged beforehand. They're helpful to explain necessary thesis-level components of your argument, but counterproductive when they begin replacing line-by-line.

3) I'm somewhat familiar with most common kritiks—afropess, setcol, security, cap, etc. Err on the side of overexplaining if unsure.

4) From Anirudh Prabhu's paradigm, "All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so." Specific link analysis is not only satisfying to watch, it will make it more likely that you win.

5) The Cap K is my pet peeve. I find it ridiculous that someone labeled capitalism bad a kritik and then could basically read that as an impact turn versus almost any aff. At the same time, aff teams tend to do a poor job at exploiting the tensions between the impact and framework, link magnitude and the perm, etc. I say this not to stop you from reading it, but be aware when it's strategically valuable to extend.

K Affs/Framework:

1) Ideologically, probably not great for the aff. I've never read a K aff nor gone for anything other than FW against K affs, and I believe affirmative teams should affirm the resolution. However, I will do my best to evaluate these debates independent of my own beliefs. Good framework vs K aff debates are my favorite to watch, and many of the judges I look up to are quite middle-of-the-road in these debates so I strive to reach that standard myself.

2) Packaging and framing in framework debates is just as important as the arguments themselves. The team that is more offensive in final rebuttals gains a massive advantage.

3) I find impacts grounded in debate's form more compelling than those related to the content of the debates themselves, not out of personal belief, but in terms of strategic utility. Fairness is probably good, but whether it is an impact is left up for debate—I've gone back and forth, can be persuaded either way.

4) I have a slight preference for the aff to forward one or two impact turns rather than a counter-interp with numerous shoddily extended disads, but oftentimes negative teams do far too little to exploit the offense they could generate from the counter-interp. Regardless of which route you take, the best way to persuade me and excise any of my implicit skepticism is to phrase your offense as if you were answering the question, "why not read it on the neg?" It is not necessary, but it will go a long way to help me vote for you.

5) Specificity, specificity, specificity—on both sides, please explain in concrete detail what debates would look like under each team's model: what affs and off-case positions get read, what those debates come down to, etc.

6) I have never been in a K v K debate, nor have I ever judged one. Please overexplain, and then explain a bit more just for good measure.

Chief Joseph, Nez Perce. 

good luck have fun

don't worry

I judge based on the fundemental rules of debate. I would prefer you talked to me as if im a parent judge clearly explaining why you won the debate or why your arguments should be valued over the other side's arguments.

Bellarmine ‘19, Dartmouth ‘23

Email: tvergho@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

Last Updated: April 2024

Topic Knowledge: I coach for Bellarmine and Dartmouth, but am not deeply involved in topic research. Explain your arguments accordingly.

I have read and voted for all types of arguments. I really don’t care what you say. I appreciate debaters who engage the line-by-line, advance smart and well-researched arguments, and generally seem like they want to be there. The best debaters answer and reference arguments in the order they were presented, crystallize the debate into a few central issues in the final rebuttals, and frame the decision they want me to give by resolving those issues.

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments only have the implications you say they do. Nothing you say will convince me to stop flowing or abandon the line-by-line. Otherwise, any of my predispositions can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team.

The one exception to this is: post-TOC, I will no longer vote on "new affs bad" or a similar theory argument if newly read in the block. The standard I will enforce is that theory arguments that could feasibly have been introduced in the 1NC must be. Hiding cheap shots is not debating; debate as if you are grown.

Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me.

Affs should probably be topical. I don’t have a strong ideological bias against planless affs, but evenly debated I’m skeptical of most common aff responses to framework. Procedural fairness is not automatically an impact.

Conditionality is fine. Anything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I default to judge kick. If equally debated, I’ll likely err negative as the logical extension of conditionality.

Objections to counterplans are generally better expressed through competition than theory.

You can insert re-highlightings as evidence indicts, provided that the re-highlighting actually comes from the card your opponent read. If it comes three paragraphs later, you actually have to read the part where the author concludes the other way. I will treat this as the equivalent of an evidence indict with added context. Advancing some extrinsic argument always requires reading the card.

Asking for a 30 = auto 25.

For a description of my procedure on evaluating in-round ethics and conduct issues, see here. (Largely stolen from Truf's paradigm.)

