Tabroom.com

1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy

2023 — Atlanta, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Violet Affleck '24 Marlborough School 2 rounds

Yash Agrawal '23 Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 10:17 AM EDT

Hey, I'm Yash. I am a first year out from Lake Highland Prep. I had 3 career bids. My email is yagrawal2023@gmail.com, add me to the email chain please.

Prefs Shortcuts (these are just preferences, you should prioritize reading what you like):

Phil - 1

K - 1

T/theory - 2

Larp - 3

Tricks - 4* (read tricks section)

Defaults (please don't make me default though, none of these are preferences and only if absolutely nothing is mentioned about it in the round):

Truth testing
Reps Ks > T > 1ar theory > 1n theory > K/ROB
No RVIs, competing interps, drop the arg unless it’s advocacy theory
Accessibility is a voter, fairness and education are not
Epistemic Confidence
Permissibility and Presumption negate (neg advocacies flip presumption)
Aff can weigh case vs. the K
Skepticism (i.e. just read a framework)

General:

This paradigm describes what I like or am used to, but you should debate how you are comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate it. I'll evaluate anything unless it's explicitly racist, sexist, or exclusionary in any way. Tech is greater than truth, but all arguments still need a coherent claim, warrant, and impact. Just asserting something is true doesn't count as a warrant, and it needs to make sense in some way (i.e. saying the sky is blue so auto vote aff is not a warrant).

Feel free to email me pre-round for any questions and to ask questions after the round about the decision or for specific comments.

Phil:

This is my favorite style of debate and what I do most. I am familiar with a lot of frameworks including but not limited to Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, Mouffe/Agonism, Levinas, Petit, Contractarianism, Nozick/Libertarianism, and Jaeggi. Whether your framework is listed here or not, try to explain as if I don't know anything and I should be fine to judge it.

Make sure you clearly explain any warrants you go for and weigh them against your opponent's warrants. Dense/well-warranted syllogisms as compared to many quick prefer additionally args will be rewarded with high speaks.

I think hijacks are really cool and interesting, but please don't just read multiple different frameworks and label them as hijacks. I need a clear reason why something the aff said and you answered would result in the hijack if true.

I will evaluate TJFs but am not a big fan of them. If you do read them, make sure you justify why I should care about them and why they are more important than substantive warrants for a framework.

I am very interested in critical literature. I am familiar with classic cap, dean, set col, deleuze, semiocap, lacan, Laruelle, Baudrillard, zizek, various identity Ks, and more.

I don’t really care how you structure your speeches (like big overviews or short ones with more line by line), just make sure you have a good explanation of your theory of power, links to the aff, alternative, and ROTB at some point even if some of it was conceded/massively undercovered.

For the ROTB debate, if you want to go for the K outweighs you need to explain why its actually my obligation as a judge to prioritize your scholarship. For example, “colonialism is bad” wouldn’t do this but “prioritizing colonial scholarship in educational spaces is good” would.

I’m open to tricky K args. I’ll vote on basically any of them, but try to not be shifty and make sure your tricks don’t contradict your K lit (like hiding a ton of abusive spikes in a disability K).

T/Theory:

I am willing to vote on any shell and don’t think that any theory should be rejected on face because it’s “frivolous”, but I probably have a lower threshold for answers to theory that’s not about the actual aff. For example, super specific disclosure, shoes theory, font theory, etc.

Creative and/or new interps I haven’t heard of with a real and clear abuse story are great and will get higher speaks. Make sure you explain the abuse story well, you are trying to prove your opponent should auto-lose for something they did so I need to know why I should care that much.

Please please please weigh between standards, voters, and layers. A lot of theory rounds just end up with offense on both sides with no interaction, make sure I know why I should care about your offense more.

I am very open to paradigm issues debates and think DTA is very under-utilized, especially against shells that indict the fairness of winning an argument and not reading it. RVIs are great too. Reasonability is cool but needs a clear brightline.

T - Everything in theory applies. Make sure you weigh between precision/semantics and pragmatics if you want me to vote on it. I’m cool with any topicality, especially if you have good topical definitions with strong reasons your definition is better and not just true based on one random source.

Disclosure - I don't have a particularly strong stance on disclosure. I am not a fan of the super-specific disclosure shells and am persuaded by reasonability if I [insert your disclosure practices here, such as open source]. I also think disclosure theory does genuinely affect practices so I would rather you meet your own disclosure interps (and am persuaded by the shell saying you must do so). Overall I'll vote on disclosure the same as any other arg but am not a fan of most disclosure theory and would enjoy other rounds more.

Larp:

This isn’t something I do a lot but I’m definitely open to judging it. I would prefer unique or creative advantages to the stock ones everyone reads, and even if they are common advantages some new or different cards would be nice. I also love creative advocacies, these get high speaks (but obviously if it's obscure or really abusive be ready for theory).

Weighing is key in these rounds. You should weigh under things like magnitude, probability, etc., weigh between these metrics, and also compare your specific impact scenarios. Having a strong link chain is also key, I am unlikely to buy your .001% extinction scenario if you don’t at least have a strong and clear link chain to it by the end of the round. I think terminal defense exists.

Make sure you properly justify util and policy-making as well, I think these are really important when larping against non-larp positions. As long as your impacts connect back to a framework it's fine, but for example if you read a disad with no framework against a K aff I will be pretty persuaded by the aff saying it just doesn’t link to a framework and therefore doesn’t matter.

Tricks:

How much I like/dislike tricks is heavily dependent on the style. I think arguments that seem silly but are well defended and collapsed to can be great and really fun to judge (these I would give a 2 or 3 as opposed to a 4 for judging prefs), but strategies that just overload terrible arguments without warrants tend to be more difficult to judge. For example, I would be fine to judge a 1n that’s a couple of random theory shells and skep with real warrants or an aff with permissibility triggers and some theory spikes, less so for a 1n with 10 offs and 10 paradoxes in each or a 1ac that’s 6 minutes of blippy theory spikes. I’m not quite sure how to articulate this exact difference, but basically if you can collapse to an argument that has had a clear and sensible claim, warrant, and impact throughout the round I’m good.

Truth testing is not required for all tricks, I am happy to listen to why your args function under comparative worlds or even K roles of the ballot. However, if that’s what you want to do be explicit about it and don’t just assume the aff being incoherent or something means you auto negate as that’s often not the case especially against K affs.

Substantive tricks are definitely the best. I love cool permissibility triggers, well-warranted skep (especially specific to your opponent's framework, bonus speaks for this), contingent standards, and stuff like that. If these are well executed they get high speaks.

I will evaluate every speech in the round no matter what arguments are made, and I will allow both debaters to make arguments (so no “no aff/neg arguments”). Weird random voters need an actual impact, I don’t care about it just because you say I should. Think of it like justifying fairness or education as voters.

Non-T/Framework:

I’m fine with non-T affs, but to be honest I have never been a big fan and tend to lean towards framework. If this is your main strat feel free to read it, just try to be really strong and explicit about your impact turns and why the TVA doesn’t solve. Also, I don’t mind a couple theory tricks on T to get out of it, would be interesting.

I like having a lot of K impacts in framework. For example, I’m a big fan of going for clash turns their impact turns and stuff like that over just straight fairness. But both are definitely good. Also I think 1-off framework is actually underrated.

Ameera Alam '24 Northview High School 6 rounds

Ayman Badawy '23 Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 5:58 AM EDT

Hey, I'm Ayman. I debated for Lake Highland Prep in Orlando for 4 years and I'm currently a freshman at Emory University. I broke at the TOC twice.

Email: abadawy598(@)gmail(DOT)com

For in person debate: +.2 speaks if you bring me coffee/an energy drink or a snack

Quick Prefs:

Kritiks - 1

T/Theory - 1

Policy v K – 2

Policy v Policy - 3

Phil - 3 (love it but less experienced)

Tricks - 4 (Won't vote on eval after x speech)

Defaults:

These defaults will only be used if no arguments are made about these things in round.

- Reps Ks > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB

- Fairness > Education

- No RVI, Competing Interps, DTD

- Comparative Worlds

- Presumption Affirms, Permissibility Negates

General:

I am tech>truth, but it's probably easier to win more true arguments in a round than trash ones.

All arguments need a warrant for me to vote on them. For instance, you can't just assert T is inaccessible without a warrant and go for that in the 2AR.

Lots of 2ARs are way too new for me to vote on. If you read a 2 second 1AR shell and blow it up for 3 minutes

Paradigm issues don't need to be extended if conceded but you probably should do it regardless.

Read whatever you want (unless it's a 1AR with 50 paradoxes and 4 shells with no strategic vision) butdo it well. Seriously – if you are not experienced with the K don't read it just because you think I'll vote on it.

Note for tricks – I will vote on them but I won't like it.

Disclaimers:

If you go for pess and you're nonblack I will drop you.

I won't vote on eval the round after x speech. I will vote on things like new paradigm issues bad, no embedded clash, etc., though, and I think these arguments are probably also much more convincing than "eval after the 1AR."

Signpost + be clear

If a 2AR forgets to extend paradigm issues but it's obvious both debaters agree on them (like DTD), I'll still vote on the shell but it's in your best interest to extend them regardless.

