Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary. Weighing in back half is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." Have fun and be nice.

This version of my paradigm is a total rewrite of my previous paradigm, an archived version can be found here. This does not represent a change in opinions but updating for clarity and structure.

i. Affiliations

Iowa City West High School (2011-2017, 2023-present): Coach/Judge. I also debated for 3 years for ICW in high school

Hawken School, OH (2021-2022): Judge

ii. About

I have been doing policy debate since 2011 and that is the format I am most familiar with and actually coach. However, I also have judged just about every other debate/speech format*. I would like to be added to the email chain: lang901@gmail.com and iowacitywestdebatedocs@gmail.com. I have both a BA in political science and a J.D. as well as a license to practice law in 2 states (Iowa and Ohio [Inactive]).** I am fairly tabula rasa and have voted in the past on the entire range of arguments. I have hopefully organized this in a readable manner. Let me know if you have any questions if not.

I. OVERVIEW

Do what you want to do. Do it well and I will probably vote for you. Esoteric Ks will require a bit more explanation but I will do my best to meet you in the middle. Tech over Truth but the truth is pretty persuasive. Generally, unless instructed otherwise, I will vote on based on the path of least resistance. This means the less I have to resolve in your favor, the more likely I am to vote for you. I will judge the debate you had in front of me. I will not intervene/insert my own opinions/knowledge unless absolutely necessary as tab will get mad at me if I take an hour to make a decision. I may comment on things in the RFD/oral critique after the round but generally unless noted, it didn't affect the outcome.

This is technically a nitpick but I'm going to put it here anyway.Citations to legal texts/court opinions have a very specific format. It's not hard to learn. Please use it in your cites when relevant, especially this year as the topic is incredibly legal-technicalities oriented. I will give you bonus points if I notice that your cites are in the correct format.

II. Line by Line(With very few caveats, this section is mostly advisory. Do not overadapt. If it's not clear to you what's advisory and what isn't, feel free to ask before the round)

a. Disadvantages- They exist. You should read them if you want. Subject to the caveat in supra note 2, I don't really have any ideological hang ups about disadvantages. I would like them to be specific but I recognize that that's not always possible. Try to have real links to an actual affirmative, not just the entire concept of the year's topic.

b. Counterplans- I will vote off the counterplan text said out loud during the debate. You should have an actual solvency advocate for your counterplan. Counterplans without a solvency advocate are just a sentence and I will judge them accordingly. If the aff doesn't point this out, I won't vote you down but that means this is something aff's should be on the lookout for.

c. Kritiks- I am familiar with core kritiks (e.g. Cap, Security, SetCol, etc.). I am also familiar with ableism kritiks and a lot of the literature in that area. You shouldn't run into any problems running those in front of me. Virilio notwithstanding, if your K is named after a specific person, I am more than likely unfamiliar with it. I will try to meet you where you are but there are definitely ways you can make that easier. In those instances, err on the side of over-explanation.

d. T- I don't particularly love the tactical deployment of T arguments. I'm not advocating RVIs or anything but keep that in mind while crafting your 1NC. I will evaluate the T debate on the basis you tell me to (i.e. Competing Interp vs. Reasonability). The interp and violation debates are just as important as the standards/impact debate on T***.

e. FW- I separate FW from T only really because I learned them separately as a debater. While I generally think having a stable locus for the debate is good and that locus should be the resolution, I am sympathetic to many anti-FW arguments. If you are an anti-FW team, please try to have an interpretation of the debate round that is more than just "vote for us". I roll my eyes a bit when I see "The Role of the Ballot/Judge is to vote for the team that does [object of the k]" in a speech doc. At that point just come out and say the ROB/J is to vote for you. That is at least a bit more honest.

f. Theory-

(1). 3+ is where condo gets bad and you have to ask for judge kick.

(2.)Judge kick is also probably bad, I'm not interested in doing historical revisionism to your 2NR. If you go for a counterplan, I'm judging the counterplan.

(3). If debatevision had not met an untimely end (RIP), I would link a decade-old GDI(?) lecture here about why international fiat is bad. But you'll just have to take my word for it.

