I am a lawyer of 20 years, who has been judging speech and debate for the past two years. I prefer you use terminology that is easy to follow and do not spread. I will have hard time following. First and foremost, I look at the debate as a whole, and appreciate well structured and organized arguments and rebuttals. Cross examination will give me a look into your understanding of the topic but will not be mainly what I vote on. The evidence and warrants you use to support your argument need to be factually based with reason to support them. Overall you need to persuade me. Don't focus as much on the number of points you carry, but the quality of the arguments and impacts that will result.

I have been judging for a few years now, and I have met some wonderful competitors. I will always be as fair and unbiased as possible. I ask that you speak at a normal rate rather than spreading. I intend to judge based on the flow, with a particular emphasis on the impacts.

Current School Affiliation

Chair, Depart of English, Elkins High School

Education Entrepreneurship Graduate Student, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education

Speech & Debate Program Coordinator, Randolph County Schools

Elkins High School (Elkins, WV)

2016-present

Elkins Middle School (Elkins, WV)

2019-present

Experience as a Competitor

I did not participate in speech and debate activities until I was in college. The program at Davis & Elkins College was primarily focused on public debates and less so on competitive speech and debate. My time at D&E lead me to see the value of debate to shape and improve public discourse. Additional details about my experience are below.

Davis & Elkins College (2013-2016)

Public Debate (debates on campus and in the community, Madison Cup @ James Madison University, iDebate Rwanda)

College Forensics Association (Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, Poetry Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, Communication Analysis, Informative Speaking, After Dinner Speaking, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking)

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Overview I'm a traditional coach in a traditional circuit that has a general knowledge of progressive LD. However, I am willing to accept CPs, DAs, and Ks, but please be mindful of your opponents/judges ability to adapt. However, I am not likely to vote on theory arguments unless the violation is very abusive.

Speed I'm cool with speed, but be aware of how technology impacts how you are heard.

TL;DR I vote on impact. I want to hear why your argument matters. I will give preference to the debater that does the best job of showing the impact of negating or affirming the resolution.

General Debate Philosophy

1. I judge on impact. Tell me why your argument matters.

2. Create strong links between your claims and your evidence.

Background: I did a mixture of PF, LD, and Congress for 4 years throughout high-school (Huntington High School). I am currently studying English, Political Science, and Philosophy at Marshall University. 

Public Forum:

In terms of how I vote, I want to emphasize how important key voting issues or weighing is. I prefer teams to introduce their key voting issues or impacts in their summary and then extend it into final focus (basically, summary and final focus should look the same). If you do not provide weighing mechanisms or impacts, it will be significantly harder for me to determine what is more important in the round. 

If you do not extend something in summary, I will not count it if it is brought up in grand crossfire and final focus. If you are a competitor and notice the opponent doing this in round, briefly call it out. 

If someone in the round specifically tells me in round to call for evidence (for any reason: relevance, date, or misquotation), I will call for the evidence at the end of the round. In any instance, if a competitor cannot provide me a significant piece of evidence, mentioned in either rebuttal or their constructive, I will not account for the evidence or the argument connected to the particular evidence. If a team is unethically handling evidence (lying, misquoting on purpose), they will lose the round and receive minimal speaker points. 

If a competitor calls for evidence, it is on prep-time. I expect that neither team is prepping during the exchange. Once the team who has called for the evidence receives the evidence and clarifies that they are running time, I will start prep-time. 

In round, I will keep track of prep but also expect competitors to as well. 

While speaking, if you run over-time, I will allow you to finish your sentence. After that, if the timer is up, I will not flow any information. If you see that I am no longer writing, I am not flowing. 

If you are the second speaking team during rebuttal, I do expect you to uphold your own case and clash against theirs. You can choose what order you do this in as long as it happens. Considering how long it might take, I am fully understanding and appreciative of you making strategic choices. For instance, if you want to drop a contention and want to go for 1-2 more significant contentions, I will not drop speaker points or use this in how I end up voting. 

In most cases, I will not interfere in the round for any reason. However, if competitors are purposefully distracting their opponent or not demonstrating proper behavior in round, I will. 

As for speaks, I want to include how I evaluate speaker points:

30: The argument and the presentation were perfect. I didn't have anything to critique. 

29: The argumentation, research, and presentation in round was excellent. I can point out minor errors in your specific comment section. 