Speaks

I average a ~28.7. To get good speaks, do judge instruction and collapse. Make my job easy.

Victoria Childs Lake Highland Preparatory School 2 rounds

Kelli De Guire Calhoun High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 9:16 AM EDT

Short-pre-round version: Speech and Debate coach at Calhoun High School (Georgia). Former high school policy debater in the mid 1980s. Since re-entry into the activity via UTNIF in 2018, I have worked hard to learn innovations in debate since my time in high school. My paradigm is still evolving. Even though I am willing to listen to anything, debaters must have clash and explanation. - following Toulmin (Claim, Warrant, Explanation). I flow, so I expect you to signpost, label, and explain.

Longer, working on prefs, version: If you think from visual clues that I am not getting the argument, I am probably not.

I expect to receive an email chain for 1A and 1N at deguirek@calhounschools.org

My team: I coach on the national and regional (Georgia) circuit. My team has transitioned from a policy only team to an LD only team. Now, the team writes most of their own arguments, but my varsity teams run a lot of Ks. Understand that just because my team runs an argument doesn't mean that I like it, or that I will understand it without your thorough explanation of the argument.

Likes/dislikes: I teach debate because I love debate, the community, and the education it provides. I try to be extremely objective and vote for teams because I think their arguments won, never because of rep or outside (or inside the round) influences. In fact, I tend to react badly if I believe a team or coach is trying to exert undue influence. Post-round I will give you as clear a critique as I possibly can and will answer respectful and honest questions from the debaters. I expect a team I drop (and their coaches) to be unhappy, but no matter what, please be nice to your opponents, your partner, your coaches, and your judge.

LARPing: I can deal with LARPing as long as I can follow it. If you spread through the analytics or don't signpost or don't weigh the args, don't expect me to vote for it.

Weirdness:I do not like performance-based actions of any kind. No challenging opponents to any kind of physical altercations, especially tortilla fights (don't ask.)

My email: deguirek@calhounschools.org

Blake Deng Hire 6 rounds

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

Procedural Stuff

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

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

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

Spreading

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

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

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

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

No Plan Text & Framework

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

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

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

Tech vs. Truth

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

Reading Evidence

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

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

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

Case

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

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

Disads

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

Topicality

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

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

Counterplan

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

Theory

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

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

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

Extra Points

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

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 8:48 AM PDT

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Brice Ezell The Lovett School 6 rounds

Updated January 2024 for Barkley Forum

Dr. Brice Ezell – Debate Coach, The Lovett School

Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate in California and nationally for my four years in high school, and another four years in the WUDC format at George Fox University. My PhD, though in English, centered on philosophy, so I’m comfortable and familiar with much of the critical/theoretical literature used in theory-heavy LD cases. At Lovett, I coach LD and PF, though I mostly judge the former. (For Public Forum debaters: scroll to the second-to-last section of this paradigm for PF stuff, though note that a lot of my thinking in the bulk of the paradigm applies to PF as well.)

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. The page below is long, I know, but I treat this paradigm like a running document where I put out answers to questions I get more than once, so that hopefully this page gets to a place where it'd answer basically any question before the debate happens, to save the debaters any time in asking me questions before the round. My general tip would be if your question boils down to one debate jargon term (e.g. "skep" or "RVI"), search that term on the page and -- ideally -- I'll have something written.

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed, and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts. Absent any clear standard from the debaters I will default to a post-AC utility calculus (meaning: I assume the AFF happens, and then I weigh the impacts claimed in the round by both sides) – though, hopefully, my judging doesn’t get to that point.

Tech > Truth?: Yes, though when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense, i.e. tags need to be clearly articulated and internally incoherent. So, for example, if you're running a really out-there K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. To give one example, run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what "run towards the real" means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals.

Speed?: Yes, I’m fine with it. My main request, though, is that you slow down and are very clear when reading your contention taglines and names/dates of your cards. If, however, one competitor in a round is fine with speed and the other isn't, I'd prefer that speed not be used.

Performance Cases: As it happens, my PhD specialty was in drama/theatre, so in a very real sense performance cases are, in theory, a perfect intersection of my interests. With that said, I definitely hold performance cases to a higher standard than most lines of argumentation one could take in an LD round, even the more out-there Ks. This is a category where I like to be surprised -- hell, that's part of the value of performance cases in general -- but the main thing I would stress is that a performance case should be delivered from a position of genuine and substantial critique, not merely the novelty of the performance itself. I remember back in my debating days that when people would talk about performance cases, it was almost like the critical-intellectual equivalent of shock jockery: "Oh, they'll never see this coming!" And sure, there is a surprise-based strategic value to performance argumentation, but considering the causes to which performances cases are so often put in service -- e.g. feminism, Queer rights, combating anti-Blackness, etc -- taking a performance strategy that feels solely motivated by how "surprising" it, to me, feels like a disservice to how important those causes are. So, put simply: if you want to run a performance case in front of me, you better deliver it like you're living the truth of what you're saying, not simply that you're picking something because of how avant-garde it is. A performance case should feel like a unique approach to persuasion, not an evasion of it for the sake of leaving your opponent befuddled.

Also, just a general note for those running performance cases: make sure you understand what the word "performative" means.

What Do I Not Like? (Really: What Arguments am I Skeptical Of?)

Like any judge I’m not bias-free, but I do try to keep myself as open as possible to learning new things from the debaters I judge, so I don’t really feel comfortable drawing a hard line excluding classes of arguments. That said, in the spirit of honesty, I’ll list some categories of argument for which I have a higher degree of skepticism:

*RVIs: Have never voted on one. Doesn’t mean I couldn’t vote on one, but in general I find the ones I have heard thin on face, and I tend to buy the “you don’t vote AFF based on the mere fact of their fairness” response.

*Disclosure theory arguments: This take may be a product of my debate experience, back when disclosure was less common and/or rarely practiced: I have yet to be sold on the claim that not disclosing cases withholds debate to such a pernicious degree that I’m meant to vote against the non-disclosing debater. Doesn’t mean that a particularly persuasive debater couldn’t sell me otherwise, but I think of all the theory arguments out there, disclosure’s the one where I have the highest threshold.

*Extinction:The old cliche of debate. You can run extinction in front of me, but just know that any debater with good analytic skills to sever the link chain connection between event X and extinction will probably do a good enough job to make me, at very minimum, skeptical of an extinction scenario, and most likely just not buy it. Most cards used to make the extinction claim aren't actually saying what debaters think they say, and I think the desire to try to boil down rounds to "who can save us from the end of the world?" creates a real race to the bottom argumentatively, frankly. And I just don't understand why certain impacts that could more plausibly follow from typical LD topics "aren't good enough" for the weighing: war, genocide, environmental degradation... these are all really bad things! Nuke war isn't quite as far fetched as extinction, but note that nuclear war doesn't *automatically* mean that the whole species goes extinct. Again, even in the hypothetical case of a localized nuclear conflict (i.e. between two neighboring countries), preventing that alone would be a really good impact, even if the conflict wouldn't spill over! I am more likely to buy a less "world-ending disaster" impact that's well-linked than a weaker-linked, far-fetched impact even if it's more disastrous.

*"Util because pleasure/pain are inherent" (AKA: "Moen 16: doesn't say what you think it does"): I am not anti-util – it’d be pretty hard to be in competitive debating, where utility is such a natural (and good!) weighing mechanism. But I will say I find most presentations of util by LD debaters very unsophisticated. Util comes in many shapes and sizes, and in running a util framework you should specify the type of util to which one is committing themselves, and explain why said framework makes sense for your case/the topic. (E.g. act util or rule util; specifying if your calculus is “maximizing pleasure/minimizing pain” or “greatest good for the greatest number” – these are all different things, and come with different commitments). I find the prevalence of the pleasure/pain binary in framework cards very odd; if you’re arguing, say, that China should maximize its environmental policy, “pleasure” and “pain” are weird metrics to use. Long and short of it: if you naturally default to a utilitarian-style calculus in your case writing, that’s fine, but put some actual work into it. I’ve heard so many shallow util frameworks to the point that now I’m somewhat numb to them.

*"Death good": An unusual number of debaters have asked me about this line of reasoning lately. I suppose I could vote for this argument, but just know that different kinds of arguments have different sorts of evidentiary burdens baked into them. Meaning: while I am open to most arguments one could make in a round, I do not have to treat “actually, death good” as equally plausible a line of reasoning as, “We should pass single-payer healthcare so that we can increase the number of insured people.” “Death good” or “actually we’re in the matrix” are bolder arguments to make, and bolder arguments require more robust proofs. That doesn’t mean I dislike these arguments; far from it, I really enjoy it when debaters take big swings, especially in out-rounds. But just know that ambitious cases require a higher degree of intellectual sophistication to run, meaning you can’t just cut the “death good” case the way you would, say, a stock plan-based case.

*Time skew arguments: In contrast to my generally "I'll vote on whatever's warranted" stance, here's maybe one place I'll be curmudgeonly: time skew arguments (e.g. "1AR's only four minutes!" "As the NEG I only speak twice!") are incredibly corny, and I can basically imagine no case where I'd vote on one. To be fair to the people who have run this in front of me, most of the time this is just an additional piece of warranting under a theory arg, so it's not as if this line of thinking is replete in most cases I'm hearing now. But this kind of complaint, to me, is pretty whiny. Debate, like any game, has rules and regulations, and the trade-off in LD's pretty basic: AFF gets more speeches, but NEG's speeches are longer. Given how many people continue to participate in this activity, I find it pretty dubious to say that the speech times are so unfair as to be a theoretical warrant in-round, especially given spreading.