(4). I have a high-ish bar for reject the team theory. If you want me to do so, it better be 3+ minutes of the 2xR. I am much more lenient on RtA framing and if used tactically, could have the same effect as RtT (i.e. rejecting the counterplan the 2NR went for).

g. Cross-Ex- This gets its own section because it's a critical part of the debate. Avoid clarification questions about cards read. These should be eliminated by flowing the actual speech rather than just writing down everything in the speech doc. Cross-ex is about establishing links and forwarding your arguments. Do that instead of asking questions you should already know the answer to. Also, if you're not going maverick, CX time is time for questions. If you don't have questions, then either prep time or the next speech starts.

III. Debate Senior Citizen Yells at Clouds (you can largely skip this section if you have limited pre-round prep time)

(I've been in and out of the community over the past 14 years so these are my extraneous thoughts about norms that have developed in the past decade.)

a. Why are cards highlighted so badly now? If you're card consists of 5 sentences, composed a word at a time, across 25 paragraphs, not only is that bordering on academic dishonesty, your points may suffer. If you're doing it for time reasons, I would suggest either getting faster or reading less.

b. Speaking of reading less, I do not like neg strategies that involve 5+ off in the 1NC. If you stand up for the 1NC and a number greater than 10 is in your order, I will be mad. I will still vote for you but regardless of my feelings on the strategy, these strategies place you well behind the starting line in a debate. These strats lead to 1 or more of the following situations: your cards are dangerously under-highlighted, your arguments are dangerously blippy, or you have to reach the upper thresholds of speed and human comprehension but unfortunately I don't type that fast. The first two create a scenario where the debate is incredibly anti-educational. The third creates a situation where you are incredibly unhappy with me at the end of the debate as I only caught, generously, 40% of your arguments. Policy debate should be education first, competition second. But neither of those goals are accomplished in 5+ off strats. Additionally, spending a minute kicking positions at the top of the 2NC is not compelling on a base ethos level.

c. I don't have many hangups on the presentation level of debating. Dress however you want, speak how you want, sit or stand. However one presentation thing I think is good is facing the judge during CX. Facing your opponent during CX is bad on an ethos level, especially if you end up facing entirely away from the judge. I will try to take a central spot in the room to facilitate this as easily as possible.

d. Impact/evidence comparison should happen early and often. Necessary judge intervention happens almost exclusively in scenarios where evidence and especially impact comparison starts in the 2xR. Late breaking debates result in neither you, your points, nor me being happy with the result of that round.

IV. Endnotes

*Note 1: I also coached World Schools but that probably isn't super relevant to this document.

**Note 2: With this in mind, if you're going to go for a really technical argument in either of those areas be sure you really, really know what you're doing. If you don't, and it will be clear if you don't, I will likely be incredibly annoyed for the entirety of the debate. The place this will be the biggest issue is evidence. I read cards and I have noticed an uptick in egregious Tag/Card mismatch. This goes beyond powertagging and borders on straight up dishonesty. In these cases, I have no issue basing my decision on what the card actually says rather than a debater's misrepresentation. For the sake of your speaker points and an efficient RFD after the round, heed this warning.

***Note 3: This year's topic is worded terribly and thus lot of the interp cards I've seen coming out of camp files this year (2024-2025) are downright bad. A random out of context paragraph from the Supreme Court of Montana in a case not about IPR, interpreting part of a statute unrelated to IPR, is not where definitions should come from. There is no intent to define and also not even how courts look to defining things. Affs can and should use this to their advantage.

let's not use email chains! Please use tabroom share or speech drop

Debate background:

Iowa City High: '11-'15
University of Iowa: '15

Coaching: Iowa City High '15-'18. '21- present

Important disclaimer: I have done nearly 0 research on this topic, and will likely not understand your acronyms without explanation. Please do not assume that I have a shared knowledge of the topic, and take time to explain things.

Important Disclaimer Addendum: I find myself not enjoying the insane speed and time skew of current policy debate. I would much rather have a slower, well developed round. I find it frustrating when a team reads 7 off and it's obvious that only 3 positions are remotely viable to make it into the block. My primary job is being an educator, not a debate coach. I love techy, interesting rounds with well-developed positions. I don't love when I can't understand a debate because everyone is going too fast.

I debated Policy all through high school and did some college policy as well. I mainly work with novices, now. Topic specific acronyms, let me know what they mean I won't know. Don't start your speeches full speed, start at 80% and work up to full speed.