28: Your in-round performance was good, but it's clear that there are multiple areas that could have been more effective. 

27: There were numerous errors in both argumentation and presentation. 

26: One of two things could have happened (I will make sure to specify)

1. No evidence was presented or the evidence/speech was completely irrelevant to the topic.
2. You were disrespectful to your opponents. 

Lincoln Douglas:

All of the same rules from PF apply, but I do expect that the weighing done is in context of the framework. The first thing I evaluate is the framework debate followed by how the contentions connect. Winning framework does not necessarily mean you win the round. I'm looking for competitors to clarify how their contentions fit under their framework and extend that through the round. Also, if possible, I am looking for competitors to be able to fit their contentions into the opponent's framework as well. I understand if the frameworks are meta-ethically different and you cannot possibly connect your contentions to the opponent's framework, but if that's the case then you need to allocate a significant portion of your time to the framework debate. 

Background: I was involved in every area of debate for around 9 years (HS freshman to first year of my Masters), though I've been mostly out of the game for 2 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently an MD-PhD student at Vanderbilt with academic foci in chemistry and biology and extracurricular academic interests in politics, rhetoric, and philosophy (mostly political philosophy, but also metaethics). My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience was policy (NFA-LD, single-person policy debate basically). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergrad in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). In terms of level of experience, I broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College). My judging experience is an equal mix of local circuit and national circuit LD/PF (with some NFA-LD judging).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

This got too long, I wanted a summary. The full thing is below.

Do what you want in round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, email: mightybquinn@gmail.com, backup: mckenzieb@trinityprep.org

Speaker points are for speaking well (eg. clarity, speed, civility, etc), Wins and Losses are for winning the arguments in the round. They almost always agree (unless this is WSD, then they do always agree, obviously).

I am a wizened old soul flowing in a cooky lil spreadsheet, judge instruction is important.

If there are specific arguments or preferences you want to know about, or if you have unlimited time to scan through paradigms, go look at the stuff below.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Have fun go wild

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers, not out of spite or anything, I just can't summarize it. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3. Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you should probably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply to all the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I will not flow off the doc, but I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Counter Interps: I think that counter interps are latently defensive unless you tell me otherwise. Honestly, I don't even need a warrant, I just want it specified when you read it that you're trying to gain offense. IMO if it's a "counter" interp it's structured to be defense within the game, if you're styling it as a different, unrelated interp, that just HAPPENS to be about the same thing as the interp they read, I will assume that's offensive. If that's the case though, then it will come down to a model comparison, which is probably what you wanted anyway. This is not like, a carefully thought out assertion or meta-theoretical opinion btw, this is just how my brain will work when I'm flowing what you say at speed, hence I need you to clarify.

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure (including rebuttal docs) is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea. It's been a while since I've seen someone read a role of the ballot on a theory shell tbh, bring it back.

RVI's: I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI. If we get into a "no RVIs" vs "Yes RVIs" debate I'm probably presuming "No" but like, if that's not extended or warranted or if the "yes" is conceded then it is what it is.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me, though it may need to be warranted more clearly than a post-fiat alt would. Why does the ballot matter to your advocacy?

Other progressive case-ish positions: I'm interested to hear them. I'm traditionally susceptible to de-dev arguments, but tend to be predisposed to disliking "death good" style claims. I'm not intervening to vote up or down either way, just making you aware of preferences.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link and an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Debate:

PF:

First and foremost, I'm a flow judge, so respond to all of your opponent's points. I will not consider any argument/rebuttal that isn't verbalized, so if you have a point you want me to consider in my decision, make sure you communicate it!

Second, I look at impact and quality of argument over quantity of arguments.

Third, if two pieces of evidence are in direct conflict, I will weigh the quality of the evidence based on source year and publication.

Fourth, speed is not an issue for me. Just make sure you speak clearly!

Lastly, and most importantly, respect one another! Even if you have the better arguments, I will not vote for a disrespectful competitor. Treat each other well, and have a great round!

LD:

First and foremost, I'm a flow judge, so respond to all of your opponent's points. I will not consider any argument/rebuttal that isn't verbalized, so if you have a point you want me to consider in my decision, make sure you communicate it!

Second, I look at impact and quality of argument over quantity of arguments.