*Presumption: In keeping with time skew, since that's so often used in this line of argument: I do not have a default presumption standard. I'm willing to hear arguments about presumption, but I'm of the belief that these are unnecessarily defensive arguments to include in constructive speeches, as they signal to me, "Judge, if this round is a total mess, and you can't possibly adjudicate what you have on the flow, vote AFF/NEG for x, y, and z reasons." Rhetorically, this does not instill much confidence in what you're doing with the constructive. Where I could see presumption making more sense is in refutation, if clash between arguments has reached a point of total murkiness. With that said, though, I'd rather there be big, clearly defined clash rather than pre-fiat discussions of the positionality of the AFF and NEG in an LD round. Put more directly, if it seems like your strategy is first and foremost togo for presumption, I'm definitely going to be annoyed.

A Note on "Tricks"

I am not entirely clear on what constitutes a "trick"; the contents of that set are somewhat ambiguous to me. (A consequence, perhaps, of never having gone to debate camp.) I've heard ordinary truth-testing cases described as "tricks" even though they strike me as just normal truth-testing-style cases. Same for some skep arguments as well; depending on how one runs it, I don't automatically see skep as inherently abusive/"tricksy," but when people have described tricks to me skep often features. (As someone who very much enjoys reading skeptical philosophy, I'd like to think that skep, run well in the right context, might actually be rewarding.)

If by "tricks," however, you mean "some ultra-fine technicality argument that squirrels the round to the point that my definitions basically say it's impossible for the other side of the debate to win categorically," then I will say: yes, I find such strategy annoying. As a comment about debate more broadly rather than just about tricks specifically: I reward debaters for going toward the debate, rather than running away from it. Debates, almost by definition, are best when two robustly presented sides clash with/weigh against each other, so any move to make the debate hopelessly stacked for one side will put you on my bad side.

This doesn't mean that I prefer, say, whole-res affs uniformly, as I also am likely to give high speaks to debaters who showcase quality topic research, which very often involves degrees of narrowing for case-writing (especially on Policy-esque topics like the 2024 Jan/Feb topic on West Asia/North Africa). To shamelessly plagiarize Potter Stewart, when it comes to cases that narrow for the sake of a richer debate versus narrowing to give the opposing side as little ground as possible, "I know it when I see it."

Evidence/A Brief “Old Man Yells at Cloud” Rant on Case Writing

My general policy is that unless I know a card that's being used and it sounds off in the round, or if the evidence is cut in such a way as to be unclear, I won't comb through all the evidence when making my RFD, barring a dispute in-round about a piece of evidence's validity or cutting. Put shortly, unless you give me reasons to doubt your handling of your evidence, I will honor the arguments in-round as presented. I ask to be added to the chain/Speechdrop just so that I have a record in case of such an aforementioned dispute.

There has long been a trend in debate of treating a cut card as automatic "evidence" for something. The important thing to remember is that the cards are not your case; your case should be making its own argument(s), for which the cards are support. I would hope that in constructing cases that debaters are taking as much time on their contention taglines, framework warrants, and overall structure as they are cutting their evidence. Thin case-writing (that is, little time on contention/subpoint tags and overall argument structure) has been a problem for as long as I’ve been in debate, but it does seem to have gotten worse. The framework, contentions, plan texts, etc – meaning, all the stuff that the debater themselves creates – should shine, as that’s where the debater’s personality can most come through. The cards just demonstrate how well you do (or don’t) make the argument that you yourself are writing.

Stray Things

*I prefer immediate post-round disclosure of result if possible. If for some reason it isn't depending on tournament rules (thankfully these instances seem rare now), know you can find me after the round to ask about an RFD, but if you wish to do so, make sure you find me ASAP, as I'll be less detailed if I'm several rounds removed from your debate. Should you want an oral RFD post-round in the event where I can't give one immediately, find your opponent from the round so I can speak to you both at the same time.

*I don't disclose speaks. Do not ask in-round for higher speaks for doing X, Y, Z, etc. Speaks are my own consideration.

*I expect that debaters keep their own time, but I will time during the round to ensure everyone's honest.

*I'm cool with flex prep.

*I am not anti-theory by any means -- some people really do be breaking the rules (such as the "rules" are) -- but I would call myself a "minimum theory" judge, meaning that the theory should not come across as a way of avoiding the resolutional debate. I know debate topics can be imperfect (no disrepect, NSDA), but theory, to me, exists to ensure debaters are being truly fair and educational. An overabundance of theory, to me, can often come across as a refusal to engage with the substance afforded by the resolution.

*I am not a fan of the strategy wherein a debater takes a stray line from an AC or NC card and tries to blow it up in the rebuttals if it isn't directly refuted by the opposing speaker. Even if I can technically flow it as a drop, I'm generally of the belief that if you're going to make a big deal out of a specific argument/detail, you need to flag it as such in your constructive. I like clash between clearly presented, bold arguments; I'm less inclined to trickery for trickery's sake, even if you're technically extending arguments fairly.

*Don't just say "my opponent dropped this argument, so extend it"; impact all arguments, even drops. I do not immediately think to myself, "By gum, they've given up the debate!" the moment I hear that an argument has been dropped.

*Cross-x is binding. Use it well.

*Nothing is more boring than a debate that collapses into the most generic version of the "utilitarianism/consequentialism vs. deontology/principles" discussion. Avoid these, please. If a framework debate gets into this territory naturally, try to make a case for why your specific version of util or deontology holds up best, rather than relitigate the broad debate that we all know and hate.

*I am not terribly persuaded by arguments that feel so stock/generic that you have no investment in them. Even conventional T shells should be presented like they are specially applicable to the debate that's happening in the room.

*The only things that will make me drop you outright are things like: egregious card-cutting which leads to misrepresentation/distortion of sources (having competed myself, I know what some will try to get away with) and morally outrageous arguments like "genocide/racism/sexism/homophobia good." Even though debate is about clash, it is an activity that must include all, so I view any arguments that aim to exclude people from the activity as a massive problem.

What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.

And to reiterate something I said above, but in a PF-specific fashion: the crossfires, especially the grand crossfires, should be the most electric part of the round. Please don't turn cross-x into a back-and-forth of basic fact-finding questions: really get into the debate there!

One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format (for the PRO and CON), the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, with the recent student loans topic ("The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt"): the CON, in that instance, is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in the rulebook for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.

Note on Speaks: Unless a specific tournament specifies a house preference for its speaker point allocations, here's how I award speaks:

30: You changed my mind about what's possible in the activity of debating, or did something truly revelatory with the topic. Your speaking style exhibits a sophistication that would get an attention of a full theatre.

29-29.9: You're a top-tier speaker and thinker, one I'd expect to be in late elims at the tournament. You are thinking about the topic at a very high level.

28-28.9: You gave a speech that put considerably more thought into the topic than the stock cases I'm likely to hear on any given topic. Your speaking style shows confidence and elegance.

27-27.9: This is what I call the "perfect average;" to be specific, perfectly average for me is 27.5. You did good work in presenting and constructing your case, even if the presentation wasn't particularly flashy.

26-26.9: You generally presented a coherent case, but with not much sophistication either in delivery or in quality of argumentation.

25-25.9: Your case and/or delivery were unclear, and your arguments poorly warranted.

Under 25: You did something profoundly offensive.

Things that Help or Harm Speaks

Things that Help Speaks

*Confidence! Especially in CX. Using CX to put your opponent on the defensive is a must.
*Knowing your case. You should be able to state the warrants/theses of your cards as if they were your own words.
*Using really good analytics arguments in rebuttals. Debate shouldn't just be "AFF reads card, NEG reads card to counter."
*Eye contact. Doesn't need to be constant, of course, but it should feel like you're addressing a person, not a computer screen.
*Writing a case where your words principally, not your sources, do the talking.
*Tasteful use of humor that rhetorically enhances your argument.
*Coming up with angles on the topic that are unique and genuinely thoughtful (meaning: not novel for novelty's sake).
*Similarly: a really well-written and detailed "stock" case can be just as impressive depending on how it's wielded. To give one example: for me, at tournaments at the highest level, a really artful whole-res AFF done well is arguably more impressive than a more niche plan AFF, as it shows the debater's willingness to take on a bigger burden and do so persuasively.
*Rebuttal that shows that you have done topic research outside of just your immediate casework.

Things that Harm Speaks

*Using cross-x solely for fact-finding (e.g. "What was your contention 1 again?")
*In rebuttal, saying "I have a card" or "my card says so" when your opponent challenges the claim being made in a card. (Meaning: the fact that you have a card is not automatically proof of the card's rightness.)
*Rudeness/condescension, especially if it is unearned.
*Contention taglines that are barely developed, no matter how good the cards below them are. (E.g. Just saying "Nuke war" for a tag.)
*Running an argument that it feels like you haven't put any thought behind. (Classic example: the NEG running T just because you can. If you kick out of it under the lightest pressure [or none at all] in the 1NR, I will probably roll my eyes.)
*While I am not opposed to speed, if you spread for the purpose of a bunch of thin argumentation, I'm going to be less inclined to give high speaks. To put it simply: justify your speed.
*Unironically saying "market solves" with no elaboration or evidence.