Original Oratory

Mindset-Should be articulated in a relatively short sentence; topics can be weird and niche as long as they are concretized in the speech

Examples-Link should always be clearly explained. This helps with the flow of speech and validation of concerns mentioned in the introduction

Delivery-Often times speakers will deliver their speech with a narrow variance of delivery which can hinder their ability to distinguish between gravity and levity. Body language should also project confidence

Humor-Comedy is subjective but make sure to deliver jokes convincingly to increase comedic appeal

Personal story-Deliver it in a way that makes it clear that it matters to you and why it is important to the rest of the speech

Policy Debate

If I'm judging anything other than a slow round, something has gone horribly wrong

Don't be too aggressive in CX; let your opponent answer your questions and mention/clarify any concessions made

Speak clearly

Don't drop arguments or introduce arguments without fully developing them; argumentative consistency will help one team win over the other

Define stock issue burdens clearly and explain why the burdens set are relevant to the debate

Make sure the introduction at the beginning of the speech gives a cohesive story and roadmap to frame the debate

Rhetoric Policy:

A few general tips from things I've noticed

• Maintain the big picture story of the aff or neg - instead of getting too caught up in winning one specific stock issue or spamming as many random arguments as you can, think about how each argument fits together (especially for neg strats) and helps prove your overarching argument about the aff being good/bad. For example, if the aff is a UBI, I would probably still vote aff if the only persuasive part of the 2NR was that poverty is declining because it doesn't necessarily disprove that a UBI is good. Even if you are ahead on Harms, a UBI can still help people living under poverty even if that's declining.
• Clash with other arguments - explain why your evidence is better than their evidence or why your argument is better rather than just saying they're wrong we're right
• Warrant out your explanations - on top of just saying your evidence says this, explain why that is true
• Maintain eye contact with judge as much as possible and have good delivery
• Use smart analytics instead of always needing evidence - they can often be just as good or better arguments

Slack me or ask me in-person if you have any questions

Other than that, my views align with Austin Bauman

General: In this hallowed arena of intellectual pursuit, I stand as both witness and arbiter, enraptured by the kaleidoscope of ideas that unfold before me. My temperament is one of open-minded curiosity, eager to be captivated by the rhetorical virtuosity of debaters. As we embark on this journey, let it be known that my canvas is vast, and my appreciation for the artistry of debate knows no bounds. The tapestry of our discourse, whether woven in the classical loom of policy arguments or painted with the avant-garde strokes of non-traditional paradigms, shall find a receptive audience in the chambers of my discerning consideration.

Philosophical Orientation: In the grand tapestry of dialectic elegance, my predilections sway towards the classical dance of well-versed policy arguments, a ballet of intellectual finesse. Yet, amidst the splendor of tradition, I am not impervious to the allure of the unconventional—a delicate sonnet that, when articulated with finesse, unfurls its petals in the garden of discourse.

Argumentation Preferences: As we embark on this rhetorical voyage, I implore debaters to cultivate their arguments like the most exquisite blooms in a celestial garden, each petal a testament to meticulous research and thoughtful construction. Quality, akin to the fragrance of rare blossoms, should linger in the air, transcending the mere quantity of argumentative foliage.

Speed and Clarity: In the ethereal dance of rhetoric, let our words be imbued with the grace of balletic movement, deliberate and enchanting. A crystal-clear stream of eloquence should meander through the hallowed groves of discourse, allowing the jewels of your ideas to shimmer without being lost in the turbulent currents of undue haste.

Framework and Impact Analysis: Construct for me an intellectual coliseum, the very stones of your framework hewn with precision. The impact analysis, a symphony of logical crescendos, should resonate through the vast amphitheater of reason, leaving an indelible mark upon the tapestry of my adjudication.

Role of the Ballot: Behold the ballot as a sacred relic, entrusted to the virtuoso whose arguments, like the most intricately woven tapestries, seamlessly integrate into the established framework. Persuade me that your narrative is a magnum opus, and I shall, with the quill of discernment, inscribe your triumph in the annals of intellectual history.

Flexibility and Adaptability: As we traverse the intellectual cosmos, be attuned to the muse of adaptability guiding our celestial journey. Surprise me with constellations of arguments, each a celestial brushstroke across the canvas of resolution, ensuring they coalesce into a harmonious constellation.

Decision-Making Criteria: In the atelier of debate, I shall sculpt my judgment with the precision of a master craftsman fashioning a grand opus. Let clarity be the luminescent palette illuminating your discourse, relevance the vivacious hues infusing vitality, and impactful evidence the iridescent brushstrokes that lend your argument a shimmering brilliance.

Experience and Background: With the mantle of experience draped across my shoulders, I wander the landscapes of debate as a seasoned wanderer. Yet, consider me not an omniscient sage, but a fellow traveler eager to be enraptured by the cadence of your discourse. Illuminate the trail with clarity, and I shall navigate its convolutions with discerning wonder.

Questions and Clarifications: Before the overture of our intellectual opera unfolds, seek enlightenment through queries. I am but a custodian of the labyrinth of expectations, ready to unravel its mysteries for the intrepid seeker.

May our discourse be a symphony of ideas, each note a resplendent crescendo echoing through the vast halls of intellectual pursuit.

Content over delivery.

Things I like:

- effective framing.

- stock issue burdens.

- useful intros.

- good clash.

Good luck.

Dont make dumb arguments.