Third, if two pieces of evidence are in direct conflict, I will weigh the quality of the evidence based on source year and publication.

Fourth, if value/VC are not agreed upon between the AFF/NEG, please remember to provide refutation on your opponent's value/VC! If both the AFF and NEG present two different values/VCs and don't respond to the other, I will go with whomever's I believe to be the most valid by the round's end (which will almost certainly influence my decision).

Fifth, speed is not an issue for me. Just make sure you speak clearly!

Lastly, and most importantly, respect one another! Even if you have the better arguments, I will not vote for a disrespectful competitor. Treat each other well, and have a great round!

SPAR:

First and foremost, I'm a flow judge, so respond to all of your opponent's points. I will not consider any argument/rebuttal that isn't verbalized, so if you have a point you want me to consider in my decision, make sure you communicate it!

Second, I look at impact and quality of argument over quantity of arguments.

Third, as this is a more extemporaneous debate style, sources will likely not impact my decision to a great degree; however, if a source's validity is disproven, I will most certainly consider that when making my decision. If two pieces of evidence are in direct conflict, I will weigh the quality of the evidence based on source year and publication.

Fourth, speed is not an issue for me. Just make sure you speak clearly!

Lastly, and most importantly, respect one another! Even if you have the better arguments, I will not vote for a disrespectful competitor. Treat each other well, and have a great round!

Email: shirzadian@marshall.edu

I’m an assistant professor of English at Marshall University, where I also coach the MU debate team. My academic background is in rhetorical and critical theory--with a special emphasis on Disability Studies. I was an NPDA debater in college at Cedarville University (2006-2010). I've coached IPDA since beginning at MU in 2021. I have a good amount of NFA-LD experience.

I strive to be a tabula rasa absolutist. I’m a pretty meticulous flow judge. I like smart, meaningful policy debate (stock issue) clash. I also like kritics, pre- and post-fiat, so long as the links stand. I’m open to critical AFFs, though I feel like the bar is a bit higher than NEG K’s. I’m a politics nerd, and so love a smart, specific politics DA (get specific about the congresspeople and bills that will be put in play post-fiat). I wish more competitors would run politics DAs/args--in all debate formats, at all levels.

I’m okay with speed, though I’ll also expect you to moderate if I sense your speed has rendered the round inaccessible to your opponent. I'm not keen on supporting the gasping-for-air level of speed. I'd advise you avoid it in our round together.

Link turns are my favorite form of refutation, and most frequently win my ballot. Nothing wrong with impact turns (just don’t double turn!).

Love impact calc args. I'm finding I often weigh probability and timeframe more heavily that magnitude. The more specific / unique the impact, the better.

I love smart T debates--in pretty much every debate format. Standards and Violation debates determine my ballot. I expect NEG to point to concrete args that AFF's definitions link out of the round. That is, I don't generally vote on theoretical abuse; NEGs should instead run the shell of an arg and let AFF's "no link" prove the abuse).

I like CP debate and theory. I'll even permit it in IPDA [I'll also entertain trichotomy args in IPDA, especially when I feel that AFF's decision to withhold a policy strips NEG of meaningful ground]

27.5 (out of 30) feels like the middle for speaks. If you’re a jerk, I’ll weigh that pretty heavily against your speaks. Frankly, though, speaking performance plays an extremely small role in how I decide my ballot. My flow doesn't care about eloquence. For this reason, I give out a decent number of low-point wins.

Sourcing is just one way to warrant an argument. I think the average IPDA judge puts way too much stock in source debate. You are failing to speak my language if you tell me you feel you should win the round because you have more, or better, sources. Instead, do the logical warrant work (or better yet, combine logical and source warranting!).

In IPDA, please strike down to more academically/politically-minded resolutions. I don't extend my labor into the weekend to listen to college debaters squabble about whether a hotdog is a sandwich or whether Jersey Mike's is better than Jimmy John's. I love IPDA's commitment to accessibility, but I don't think accessibility demands that we debate about hotdogs or Jimmy John's. Please urge your coaches and tournament directors to write fewer hotdog/Jimmy John's resolutions.

I don't believe AFFs have a burden to disclose their framing/scoping/policies in IPDA/NPDA, though I'm willing to hear NEGs connect a failure to disclose to a broader abuse story.