TJ Foley West Des Moines Valley High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 6:04 AM EDT

EDIT TO THE EDIT: I haven’t seen a debate in 5 years. The following still applies but know that I probably don’t know much about what you’re talking about if it’s evolved in the last 5 years.

EDIT: The following is a paradigm for LD only. PF folks, please disregard. I'm fine with anything in PF--just make it very clear in the final focus.

I debated for five years at Valley High School in West Des Moines, IA, graduating in 2017. I qualified to TOC my junior and senior years, accumulating eight career bids and getting to octos my senior year. I went to Harvard and studied social studies.

INTRODUCING THE 30 SPEAKS CHALLENGE! If you make an argument that I should give you a 30, here is what will happen:

1. Immediately after the round, I'm going to go to a random number generator and select a number 1-7.

2. That number will correlate to a numbered question, taken from UChicago Supplemental Essays among other sources. See the bottom for essay questions.

3. You will close your laptop and immediately respond with an answer. Your answer cannot exceed 30 seconds long.

4. If the answer is creative, humorous, and interesting, I'll give you a 30. If it's not, then I'll give you what you would have gotten anyway and then subtracting 0.3 speaks. High risk, high reward.

5. I'll repeat this process with your opponent if they wish. If both of you succeed, then whoever wins the round will get a 30 and whoever loses will get a 29.9.*

Note: I reserve the right to not follow the terms of this challenge should something egregious or unsafe occur in the round, or if you are just overwhelmingly rude to everyone.

IMPORTANT NOTE ON SPEAKS:

I'll vote on any argument, but if you read/do the following, your speaks will be lowered.

1. Disclosure theory (especially must disclose full text/open source)

2. AFC

3. If you refer to yourself as "we"

4. If you just read for 7 minutes (your speaks are inversely related to the amount of time spent reading)

5. If you spread against a novice/lay debater/someone of an obviously different skill level instead of including them in the round and making it a learning experience.

Short Version
At its core, debate is your game. I really don't care what you do as long as you aren't offensive. I enjoy good framework debates the most but in the end, do what you want. I'm not great at flowing, so slow down on tags and author names. I'm not a big fan of AFC and really don't like disclosure theory or brackets theory. This means I have a low threshold for responses, but if you win it I'll vote for it begrudgingly. Speaks are based on strategy and usually start at a 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Long Version

Ks: I don't understand a lot of the lit, but a well executed K is impressive. I think K vs. framework debates are interesting. My advice if you want to run a K is to overexplain the implications of the arguments you're running and don't assume I understand all of it.

Theory: I default to theory is an issue of competing interpretations. RVIs are fine to go for, but please weigh between warrants for an RVI instead of 15 blippy arguments for an RVI and 15 blippy arguments against an RVI. Voters other than fairness and education are neat. Oh, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE SLOW DOWN ON INTERPS AND COUNTERINTERPS.

Util: Weigh everything and it could be interesting. I'm majoring in international relations and did a lot of policy work outside of debate so I'll probably understand what the plan or CP does, but if you're going for something complex/debatey (recontextualizing fiat or something like that) explain what that means.

Framework: Love it. A good framework debate with weighing and preclusion is really fun to watch. However, weigh between preclusion arguments and explain why yours operates on a higher level instead of just going "I preclude." Also, number arguments so they're easier to flow. Framework vs. ROTB debates are cool to watch.

Random things: Don't refer to yourself in the plural that "we meet" or "our argument." There is one of you and it gets kinda annoying. I won't drop you for it obviously but I might dock you speaks. Also, signpost clearly and number blippy arguments so they're at least somewhat flowable.

Ask me questions before the round if I missed anything. Good luck!

30 Speaks Challenge Questions:

1. In 2015, the city of Melbourne, Australia created a "tree-mail" service, in which all of the trees in the city received an email address so that residents could report any tree-related issues. As an unexpected result, people began to email their favorite trees sweet and occasionally humorous letters. Imagine this has been expanded to any object (tree or otherwise) in the world, and share with us the letter you’d send to your favorite.

2. Lost your keys? Alohomora. Noisy roommate? Quietus. Feel the need to shatter windows for some reason? Finestra. Create your own spell, charm, jinx, or other means for magical mayhem. How is it enacted? Is there an incantation? Does it involve a potion or other magical object? If so, what's in it or what is it? What does it do?

3. So where is Waldo, really?

4. Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?

5. Joan of Arkansas. Queen Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Babe Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mash up a historical figure with a new time period, environment, location, or occupation, and tell us their story.

6. You’re on a voyage in the thirteenth century, sailing across the tempestuous seas. What if, suddenly, you fell off the edge of the Earth?

7. You are about to be reincarnated into a specific office supply tool in a specific office. Whose office is it, what office supply are you, and why?

Delon Fuller West Des Moines Valley High School 6 rounds

Colton Gilbert Little Rock Central 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:24 AM CDT

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.com andlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com ,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Andrew Craig Gollner Hire 4 rounds

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

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

he/him

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

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

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

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

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

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

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Gong Little Rock Central 4 rounds

Adrian Graham Wyoming Virtual Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 2:03 PM MDT

Add me to the email chain: eadriang17@gmail.com

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

Last updated for Stanford- 2/11/24

Debated for:

University of Wyoming 2021-23

Cheyenne East- 2017-2021

I have more knowledge and experience with policy rounds, but am not opposed to clash or K v K rounds- you guide the direction of the debate, not me

Things to help win my ballot

1. Impact Calculus- Succinct, well warranted impact calc is the key to my heart and can easily steal rounds away. Too many rounds happen where the aff assumes I hear something in the 1AC, and automatically assume their impacts are bigger than the negative's, that often not the case. Without explanation of why I should evaluate your impacts over your opponents, my path to victory should be obvious. The first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be what I write on my ballot.

2. Communication- If I can't hear you, I can't flow your arguments. This is especially true as we're mostly online, but I was never good at flowing 16, unlabeled arguments under one subpoint anyways, so probably best to slow down, even just a little bit. I'm okay with speed in general, but I'm not a machine, and if you're spreading to the point where nobody can understand you, it's impossible for me to evaluate those args. Especially on tags and in theory debates- noticing a trend of folks failing to take a breath, which in theory debates SUCKS for you :)

3. Timing- Grace periods aren't a thing. Who let y'all get away with this? When the timer stops, you're welcome to keep yapping, but know I've stopped flowing and I'm gonna give you weird looks until you sit down.

Argument Specific Stuff

Condo- probably good, but don't overdo it. I find debates where mooting as much of the aff as possible and then owning them on a thing you weren't going for anyways to be very sad, but it's a tool in the tool kit, so just don't abuse it, and for those aff teams out there who think three means go, I'm probably your guy. Also, this is probably the only theory argument that is reject the team, not the arg.

Kritiks- I'm down, just know my K lit base knowledge in general is terrible, and topic specific stuff is even worse. That doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't go for these arguments, it just means you need to do more explanation so I get the gist. Also, probably have an alt.

Tech > Truth

Theory args at the bottom of flows- I'll cry if your 3rd response to the CP is theory, your opponents will cry, and if you have another argument, followed by another theory argument, I'll cry some more. If theory becomes more developed we all need space to write them down, trying to sandwich your subpoint z as to why condo is a good thing between other spots on the flow is messy and unfun for everyone.

Judge Kick- I don't do it unless told otherwise by the neg, and can be convinced by the aff not to do so.

Tech- I'm probably like, medium tech on the scale. I get most complex args, but I won't pretend like my eyes don't glaze over a little bit in some clash rounds, or 20 minute framework overviews on a Kritik. Part of this is absolved by slowing down on these more complex topics (see above) the other part is absolved by not going off the rails.

Meta Debate Stuff

Don't steal prep. I will be upset if you say you're done taking prep, and continue to click things on your computer for up to a minute afterwards, especially if it's obvious other people are prepping. Save you and your opponents the shame of stealing prep and just learn how to save a word document in less than an hour.

Be kind- the world is sad sometimes, the last place we need it is in this activity where hopefully most individuals are really brilliant people. Don't be sexist, homophobic, ablest, or racist.

David Kilpatrick The Harker School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 3, 2024 at 12:06 PM CDT

New - NDT 24. Welcome to Atlanta!

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll recieve a loss along with the lowest points tabroom will allow me to asign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissable for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Melia Lever Wyoming Virtual Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 8:30 AM MDT

She/They pronouns please!

Last updated for the Holiday Classic

Add me to the email chain - MeliaLever@gmail.com

Don’t ask me if I’m ready, ill tell you if I’m not.

All debate summary

This is your show and run it how you want. Don’t be problematic in in round. If you are I'll vote you down independent of the rest of the debate, that’s about as much judge intervention I'll ever do. Tell me why you win the debate at the end. Lots of impact calc, lots of judge instruction. I don't like to do work for either side but will if I'm not given anything by the debaters. Ill vote for K affs if they’re topic specific and there's warrants as to why the K aff should be allowed.