I think most debates can/should be decided without reading evidence. This means it is the debaters' burden to tell me what the evidence says, and the implication of the evidence. This also means that I reward story telling/writing my ballot. I have no sympathy for debaters who ask about "well, what about this evidence that says x" after I give a decision. I will not be embarrassed to vote against an argument that I feel i do not understand. It is your job to tell me about that evidence and why it matters, not my job to read it and implicate it on the debate.

General Philosophy: I come from a team where our primary focus was "traditional policy debate" meaning we liked to read heg, environment affs, et.c. Our main neg strat was the DA and a CP, and that is the type of debate I prefer. I did do a lot of cap debating, and a fair amount of security debating, too. My knowledge of critical theory is very limited and I probably require a huge amount of work on the more "out there" ks to vote for you. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument. I will vote on dropped arguments if they are dropped and explained. As a caveat, debaters tend to have bad flows and claim everything was dropped, when the reality is that they probably did not. Please do not use the term "functionally conceded" in front of me, that term makes no sense. Either they have dropped something or they have not.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counter plan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- like I said above, i am mostly versed in cap and security. If you want to read too much beyond basic Ks, I am most likely not your type of judge. Floating PIKs are probably bad, don't let the negative get away with them.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I am pretty sympathetic to FW arguments. However, if you are a "non traditional team" and you get stuck with me as a judge, don't lose faith, I can be persuaded. I enjoy critical affirmatives that actually engage the topic, not just reject debate outright, and plan texts are preferable.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Theory- Most things are reasons to reject the argument not the team. I will probably not vote on dropped perm theory, even if you claimed it was a reason to reject the team.

Speech Docs/ Email chains

I would prefer if all debates were done with email chain. Please add me to the email chain at drewgartner1@gmail.com
I can tell when you are wasting time and/or stealing prep. DON'T. it's annoying, wastes everybody's time, and will undoubtedly lose you speaker points. technical issues do happen, yes, but they should be resolved quickly and efficiently. I would prefer every speech to start as nearly as immediately after prep or CX as possible. We don't want to be the last round done.

Speaker Points

It's very easy to impress me, using technical skill and clarity.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. If you have made it this far and are still reading, I will likely increase speaker points if you work "jambalaya of awesomeness" into one of your speeches, especially if you are original and make me laugh rather than just saying it to say it. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points, but will not affect the decision calculus.

Liberty University '04-'08
Policy Debate Coach @ Theodore Roosevelt High School `14-`18

contact me via email at cpmccool at gmail dot com

Hello debaters, coaches, or other judges interested in my judge philosophy. I feel that the debate round is a unique environment where almost any argument can be utilized so long as it is justifiable. I say "almost any" because some arguments are highly suspect like "racism good" or "torture good". What I mean by "justifiable" is that the argument made, to me, becomes more persuasive when coupled with good evidence. What follows are my preferences on theory, Topicality, CPs, Kritiks/Performance, and Style.

Theory
I do not consider my mind to be tabula-rasa (i.e., blank slate). To me, the most persuasive theory arguments contain a claim, some support, and an impact. Just saying "voting issue" does not make it so - I need to be convinced that voting for your interpretation is justifiable, which means that I can cogently explain to the opposing team why they were deficient and should lose the round.

Topicality
See my comments on Theory. I like it when Neg can show that the Aff's interpretation is bad for debate. Like many other judges, I am annoyed by messy T debates. The side that clashes the most, organizes the T debate, and shows why their interpretation is better for debate will most likely win my ballot.

CPs
I am a huge fan of creative and competitive CPs. If Neg can give a couple of reasons why the CP solves better/faster than the Aff, I feel more comfortable finding that the net-benefit outweighs case. The perm is a test of competitiveness. I will not consider the perm a legitimate policy option unless there is some good evidence read to support it as such.

Kritiks/Performance
I think that Aff should have a written plan text, but does not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. Aff, if you think that USFG is bad, be ready to defend the theory onslaught by the Neg. I prefer the policy making framework, but understand the value of the K and Performance debate. The key for me is justification. Make sure you clash with opposing and show why voting for you is net-beneficial for debate.

Style
I do have some preferences regarding style that you should consider in order to obtain one or two extra speaker points from me: 1) Clarity outweighs speed - it's ok to spread your opponent, just make sure you pick the arguments you are winning and go for them in the rebuttals 2) I lean negative - I believe that Aff must thoroughly defend the plan. My standard is that it should be more probable than not that the plan is a good idea in order to vote Aff. 3) Civility and charm go further for me than pretension and hate. Being classy and focusing on the arguments and generally making everyone feel good during round are skills that are valuable and actually useful in the real world. 4) Have fun and enjoy this amazing sport! Energy can be communicated through your arguments and when it does, it makes me want to listen.