Tech over Truth

Any reference to Brian David Gilbert and his series on polygon, "unraveled", or Dimension 20 fantasy high will make me like you more.

The winner gets a 30 for speaks and the loser gets the closest value to 30 the tournament will let me assign.

CX - This is my main event. I know the most about it (tech wise) and can track anything you read. I'm good on speed, dont go 100% online. Don’t assume I know the topic. Meaning with T debates you should spend some time explaining why the aff isn't topical.

Counterplans

Condo is the only reason to reject a team, all other theory arguments (assuming you win them) are reasons to make the argument go away

K’s

The bar for a K is high, but not impossible to reach. If your opponents drop arguments or just ignore it then it’s the same as every other dropped argument so long as its properly extended. Otherwise, lots of work needs to go into the alt debate to explain to me why it does solve. I’m compelled by the argument that “discourse does nothing” so if you’re alt is “reject the aff and talk about the problem” that’s gonna be a hard debate to win (assuming the aff has the evidence). But if the alt results in material action in the world (I.E., revolution to overthrow a capitalist system), then it’s easier for me to vote on. Mindset K's are also a hard one for me to vote on. I struggle to believe that reading the K in front of just the room will eventually spillover to the rest of the world.

K aff's need to relate to the topic, otherwise the threshold for T is low. So long as you relate to the topic and can explain how (even if its tangentially) then I'm willing to vote for you.

For both I would also prefer if you kept the K’s away from broad, overreaching topics and narrowed it down to the nitty gritty of the debate. I understand that’s not always possible, but the more you explain the links, impacts, etc. then the easier it is for me to vote on.

PF and LD

I have judged these debates but know very little about them. I’m not totally sure how either works, or the theory behind arguments. You shouldn’t treat me as a lay judge, but don’t assume I’m going to be the single greatest judge you’ve ever had either. I know and understand debate. Lots of what I said for policy applies. Make sure you extend arguments, explain warrants, etc. Otherwise, you can do whatever.

Jonathan Meza Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:52 AM PDT

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

debate style tier list:

S Tier - Policy v k, Policy v Policy, Debates about Debate
A tier - K aff v Policy, K aff v Framework, Performance debate (either side)
B tier - K v K, Theory,
C tier - Phil
D tier - Trix
F tier - Meme/troll

about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips.

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. ~~Generic links are fin~~e ~~but~~ you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

Leo Mokriski Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:56 AM EDT

email: leomokriski@gmail.com

background: did LD for 4 years in highschool, qualified for nats my junior year, qualified for TOC my senior year, did policy at Emory University. I'm majoring in math and philosophy.

aff should set up email chain asap

speaks: go as fast as u want if speech docs are sent, points for being clear and slowing down on tag lines and passionate speaking

disclosure is good

TLDR: tech > truth, i am a flow judge

1 - Cap K, Phil

2 - all other ks

3 - policy, stock, theory, t, fw,

4/strike - trix

Noncircuit: generally noncircuit ld the debate will either come down to competing frameworks or weighing impacts. When you're operating under utilitarianism, make sure to do explicit weighing of your impacts through the some combination of magnitude, timeframe, probability, reversibility, and cyclicality. The key is to compare your impacts with your opponents, and articulate why yours matter more. For competing frameworks, it is important to combine your arguments about why your framework is good with equally potent arguments about why their's is bad. It is important to leverage your framework to frame the opponents impacts out by saying 'this impact doesn't matter under X ethical theory.' It is also important to win offense under an opponents framework, so that even if you're losing the framework debate, you still have offense under their's. The most important thing is to address every argument your opponent makes, and to leave no ambiguity as to why I should vote for you. Remember to speak clearly and to signpost throughout your speeches.

K: if you're gonna read a k u hv a good understanding of it. i am comfortable judging most ks including pomo and high phil, when i was in highschool i mainly ran cap k, baudrillard k, and sometimes i ran sec ks, foucault ks, setcol k, and some others im probably forgetting. if u can't explain ur k or its theory of power then i will not believe it. performance is dope if its interesting! k-affs need to do lots of work to beat t-fw. For k-affs, i generally prefer advocating for different forms of education/fairness/debate rather than saying that education/fairness/debate don't matter and/or are bad. u can say squo debate/fairness or education is bad, but should try to offer a better version that the aff solves.

Cap K: saying "their authors are capitalist" is not an argument, u need to justify why their evidence is flawed. most "cap good" arguments can be debunked w/o cards just w/ marxist analysis imo, but they still require response. vague alts are cringey, and explain why cap causes extinction. also ROTB/J is p important

Policy: any stock things is cool, cps is cool, more than one conditional advocacy in ld is probably unfair, do ur thing.

T: one or two t shells in the 1nc is fine, i will evaluate it based on the flow. no rvi on T.

Theory: friv theory is kindy cringe, and so is spamming lots of theory shells in the 1n. theory in the 1ar is good strat, if u think there is abuse in the round running theory is a good idea. aff can win RVI if it is dropped or undercovered.

FW: running fw against k-affs is usually necessary, and i will evaluate it fairly, but it is not enough on its own. neg has to disprove the affs theory of power and prove stuff like "debate is good" and "fairness matters" or "education matters" which i will be pretty charitable towards.

Phil: love phil debate and really miss doing it, i am a phil (and math) major so i should hv a decent understanding of most phil args, which means if ur defending util u should prolly allocate a good amount of time to the fw debate. in highschool i regularly ran Kant/korsgaard, contracts args, hobbes, etc. i am also comfy with p much any other philosophers, i.e. sartre, camus, foucault, Derrida etc. just display a good understanding of their theories and be able to explain them well. author indicts; lots of philosophers (especially french ones) are very problematic ppl, but nevertheless i dont think its enough to just say X philosopher is racist/sexist/transphobic, u should also try to tie their x-phobia to their theory so that i find the arg more convincing, but if other team drops it i will still vote on it.

trix r4 kids, wont be evaluating these until halloween

Rose Pelham Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 4:53 AM EDT

Last edited on 5/27/23 to rewrite the sections on experience, Statement on Racism, and K Affirmatives.

Pronouns: she/they

Experience: I have spent my entire life in the debate community one way or another. That said, I spent five years debating middle school/high school, took a break from debating in undergrad, then came back to judge and coach for a variety of schools.

Statement on Racism (& other Prejudices) in Debate

Debate should encourage students to see themselves as agents capable of acting to create a better world. We will not achieve this vision for our activity so long as we pretend it is in a realm separate from reality. Judges have an ethical obligation to oppose prejudice in round including but by no means limited to: racism, queerphobia, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia, ableism, and classism, among others. Debate, as an activity, has its fair share of structural inequities. We, as coaches and judges, need to address these and be congnizant of them in our decisions.

General Philosophy

I see the role of the judge as that of an educator concerned primarily with what teams learn from the experience. Therefore, the most important aspect of being a judge, to me, is to provide good constructive criticism to teams about their arguments and performance, and to promote the educational qualities of debate. When teams are using prep time, I am usually writing speech by speech feedback for my ballots––which I very much hope teams and their judges will read. As a judge, I want you to come out of the round, win or lose, feeling like you learned something worthwhile.

As an educator concerned with what can be learned from the round, I think the quality of arguments are much more important than their quantity, and whenever possible prefer to reward well researched and articulated arguments more than arguments will few warrants that might be read in the hopes of their being dropped. I prefer to decide rounds based upon the meaning of the arguments presented and their clash rather than by concession.

I flow the round based on what I hear, preferring not to use speech documents. For this reason, clarity is more important than speed. For an argument to exist in the round, it needs to be spoken intelligibly. Rounds that are slower typically offer better quality arguments and fewer mistakes.

Argument Specific preferences:

Plan-less critical affirmatives: I am happy to judge and vote on them. K affs are a useful tool for contesting the norms of debate, including those which are the most problematic in the activity. Over time, I have changed my threshold on their topicality. These days, my position is that so long as they are clearly related to the topic, I am happy to consider them topical. When aff teams argue critical affirmatives, I strongly prefer there be a specific solvency mechanism for their interpretation of the role of the ballot. For negative teams arguing against K affs, I have a strong preference for specific case answers. Given that K affs are a fixture of debate and are generally available to find on open evidence and the caselist wiki, prepping to specifically answer them should be possible. While I am unlikely to vote in favor of arguments that would outright eliminate K affs in debate, counter kritiks are a strategy I am amenable to.

Kritiks: At its most fundamental level, a kritik is a critical argument that examines the consequences of the assumptions made in another argument. I love well run kritiks, but for me to decide in favor of a kritik it needs a specific link to the assumptions in the 1AC and a clearly articulated alternative that involves a specific action (as opposed to a vague alt). Experience informs me that K's with generic links and vague alternatives make for bad debate.

Framework: Lately this term seems to have become a synonym for a kind of impact calculus that instead of focusing on magnitude, risk, and time-frame attempts to convince me to discard all impacts but those of the team running this argument. Framework, as I understand it, is a synonym to theory and is about what the rules of debate should be. Why should it be a rule of debate that we should only consider one type of impact? It seems all impacts in debate have already boiled themselves down to extinction.

Topicality: Please slow down so that I can hear all your arguments and flow all their warrants. The quality of your T arguments is much more important to me––especially if you argue about the precedent the round sets––than how many stock voters you can read. I may prefer teams that offer a clear argument on topicality to those that rely on spreading, however tactically advantages the quickly read arguments may be.

Counter plans: The burden of demonstrating solvency is on the negative, especially with PICs. PICs are probably bad for debate. Most of the time they are just a proposal to do the plan but in a more ridiculous way that would likely never happen. So if you are going to run a PIC, make sure to argue that changing whatever aspect of the plan your PIC hinges on is realistically feasible and reasonably advantageous. Otherwise, I will do everything I can to avoid deciding the round on them.

Conditionality: I have no problem with the negative making a couple conditional arguments. That said, I think relying on a large number of conditional arguments to skew the aff typically backfires with the neg being unable to devote enough time to create a strong argument. So, I typically decide conditionality debates with a large number of conditional arguments in favor of the aff, not because they make debate too hard for the aff, but because they make debating well hard for everyone in the round.

For rookie/novice debaters:

If you're reading this, then you're already a step ahead and thinking about the skills you will need to be building for JV and varsity debate. What I want to see most in rookie/novice debates is that teams are flowing and clearly responding to each other.

Simone Pisarik Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Ian Poe Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 2:12 AM CDT

I think that debate should be safe and welcoming for everybody. If you prevent this, I do not want to judge you, and you will not want to be judged by me. This is very important, so I’ve put it first.

LASA 21, Emory 25. I coach for Pine Crest.

He/Him. poedebatedocs@gmail.com

I primarily judge policy debates, but I also understand LD to some extent and have been an instructor at an LD camp. I am familiar with PF as well, but to a lesser extent.

(bad disclosure = bad speaker points)

NOTE FOR ONLINE DEBATE

Fix the microphone echo issues. They're incredibly annoying.

TLDR

Do what you'd like and don't over-adapt. I'm fine with both policy and K strats, but I'd rather hear a specific strategy than generics. I think research is the most important part of debate. I try to be tech>truth but I'm skeptical of garbage arguments. Speed is fine if you're clear. Have good disclosure. Don't say stuff that's racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist etc. (but also don't accuse the other team of doing this if they didn't.)

Theory

If the abuse is egregious I'll totally vote on it. 2-3 condo worlds usually seems ok, but it's easier for the aff to win this debate with more worlds. Well researched strategies and specific solvency advocates help the neg win theory.

Lean neg: most agent CPs, advantage CPs, PICs out of something in the plan, CPs recut from aff ev, basically anything with an aff-specific solvency advocate.

Lean aff: generic process CPs, kicking planks, 2NC CPs, CPs with no solvency advocate, CPs that only compete textually.

Topicality

Not a huge fan! I think about T in a more truth>tech way than I do other arguments. Have specific case lists, examples of ground loss, and a qualified interp that's somewhat contextual to the topic. "More affs bad" isn't good enough.

Policy Affs

Have an actual solvency advocate. I prefer specific impact scenarios like "these countries go to war" over something like "democracy solves everything!" Neg teams should do case debate. Generic framing frustrates me.

Counterplans

Case-specific CPs > generics. Big fan of advantage CPs. If your CP steals the aff to get a contrived internal net benefit, it's an uphill battle to beat the perm. 1NC needs a solvency advocate.

Disads

Good spin and story > dumping 50 cards and hoping I'll sort them out. I prefer DAs based on the outcome of the plan rather than the process, but I'm more down for politics DAs based on stuff like political capital than I am for bad Rider DAs. 0% risk is possible.

Kritiks

Have specific links and explain how the K implicates the aff. Generic state bad or cruel optimism links aren't persuasive. I've got a high bar for structural arguments, but if you do a good job I'll vote on it. Answer examples.

I lean toward thinking the neg should have links to the plan or the 1AC's core ideas (which could include reps, but might not include "your author defended stuff we don't like in an unhighlighted part of the card.") I start the debate assuming the aff gets the plan but you can change my mind.

Tell me what the alt does and give examples if you can. Alts that do something material > alts that think really hard.

Kritikal Affs

Explain what your aff does and why it matters. It should be about the topic, not just a previous year's aff with one topic-adjacent card. You should defend something and be stuck defending it. It's hard to win that your performance actually did something unless your evidence is fantastic.

Neg teams should try to engage with the content of the aff, but I get it if you can't. I'm often persuaded by presumption. K v K debates are awesome, but only if both sides know what's going on.

Framework

Clash/Research > "fairness because fairness." I enjoy creative styles of framework like "T - talk about the topic at all." Tell me the ground you lost, why it's good, etc. Explain the types of debates that would happen in the world of the TVA if you want to go for it.

Bob Portnoy Calhoun High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:30 AM EDT

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

Riley Rees Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 1:14 AM PDT

If I clear you, be clear.

I debated for Immaculate Heart for 4 years, qualled to the TOC twice, and am currently an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart

Speech Drop > email chain but if you must: passionfruit11905@gmail.com

I mostly read policy positions and feel best assessing those debates— but I'd prefer if you did what you're best at and weigh; all my preferences can be changed with good debating

Policy

I love impact turn debates — just please nothing offensive

CP competition cards need to be in the 1nc

Zero risk is not a thing

Ks
Not very familiar with most K literature so don’t assume I know anything

Fairness is important and I am often persuaded by a case outweighs 2ar

Link walls and framework interpretations need to be in the 1nc— links should also be very specific to the affirmative

The words "post" and "pre" fiat are meaningless to me

Phil

I am unfamiliar with most phil positions aside from Kant so please err on the side of over explanation

I find it hard it vote for aprioris, paradoxes, etc. unless you have won truth testing, but truthfully I find it hard to vote for those arguments at all. Unsure as to why I find myself judging tricks debates and would prefer not to judge them

I have a strong distaste for analytically justified frameworks — I will hear out your phil AC/NC (I do enjoy philosophy debate), just please read cards

Theory

The more frivolous the shell, the lower the threshold for response

I'm not a fan of Nebel T, impacts that have to do with "novice inclusion" and nit-picky disclosure arguments

K affs & T FW

Neg leaning in these debates, fairness is the best impact

I am unfamiliar with k v k debate

Random

Stop hiding arguments (ASPEC). I'm a slow typer, I'm not gonna flow it.

Keep inserted re-highlightings to a minimum, this is a speaking activity. Link walls should never be inserted.

Refrain from using the word “LARP” and "layer" in your speeches

I flow cx, it's binding — don’t be shifty or lie

"Perf Cons" are not real

Flow clarification happens during prep/cx

If you are reading an ev ethics violation/clipping stake the round on it and have proof/a recording

Sophia Schier '23 Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 18, 2023 at 6:08 AM EDT

Hi! My name's Sophia and I'm a senior at LHP. I've debated in LD for 4 years and policy for 3

I have no preference on email chains or speechdrop, do whatever works best for both debaters, but my email is sophia.schier723@gmail.com

!!!! Please be timely !!!!

Quick Prefs:

Ks - 1 (Material/Identity) (I mostly read Ks and would definitely prefer to see these, but I also have a high threshold)

LARP - 2

Phil - 2

T/Theory - 2 (Just don't spam friv theory)

High Theory Ks - 3

Tricks -5 (see specifics)

General

Tech > Truth.

Have warrants

Weigh, impact things out, and crystalize to me what your argument is and why I should vote for it. That's how you get my ballot. Explain why conceded arguments matter

Specifics

Ks:

I mostly read kritiks, typically material Ks, and prefer material/identity Ks. I can judge high theory K debates but am less familiar with them so please just explain it very well. In your rebuttal please spend time crystalizing the links, rob, and alt, ESPECIALLY referring back to specific cards in the K.

Weigh your ROB and explain what it means, explain your alt

Don't drop the perm. Prioritize the perm. Explain why it works/doesn't work.

I won't hack for Ks and I have a high threshold for knowing your argument. If you don't understand your own argument and your opponent makes that clear, I am much less likely to vote on the K.

LARP:

Weigh, weigh, weigh. I debated policy for 3 years on the AUDL circuit and on and off on the CFL circuit, including at CFLNats last year.

High probability, low impact > low probability, big impact (aka trash extinction scenario)

Phil:

I've Alienation almost every debate round of my career and have occasionally read Kant, but am not as familiar with others. That being said, I can absolutely vote on these as long as you explain them, which means you must understand your philosophy.

T/Theory:

I've gone for T/Theory in most of my more recent rounds, but have never been a huge T/Theory debater.

Prioritize collapsing and explain your arguments. Rebuttals shouldn't repeat arguments, impact them out, weigh, and crystalize to me why I should vote on this.

Don't run a ton of friv theory shells, I'll vote on it but will drop your speaks. Ultimate pet peeve, especially if they have stupid names. 1-2 well-impacted out and well-extended theory shells are much better. Fairness > edu

I will absolutely vote on disclosure. I think the wiki and open source are good norms.

Tricks:

I've read tricks in more recent rounds, but I won't vote on 99% of them. I like them if they're funny, short, well-extended, and limited to stuff like speaks. That being said, I will drop speaks for concealed or ridiculous amounts of tricks.

Please don't make me decide on this. I do not want to have this debate and am a bad judge for it.