For email chain: peeryscout@gmail.com

Policy:

I did four years of policy debate in high school and competed in NFA-LD (basically one-person policy) at the collegiate level throughout college. So you can use all the lingo. I am primarily a policymaker and stock issues judge.

I like DA's. Especially if the impacts are both realistic and terminal. Impact calc is important. I also value uniqueness it has towards aff directly. Generic DAs are fine if you are going to throw it or need more on the flow.

Love CPs and theory. I'm down for any theory debates as long as it does not take away from education in round or stray too far away from the topic/valid abuse claims. Any CP debates are fine with me. If aff claims abuse with certain CP conditions they really have to prove it.

I'm not the biggest fan of K Affs, but you can run them. Ks themselves I am ok with as long as they have a solid link and alt. If the alt can still happen in an aff world and be permed, aff gets the vote just based on real-world impacts.

I am good with speed, but just make sure signposting is clear and send out your speech if you're gonna do it.

LD:

I am a policy debater at heart, but not all policy practices are acceptable in LD. It's important to clearly break down your case, voters, frame, and criterion, especially during rebuttals. Be respectful during rounds.

If it comes down to value vs value you need to give me voters on why yours should be preferred.

Basic info about me:

I debated policy (NSDA) for 4 years and currently do LD (NFA) debate in college. I have been coaching for the past 3 years for NFA LD, but I have experience coaching PF, IPDA, and Parli. I will listen to anything and everything. So you do you. As a judge I probably lean more toward tech over truth. But with that said, if an argument is outlandishly false, I probably will not vote for it. I do like some good line-by-line and analytical arguments. Not everything has to be direct evidence reading. You should also do some weighing by the end of the debate, this will make my life easier.

I use they/them pronouns. Be nice and have fun!

Email: trenityr@gmail.com

Speed: I am an 6 out of 10, I can handle speed, but tags must be CLEAR. If not, then I won't get your arguments down. If I am judging you online, please consider lagging and audio quality!

Topicality: I love/hate topicality. If you're aff you do not necessarily need to be topical. However, if you're the neg, you need to prove to me why the aff needs to be topical and why they violate topicality. If you can win the competing interpretation and their interpretation is bad, you will have my vote. The interpretation debate is the MOST important. The next important part would be standards. But I like a good T debate and can vote either way on it.

DA: I am down for any DA as long as it sorta links and sorta makes sense. I prefer a good link chain and storyline with a DA. But please do some good link analysis and impact calculation. This will make my life easier.

CP: These are chill, but I think the neg team should tell me how they have the internal links/impacts of the aff. It should also be clear why the CP is net better and solves better than the aff. There should also be a net benefit. The perm debate is also important and should be had.

K's: I love a good cap, fem, or queer K. I read a lot of lit through my years in high school and have definitely expended on it in my time in college. However, if you are going to read some philosophers (like Baudrillard or Nietzsche), please know what you are talking about. As a philosophy major, seeing these people get misconstrued pains me. But I am always down to hear whatever K you have created. Just make sure to explain the link level to the aff and why the alt is net better in whatever you are doing. Also, framework debates on Ks are important and should be had.

K affs: I have run a k aff before, I love performances and k aff lit! Make it yours! Just be ready for a framework debate or a K v K debate. But if you can defend the resolution bad and/or roll of the ballot, you can probably get my vote.

Framework: I think this is a valid argument; fairness can be an impact but MUST be explained well. Do what you want with this and explain it well.

Theory: I will vote on them and think they are fun; make sure to warrant the argument out! There should be some standards and voters with theory.

All of this above applies to policy/ld.

Please tell me how to vote, I do not want to do the work for you.

Ask me any other specific questions if you want!

Background: 4 years at Baylor University, 1-Time NDT Qualifier. Assistant Coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, 2018-2022, Assistant Coach at Dowling Catholic High School, 2019-Present. Currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science and I work for the Legislative Services Agency in Iowa.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: Sheaffly@gmail.com. Also email me with questions about this paradigm.

Paradigms are difficult to write because there are so many potential audiences. From novice middle schoolers to varsity college debaters, I judge it all. As a result, I want everyone reading this paradigm to realize that it was written mostly in terms of varsity college debates. I think about debate a little differently in high school and a little differently when it comes to novice debates, but I hope this gives you a general idea of how to debate in front of me

== TL;DR ==

Do line-by-line. I do not flow straight down and I do not flow off the speech doc. I am a DA/CP/Case kind of judge. I am bad at understanding kritiks and I am biased towards the topic being good. Be nice.

== Top Level - Flowing ==

It has become clear to me after years of judging that most of my decisions center not around my biases about arguments (which I won’t pretend not to have), but rather around my ability to understand your argument. My ability to understand your argument is directly related to how clean my flow is. Thus, it is in your best interest to make my flow very clean. I used to think I was bad at flowing, but I've come to the conclusion that line-by-line and organized debate has become a lost art. Debaters who learn this art are much more likely to win in front of me.

You are NOT as clear on tags as you think you are. Getting every 4th word of a tag is okay only if every 4th word is the key nouns and verbs. This is never true. So slow down on your tags, I am NOT READING THEM.

I’m not gonna flow everything straight down and then reconstruct the debate afterwards. The 1NC sets the order of the debate on the case, the 2AC sets the order of the debate off case. Abide by that order. Otherwise, I will spend time trying to figure out where to put your argument rather than writing it down and that’s bad for you.

Another tip: Find ways to give me pen time. For example, do not read 4 perms in a row. It’s impossible for me to write down all of those words. Plus, it’s always first and you haven’t even given me time to flip my paper over. And then your next argument is always an analytic about how the CP doesn’t solve and then I can’t write that down either. So stop doing things like that.

== Top Level – Arguments ==

Basic stuff: I love creativity and learning from debate. Make it clear to me how much you know about the arguments you are making. I don’t think this means you have to have cut every card you read, but understanding not just the substance of your argument, but the tricks within them is important.

As I said above, the thing that will be a problem for me is not understanding your argument. Unfortunately, this probably impacts Kritik debaters more than policy debaters, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

I am probably a little more truth > tech than most judges. I believe in technical debate, but I also believe that debate is a place where truth is important. I don't care how many cards you have that say something, if the other team asserts it is not true and they are correct, they win the point.

== Top Level - Community Norms ==

1) For online debate, prep time stops when you unmute yourself and say stop prep. A couple of reasons for this. a) I have no way of verifying when you actually stopped prep if you come out and say "we stopped 15 seconds ago" and b) neither do your opponents, which means that you are basically forcing them to steal prep. I don't like it so that's the rule.

2) Debate is a messed-up community already. Don't make it more so. Be nice to each other. Have fun in the debate while you are disagreeing. If you make it seem like you think the other team is stupid during the debate, it's gonna make me grumpy. I love debate and I love watching people do it, but I hate confrontation and I hate it when people get angry about debates that don't matter that much in the long term. Be nice. Please.

3) This is mostly for high schoolers, where I see this issue all the time: If you are going to send a document without your analytics in it, making the version of the doc without the analytics in it IS PREP TIME. You don't get 45 seconds to send the document. Y'all are GenZ, I know you can send an email faster than that. You get 15 seconds before I break in and ask what the deal is. You get 20 seconds before I start prep again.

== Specifics ==

Affirmatives...

...Which Defend the Topic - I enjoy creativity. This includes creative interpretations of topicality. You should also read my thoughts on DAs as they apply to how you construct your advantages. Clear story is good.

...Which Do Not Defend the Topic - I am likely not a great judge for you. I think I may have a reputation as someone who hates these arguments. That reputation is not unearned, I built it up for years. But over time I’ve come to become a lot more accepting of them. There are many of these affirmatives that I think provide valuable debate. The problem I have is that I cannot figure out an interpretation of debate that allows the valuable "K Affs," but limits out the affs that I think are generally created to confuse their way to a win rather than provide actual valuable propositions for debate. I will always think of framework as a debate about what you JUSTIFY, rather than what you DO, and every interpretation I have ever seen in these debates simply lets in too much of the uneducational debates without providing a clear basis for clash.

I realize this sounds like I have been totally brainwashed by framework, and perhaps I have. But I want to be honest about where I'm at. That said, I think the above makes clear that if you have a defensible INTERPRETATION, I am willing to listen to it. You should also look at the section under kritiks, because I think it describes the fact that I need the actual argument of the affirmative to be clear. This generally means that, if your tags are poems, I am not ideologically opposed to that proposition, but you better also have very clear explanation of why you read that poem.

Negative Strategies

Framework: See discussion above. Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Education > procedural fairness > any other impact. “Ks are bad” is a bad argument, “their interpretation makes debate worse and uneducational” is a winnable argument. Topical version of the aff goes a long way with me.

Topicality: Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Case lists. Why that case list is bad. Affirmatives, you should talk about your education. I love creative interps of the topic if you defend them. But for the love of god slow down.

Disads: Absolutely. Well constructed DAs are very fun to watch. However, see truth vs. tech above – I have a lower threshold for “zero risk of a [link, impact, internal link] etc.” I love Politics DAs, but they’re all lies. I am up-to-date on the news. If you are not, do not go for the politics DA using updates your coaches cut. You will say things that betray that you don’t know what you’re talking about and it will hurt your speaks. Creative impact calc (outside of just magnitude, timeframe, probability) is the best impact calc.

Counterplans: I'm tired of the negative getting away with murder. I am VERY willing to listen to theory debates about some of these crazy process CPs which compete off of a net benefit or immedicacy/certainty. Theory debates are fun for me but for the love of god slow down. Otherwise, yeah, CPs are fine.

Kritiks: Eh. You can see the discussion above about K affs. I used to be rigidly ideological about hating the K. I am now convinced that the K can make good points. But because I was so against them for so long, I don’t understand them. I still think some Kritiks (here I am thinking mostly of French/German dudes) are basically designed to confuse the other team into losing. Problem is, I can’t tell the difference between those Kritiks and other Kritiks, because all Kritiks confuse me.

Very basic Ks are fine. Realism is bad, heg is bad, capitalism is bad, I get. Get much beyond that and I get lost. It's not that I think you're wrong it's that I have always been uninterested so I never learned what you're talking about. I cannot emphasize enough how little I understand what you're talking about. If this is your thing and I am already your judge, conceptualize your K like a DA/CP strategy and explain it to me like I have never heard it before. Literally, in your 2NC say: "We believe that X is bad. We believe that they do X because of this argument they have made. We believe the alternative solves for X." I cannot stress enough how serious I am that that sentence should be the top of your 2NC and 2NR. I have had this sentence in my judge philosophy for 3 years and this has been the top of the 2NC once (in a JV debate!). I do not know how much clearer I can be. Again, I am not morally opposed to Kritiks (anymore), I just do not understand them and I will not vote for something I do not understand. I believe you need a good link. Yes, the world is terrible, but why is the aff terrible. You also need to make your tags not a paragraph long, I never learned how to flow tags that were that long.

yes please include me on email chain- warrensprouse@gmail.com

Please turn on your cameras when you are speaking if at all possible.

Remember to weigh claims and warrants within your evidence; I am much more likely to vote on well-explained arguments than taglines, even if those arguments do not necessarily have evidence to back them up. If you can do both- awesome.

Do not be rude or disrespectful to your opponents or your partner.

Tell me in the last rebuttals how to weigh your arguments and how to compare your impacts with the other team’s.

If you read cards that are not in the novice packet and were given to you by your varsity debaters, that is cheating and I will yell at you.

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.

In high school I was a policy and public forum debater at Olathe Northwest in Kansas. After high school, I competed in college level Lincoln Douglas, IPDA, and public forum debate. My partner and I went on to win a PKD national championship in IPDA. Due to my experience in debate I would describe myself mostly as a gamesplayer. This means I will believe what you say until your opponent refutes it and vice versa. I place structure and tech almost above all in the debate. Check your framework and your impacts!

Besides the obvious hateful speech and arguments, mostly any arg, being a K or a performative speech, is okay with me.

If you are speeding and your opponents ask you to stop, I will also ask you to stop. Please do not use speed as a weapon.

Err on extending the cards and contentions that your opponents have dropped. I am a little old-school when it comes to this extension theory but its the way I was taught and I believe it is good practice.

I hate judicial activism. Please use your framework and explain why you win. I will not do the arguing for you, if you havent said it, it doesnt go on the flow. I will not flow arguments you do not make no matter how much I want to make them for you or no matter how much you claim you made them in your constructives.

If you have anything more specific please do not be afraid to ask before round.