Disclaimers:

Be Clear Spreading is fine, but I won't be used to your top speed and I'm not great at flowing. Signpost, your speaks will thank you. I have an annoying high voice when I spread, so I won't penalize others who do.

Please send me the doc, email or speechdrop works. I am a very visual person and not the best at hearing things.

If you are reading ontological pess arguments and you are not a member of that identity group (ex: reading afropess if you are not black), I will drop you and your speaks will be tanked.

If you say something racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, I will drop you and your speaks will suffer.

If it's a tech tournament and you're debating a novice/lay debater, any arguments are fine but send out analytics and explain arguments. If you choose not to do this, I'll still vote for you, but speaks will drop.

If you make a reference to Taylor Swift or Tyler the Creator I will raise your speaks

Speaks

25: Offensive

26-27: Clipping

27.5-28.4:Significantly below average, probably lost

28.5-29: Average-Slightly above average

29-29.4:Great round

29.5-30: Fantastic speech and skills, you'll probably do extremely well at this tournament

Prateek Seela '25 Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 2:24 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Prateek. I'm a sophomore in high school and a 4th year LD debater at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I have gotten 9 career bids to the TOCs this year and cleared at the TOC in 2022. Add me to the email chain at prateekseela24@gmail.com

I believe that debate is a game. However, it can have out-of-round implications and be used in other ways. Either way, I will vote on any argument as long they are not structurally exclusionary, racist, sexist, etc. Speed is good and you can go however fast you want. The following are rankings in terms of my comfortability and familiarity with types of arguments.

Prefs:

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1

Tricks - 1

K - 2/3

LARP - 3

Defaults:

I don't want to have to default, but if I do then the following will be my defaults:

Skepticism is true (i.e. just read a framework)
Fairness and Education are voters
Fairness > Education
Jurisdiction > Fairness
Reps > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB
No RVI, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater
Truth Testing
Epistemic Confidence
P + P negate
Text > Spirit

General:

My thought on the way I should evaluate the round is basically as tab as possible. This means I'll vote on any argument proven true in the round.

Here's a list of a couple of ways I view debate/random things I would like to see:

1] An argument must consist of at least a claim and a warrant. The claim and warrant must relate to each other to be an argument, i.e. it has to be sequitur. Otherwise, I won't evaluate it.

2] Sending analytics (especially when you are reading at 350/400+ wpm)

3] Record your speeches in case your internet messes up

Theory:

There is no such thing as "frivolous theory". The entire point of the theory debate is to determine if a shell is frivolous or not. However, if your shell just says infinite abuse with barely any warrants in the 1NC, and you extremely explode it in the 2N, I may be easily persuaded aff.

Long theory underviews with under warranted arguments are fine, but at least try to justify some of your arguments, and please have good formatting.

Also, I will award better shells with higher speaks. For example, if you read a funny or creative shell. If you win on a "dumb" shell and execute it properly then I will also give you higher speaks. Some shells I just don't like generally, but will still evaluate fairly, are shells that say you can't say X paradigm issues.

I think that disclosure is probably a good thing, but this won't affect my decision. You can read whatever disclosure shell you want in front of me.

I like good paradigm issues/theory framing debates like norms creation vs. in-round abuse, standard weighing, theory tricks like framework take-outs, etc.

Topicality:

Any theory things also apply here. Please do evidence comparison and weighing. Also, try to have some good justifications for semantics. Most times, people have just 1 line no warrants. On the other side, please please please have a justification for Niemi if you read it analytically or even carded. If the 1AR is 1 sentence, "Grammar DA: ..." there is a high chance I will believe the 2AR is just completely new and not buy it. I also want a warrant as to why it is a reason to DTD and not a reason to reject semantics.

Framework:

Substantively, phil debate is what I do the most, and is my favorite type of debate. I read Hobbes, Agonism/Mouffe, Kant, International Law, and different types of Skepticism the most. I am also familiar with and have read Hegel, Levinas, Pettit, Contractarianism, Virtue Ethics, Nozick/Libertarianism, Jaeggi, and more, but you can still read anything you want.

Reading multiple hijacks that hijack the same premise of the framework is questionable, and the 1AR should point this out. That being said, I think good hijacks are incredibly under-used, and if read properly can be great. This is why you should also have a coherent syllogism and not skip steps in the actual framework.

If you're reading TJFs or lots of independent reasons to prefer, I think its a good idea to justify why frameworks have to be theoretically justified and why that comes before substantive justifications. Same thing applies to other independent reasons to prefer. I think that TJFs are really dumb, but I'll still vote on them.

I also think that a framework can and easily should be able to up-layer and be able to take out other positions like theory. It's a pretty under-utilized strategy, but if executed well can be very strategic.

Lastly, I love permissibility triggers if actually warranted.

Tricks:

Substantive tricks > random definitions and theory spamming.

Read truth testing. However, not all tricks require truth testing and if you explain why they don't I'll be happy.

I like tricks being applied to other flows, and in-depth weighing on how the logic behind the trick actually interacts with arguments being made.

Some tricks I like are trivialism, indexicals, rule-following paradox, concept skep, external-world skep, particularism, contingent standards, etc.

LARP:

Do whatever you want just weigh and you should be fine. I may not be the best at judging these debates, but I'm pretty confident I can judge most of them. Please actually justify util lol - consequentialism good warrants are not the same as util. Also, calc indicts are not silly (you can make arguments for why they are, which is fine, but asserting they are is not).

My experience with these has actually increased, and I'm pretty confident I can evaluate almost every K debate. Ks I have read include Generic Cap, Dean, Anarchism, Semiocap, Lacan, Deleuze, and Settler Colonialism. Other Ks I understand but have not read to a decent point are Queerpess, Disabilitypess, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Security, and more.

Just weigh your ROB and explain what it means and you will be fine. I would also like for you to engage in your opponent's framework, e.g. instead of just like "white phil bad" explain the points of disagreement or even how the historical backing affects their theory. Obviously, not all K debaters do this, but all different "types" of debaters do this in any type of round, this is just an example I have came across.

Andrew Shea West Des Moines Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 5:41 PM CDT

Important Stuff is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. However I'll note I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions. All that said I am also less liable to vote for a 2ar spreading theory shell if no objections were raised prior.
I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judgeshould intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant idealogical norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an indvidual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good take to approach this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be approached when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the oppenent to argue why it shouldn't be perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuviness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.

Aran Sonnad-Joshi '23 Midtown High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 5:05 PM EDT

Hi, I’m Aran Sonnad-Joshi. I use he/him pronouns. I’d say at least read the first part of my paradigm.

Midtown '23

Harvard '27

Email: a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com

General Stuff

I’m fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I've competed on both the national and local Georgia circuits. I'll listen to almost anything, just warrant it.

Tech over truth but sketchy arguments have a lower threshold for response

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that, but you should signpost anyway

Speed: I’m good with spreading but send the doc. My email is a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com but I prefer SpeechDrop if possible.

Prog vs. Trad: I prefer trad, but I'm comfortable with prog. Generally, I would say don't change your style too much for your opponent but also don't beat up on trad debaters with jargon and norms. I think a good trad debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style.

CX: CX is binding, but you have to bring it up in round if you want it on the flow. Also, being somewhat slippery is fine, but answer the question.

Pref sheet

Trad - 1

K - 2

Larp - 2/3

T/Theory, Phil - 3/4

Tricks, Frivolous theory - 5/Strike

Specific arguments:

Framework: Framework is how you weigh the round. Explain how your arguments fall under your framework. If you want to use your opponent’s framework, that’s fine but you have to show how your arguments flow under it.

Plans: I’m ok with plan affs but make sure you can explain how they’re topical.

DAs: Impact calc is key for me to weigh your DA. Sketchy link chains have a lower threshold for response. Make sure you have links, I’m not going to do it for you.

CPs: Counterplans are valid. Weigh the net benefits of the cp against the aff.

Ks: Ks are great. I’m most familiar with standard Ks and some postmodern stuff. My favorites are postcolonialism (but no one runs it), biopower (very underrated), Virilio (no one runs this either), and Baudrillard. Deleuze still confuses me. Pre-fiat impacts are cool if you do them properly.

K Affs: K affs are fine, just warrant them. I've run them before.

Phil (actual phil, not just phil tricks) : I'm familiar with a decent amount of phil. I should be able to evaluate almost any phil argument if it's explained well.

Theory: Theory should have a proper abuse story. I don’t like frivolous theory and it has a much lower threshold for response. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs (but RVIs can definitely be good). Fairness and Education are not default voters. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

T: I prefer whole-res debates in trad LD but I can go both ways on Nebel.

Tricks: I don’t like them. I'll vote if I have to but please don’t make me vote off of them.

More specific stuff

I like a really good trad debate as much if not more than a good prog debate.

I think more than two condo offs becomes hard to justify.

I don't like disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

Debate is a game but rhetoric and conversations are important too

Nonnegotiable

I'll evaluate anything that's not in this section if I really must. These are things you have to do.

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations

Don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach and/or the tournament know)

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based on the pool. Things that I'll give high speaks for:

Well executed trad debate, especially against prog.
If you run unique arguments and explain them well

Allyson Spurlock The Harker School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 4:02 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I currently coach LD for Harker.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

max stephens West Des Moines Valley High School 4 rounds

Conal Thomas-McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:57 PM EDT

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I ~~of course~~ won't ~~on face not~~ vote on them~~, but please reconsider reading them~~.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Becca Traber Lake Highland Preparatory School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 7:07 PM EDT

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Suchi Vennam '25 Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 2:28 PM EDT

LHP '25

Hi, I’m Suchi. This is my third year debating for Lake Highland. Please add me to the email chain at vennamsu@lhprep.org, or just use speech drop. Feel free to email me pre-round or post-round if you have any questions.

I’ll vote on basically any argument (as long as it isn't discriminatory, of course), and the following preferences are just what I’m familiar with. All this means is you might have to explain your argument more, but I’ll still be willing to vote on it if you do that sufficiently.

Note for Woodward: Please feel free to read what you're most comfortable reading. How you execute and understand your arguments, especially for a novice/2nd year tournament, is more important to me than what you read (as long as it isn't repugnant).

Pref Cheat Sheet:

Phil - 1

topical K affs - 1

K - 2

Trad - 2

T/Theory - 3

LARP - 3

non T affs - 3

substantive/phil-y tricks - 4

spammy/blippy tricks - 90000000

I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge.

Defaults:

I don't want to have to default, but if I do then the following will be my defaults:

Skepticism is true (i.e. just read a framework)
Fairness and Education are voters
Fairness > Education
Jurisdiction > Fairness
Reps > T > 1AR Theory > 1N Theory > ROB
No RVI, Competing Interps, Drop the Debater
Truth Testing
Epistemic Confidence
P + P negate
Text > Spirit

Random things:

if you are funny/make the round enjoyable that's a W
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me the ballot story it makes judging so much easier - I think its super strategic to end the last speech w 10-15 seconds of exactly what you think the RFD should be for you
if you have any questions about the decision feel free to ask me, I would love to answer any questions/help you with anything
When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced:your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.
I'm probs not listening during cross - if u have a strategic concession make sure to bring it up in speech

Phil:

This is the debate I did the most, and I really appreciate people who do this well. I read Pettit, Hegel, Noxick, Kant, and Mouffe the most. However, I am familiar with most frameworks and I would love to judge a nuance phil framework, so you can really read anything. If you successfully execute NC/AC, expect high speaks.

Make sure to weigh justifications and explain your justifications in the context of both frameworks. Hijacks and contingent standards are all good as well. Please do not just read a framework with every other argument being an a priori.

Calc indicts are strategic and far more legitimate than many give them credence for. Don't read consequentialist offense pretending it links to a non-consequentialist standard. Framework vs. K debates are super interesting and cool.

Author indicts (as in Kant was racist) are not my favorite, especially if that source author was not read. They're justifiable if someone reads cards by Kant himself. Stuff like "Kant's theory is racist" is of course ok.

K affs:

I read these a lot and really enjoy them. I find them super strategic and if well-executed you should do well.

I think leveraging the AC versus multiple-offs is very strategic and would love to judge a round with this type of aff.

That being said, please understand your theory of power and what the aff actually does. EXPLAIN THE THEORY OF POWER AND INTERACT W UR OPPS CASE RATHER THAN J READING UR EXTENSIONS!!!

Non-topical affs are ok as well, but I’d prefer if you could relate your aff to the topic. I would probably be likely to vote on T, unless your non-T aff justifications are really good.

Counterinterps and impact turns to T/Theory are both good.

Kritiks:

Explain your role of the ballot and alternative well. Good examples are always very helpful. Specific links to the aff are nice, but generic ones are ok as well.

Perms are probably logically and theoretically justified; however, your K can of course indict the perm on its own grounds.

K turns/hijacks case is oftentimes very strategic against framework affs.

Weigh it against theory, and don't let your opponent get away with generic fairness key to testing arguments.

High-theory K's are chill - but EXPLAIN IT.

Ontological Pessimism:I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

Trad:

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. Be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.

Theory:

I am open to nearly any theory argument. I won’t vote on theory on your opponent’s identity, appearance, or out-of-round actions (except disclosure). Although I’ll vote on any other shell if won, it’s much easier to win a good shell (like pics bad or something) compared to a really bad shell. Paragraph theory is ok, too. Please weigh on all things that are in conflict with one another.

I'd also prefer you not hide theory arguments within other arguments!!! Long offensive underviews are undesirable, but alas permissible. Sure, I'll listen, but your speaks will be low. Here are some miscellaneous musings:

- Theory shells indicting the reading of a specific interp/paradigm issue are probably just counterinterps. To be clear, "may not read multiple shells" is fine, "may not read 'no neg args'" is probably not a voting issue.

- Theory debates should probably presume a world where the interp/counterinterp is the accepted interpretation. In context, this means debates over the goodness of RVIs should not include arguments about how the RVI is still debatable under their worldview.

- Paradigm issue debates are also very interesting.

-If its friv theory I will be very likely to buy sufficient defense to it

Topicality:

Just as with theory, I'll listen to anything.

LARP:

Just weigh and you should be fine for extinction impacts.

counter plans are a W.

Please justify utilitarianism. Consequentialism ≠ utilitarianism, and justifying the former does not automatically entail the latter.

Counte

Tricks:

Substantive tricks that you can actually defend like trivialism and some paradoxes are much better than random, absurd definitions and spamming theory spikes. Presumption and Permissability are not tricks in my opinion.

I will still vote on anything - but I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments and will probably tank speaks for spammy/blippy tricks

Please delineate and emphasize your tricks instead of hiding them in a paragraph. if i did not flow an exempted trick or one inside a big paragraph i will not vote on it so be careful

credit to Arjun Verma and Becca Traber

Quinlan Wallace Little Rock Central 5 rounds

Zi Wang Eastern 2 rounds

Vontrez White Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:38 AM PDT

he/him/they/them

wvontrez@gmail.com

For college debate, use this email: debatecsuf@gmail.com

CSUF 22

Coach @ Harvard Westlake

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

S Tier - LARP, Plan v K
A tier - Clash of Civs
B tier - K v K, Phil
C tier - Theory debates, Trix

D/F tier - memes

I did policy debate for 4 years at Downtown Magnets (shout out LAMDL) and 4 years at Cal State Fullerton. I debated mostly truthy performance debates and one-off K strats in high school and debated the K in a very technical way in college. Currently coach flex teams in LD.

I would say my debate influences are Jared Burke, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Jonathan Meza, Anthony Joseph, Travis Cochran, Toya Green, and Scotty P.

TLDR: I will vote for anything, as long as it's impacted out. The list of preferences is based on my comfort with the argument. Fine with speech drop or email chain.

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

General

I think debate is a game that can have heavy implications on life and influence a lot of things

Tech > Truth, unless the Tech is violent (racism good, sexism good, etc.)

Good for all speeds, but clarity is a must

I default my prioritization to theory, T, and then substance. This can be changed if argued

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

Theory

Disclosure is probably good, can vote on the impact turn though

Yes competing interps, lean no RVIs, DTD

Shells need an interp, violation, standards, voter

Reasonability OK but explain why you are reasonable

Need a good abuse story/how does my ballot set norms? Why does my ballot matter? How does this implicate future debates?

I think condo is good

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

LARP

Absurd internal link chains should be questioned

Default util

No zero-risk

Uniqueness controls the link

Impact turns are good

Perms are tests of competition, not new advocacies

Yes judge kick

New evidence in NR as long as it's a logical extension of the NC. I'm okay with the 2AR doing this as well to check back, but it may not be strategic.

Will read evidence if told to do so

Quality ev > Card dump of bad ev

CPs need to compete on a functional and textual level

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

I have a reading background in several critical literature bases. I am most read in anti-capitalist theory, afro pessimism, fugitive black studies, settler colonialism, and Baudrillard. For the sake of the debate, assume I know nothing and explain your K.

Winning theory of power important

Perm solves the link of omission

Specific link > state bad link

Contextualized link > state bad link

Affs should weigh the aff vs. the K, negs should tell me why this isn't possible OR deal with affs impacts.

Extinction outweighs debate probably good here

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

K Affs

I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic. Affs that don't defend any portion of the resolution need a heavy defense of doing so

I try not to have a leaning into T-FW debates, but I find myself often voting negative. Similar to Theory/T, I would love to hear about the affirmative's model of debate compared to the negative's. Impact turns to their model are awesome but there is a higher bar if I don't know what your model is.

Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

Fairness is an impact. Clash is important. Education matters

KvK debates are super interesting, but I hate when they become the Oppression Olympics. Perms are encouraged. Links of omission are not. Contextualize links to the affirmative and clearly tell me how to evaluate the round.

Presumption isn't gone for enough in these debates

Lean yes on perms in KvK/method debates

Performances should be used offensively. I will flow your poems/videos/whatever, just have a defense of it and utilize it to win

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

Phil

I think phil AC/NCs are interesting

Explain it well and you will be fine

Default epistemic confidence if the AC is phil

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

Tricks

Do not hide tricks

Answer them

Preferably not extempted

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

Speaker Points

Pretty much summed up here

If you make a joke about Jared Burke, +.1 speaker point

Niner wilson Marlborough School 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy

2023 — Atlanta, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges