I have been a policy debater for 2 years at Excel High School. 

 

Do's 

I am a big fan of impact analysis, real world examples and analogies .

I am somewhat okay with Ks, I understand them. 

 

 

Don't 

I will not vote on theory

I am not a fan of spreading. I want to hear the arguments articulated with analysis. 

 

Background: CUNY Debate- 4 years; NDT Qualifier and CEDA Quarterfinalist in 2015. Been judging high school for about 3 years.

Overview: I am a kritikal leaning judge but will vote on more middle of the road arguments. I try to vote on the arguments presented in the round as much as possible, whether that be Framework, Performance/Kritikal affirmatives, Heg affirmatives, Russia Disads, XO CP, etc. Quick Notes:

-The key is to tell me how to differentiate between the world of the affirmative and negative (Framing).

-I lean towards truth over tech but that doesn't mean you shouldnt be answering all their arguments. 

-I see the debate through a offense/defense paradigm. I don't often vote on defensive arguments.

-Prep ends when the flash leaves the computer.

 

Kritiks: 

-My favorite sort of debate.

-I have run both high-theory ivory tower stuff as well as not as high-theory related stuff.

-I will not mention which authors I am most familiar with because I expect the same amount of in-depth explanation and contextualization from whichever kritik you pull out. Need to have a contextualized link and impact to have any value. 

-I am fine with voting for a kritik without a conventional alternative. But, just saying "reject the aff because they are capitalist" doesn't have any solvency. Bring some solvency to the action of rejection if you aren't going for an alternative proper.

Framework/Non-Traditional Affirmative:

-I haven't been topical since my first semester as a debater BUT I do have a great deal of respect for framework arguments. If this is your best option, that you strongly believe in, go for it and I will happily pull the trigger if you win.

-I am usually cool with whatever people choose to talk about but I do appreciate at least a minimal relevance to the topic. Metaphors aren't very persuasive in doing this. Topic education is good. Topical versions of the affirmative are thus both persuasive and almost necessary to win framework. 

-I find framework more persuasive as a method debate rather than a fairness debate. 

DA/CP:

-I group these to help illustrate that I may not have the deepest knowledge about the different DA/CP scenarios you come up with. However, I tend to learn the most new information in these rounds and so actually find them very interesting and important.

-The more specific the link, internal link, impact are the better your chances. Affirmatives can win a DA debate in front of me with terminal defense againt really generic links/internal links. 

Topicality:

-Dont judge too many of these but I do have a fairly good understanding of the warrants behind it. Would vote here.

-I would rather you debate the aff on a DA/CP/K level though. Or see last point on FW in terms of a topical version. 

 

If you want to know more about how I view debate, I have been taught by Tommye Weddington, Vik Keenan, and Willie Johnson.

 

Affiliation: Capitol Debate (High school) and Liberty University (College)
Experience: I've been involved in debate for 12 years now. I debated competitively in Policy Debate primarily (I dabbled in LD and Congress in HS). I have coached Public Forum on the MS and HS level for the last 6 years.

Basic Philosophy: (Novice/Middle School)

As with anyone, I enjoy high quality debates. I find that this comes from students debating how THEY feel comfortable and not trying to appease my every desire in the round. I debated from strictly policy to performative/critical argumentation. I say all that to say that no matter what you do i'll probably be open to it. My below comments will be pretty vague as I judge/coach many types of debate

My Specific Preferences:

1) Impact and Link turns hold my heart. A well executed turn debate always grabs my attention and you will see that reflected in both my interest and your speaker points.

2) I'm lazy, Tell me what do do. At the end of the debate don't just say "They dropped X so we win the debate." Tell me why! What does it mean for the rest of the debate? How should I weigh this against the sea of other arguments at play.

3) I love evidence. I love debaters who explain their evidence and pull out the warrants even more.

4) If you decide to take a more critical/non-traditional route, don't assume I know your literature base. While I am open to hearing it doesn't mean I understand what you are saying. Make sure you explain things in-depth.

5) I am pretty expressive in debates. USE THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! If I look like I don't get it...chances are I don't. If you say "They dropped X" and I am shaking my head no then chances are, on my flow, it's not dropped.

6) Don't be a jerk. I hate it and my expressions and your speaks will reflect it.

Advanced Philosophy(Varsity)

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison. In round abuse is key for me. It's what you do not what you justify

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your thing, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read are Wilderson (Afro-Pessimism) and other forms of Black liberation startegies. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts. However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.

Speaks-- Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Other things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale 25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech 26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents 27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims 28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers 28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. 29: I feel like you will be in the late elims of the tournament that I am judging at 29.5: I feel like you are one of the top few debaters I've judged that year. 30: I feel that you are the best debater I've seen that year.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

Currently debating at Georgetown

Debated at BCC 2011-13

 

Most of my debate experience has been kritikal, but I obviously evaluate each round as objectively as possible, based on the arguments made in the round. I don't have a default way that I think you should relate to the resolution, so that, like pretty much everything else in debate, is something to be resolved in-round. 

 

Ks: I was pretty much 1-off for all of high school, so in the broadest sense I like the K. That said, I don't like stupid arguments like time cube. If you win a debate on that sort of thing, I'll vote for you, but I wont like it. 

 

Disads and CPs: I haven't run these much, but I know how they work, I like to think I'm not stupid, and I know how to flow, so don't think that you can only go for the K in front of me. 

 

K aff vs. FW/T: I'm sure I have some internal biases in favor of the aff in these debates, but like I said, I'll do my best to not let those biases play any role in my decision. That said, it may affect my threshold for specific arguments (I'm less inclined, for example to view the lack of a link to politics as a reason why the neg can't say anything against the aff).

I debated with Binghamton University and previously helped coach Vanderbilt University.

I'm going to try and keep this short and simple. Here are some general thoughts:

Cross-Ex: I love a good cross-ex. I will flow it sometimes if something sticks out to me or if someone tells me to flow it. It's probably binding.

Theory/Topicality/Framework: Go for your theory args if you think you have a legitimate claim. You need to prove substantial in round abuse. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. Topicality is definitely not my area of expertise but I'll vote for it. If you're going for it in your last speech make sure to spend most of your time on it to convince me that it's so important that I should decide the round on it. I'll vote for framework if you win it; however, if the aff can show that they are reasonably related to the topic then I think you should be able to engage them in some way.

Kritiks/Critical Affs: Kritiks are what I am most experienced in, although I did not run many 'high theory' kritiks. My familiarity does not mean however than I will just autovote for you because you're running a k. I will hold you to a high standard when running these arguments. Also, don't just assume I know your kritik; you still have to explain and warrant it out. Try to get specific links from their 1AC/2AC rather than just using generic links.

Counterplans: The best counterplans are usually case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates. I'm not a huge fan of consult counterplans but I will vote for them if you win them.

Disads: Uniqueness is key with disads. Impact framing and a clear, defined link are generally necessary to win your disad.

Case: Case arguments are a great tool that usually go underutilized. Make sure that if your strategy is to go for a specific case argument that it's not a two second blip in most of the debate and then the 2AR spends six minutes on it.

Most importantly of all, have fun and do what you do best!

I debated for 5 years at Newburgh Free Academy, primarily in circuit LD with some policy and pf experience. Nothing to write home about.
Currently as a first-year Brown student I coach policy debate for Debate Rhode Island.


General preferences:
Don’t be a horrible bigot. Even if you aren’t a horrible bigot, you can still be a casual bigot who says offensive things. So if you do say offensive things in round then you will lose speaker points. That’s it. I don’t think I should vote you down for being a bad person, that has nothing to do with your actual skills. I think I should be able to reduce speaker points since those have to do with quality of speaking. 
I haven’t judged spreading in a while so I’ll say clear or speed if I can’t understand what you’re saying. Naturally if I can’t hear what you’re saying, I can’t flow what you’re saying, and I can’t factor those arguments into my decision. Dig?


LD preferences:
I don’t have much background knowledge about this current topic. Then again I shouldn’t have to know anything about the topic for you to debate well.
Theory is annoying I’ll vote on it. Kritiks are fun I’ll vote on them. Topicality is horrible I’ll vote on it. Regular cases are fine I’ll still vote on them. What I’m getting at is that there are arguments I despise. I will still vote on whatever.
If the debate is unresolvable then I will default neg in most cases. Though obviously if you win by creating an impossible to resolve debate then your speaker points will suffer. Dig?


Policy Preferences:
I didn’t debate policy very much in high school so don’t assume I know all of the jargon you might try to use. 
I’ll vote on whatever argument you want to make. T and Theory are my least favorite arguments. K’s and critical Affs are my most favorite.
I agree with Myles: “I enjoy Ks and critical affs. If you're going to run one, be clear about what you're saying, and how it relates to the other team. Define/explain jargon. The best debaters can explain complex arguments in (relatively) simple, clear, concise, and concrete terms. Think critically about what your alt is. Lenses that show why the plan is wrong/bad are awesome. 'Create a fracture in capitalism with our discourse' is fuzzy and you probably need framework re: fiat.”


PF preferences:
Yeah do what you want. Try and do argument comparison. Thanks.

Email chains: hcall94@gmail.com

Coach at Mason (2016-Present)

 

If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please do not start your speech yet or I will likely miss things. Thanks!

Top Level Things:

Tech > truth (most of the time)

Depth > breadth

Strategic thinking/arg development/framing of args > 10 cards that say X

I won't take prep for flashing/emailing, just don't steal it.

If a paradigm is not provided for me to evaluate the round, I will default to util.

I don't keep track of speech time/prep. Please keep your own.

Unless I am told not to judge kick by the 2AR, I will default to judge-kicking the CP or alt (in open).

I won't vote on things that have occurred outside of the round (ie pre-round misdisclosure).

Do not include cards in the card doc if they were not referenced in the 2NR/2AR but they do answer arguments your opponents made in their speech. If you didn't make the arg, I'm not going to read the card.

2:15 judge time is the bane of my existence. I apologize in advance for going to decision time in nearly every open debate. I like being thorough.

Online Debate:

Please. Please. Please. Start slow for the first 5 seconds of each speech. It is sometimes so hard to comprehend online debate, especially if you are even slightly unclear in person.

Make sure to occasionally check the screen when speaking to make sure we aren't frozen/showing you we can't hear you.

I am very understanding of inevitable online tech failures.

Cards:

Main things I end up looking to cards for:

- To clarify questions I have about my flow based on arguments made in the 2NR/2AR.

- To compare the quality of evidence on well-debated arguments. If both teams have done a good job responding to warrants from opponent ev + explaining their own ev, I will look to evidence quality as a tie breaker for those arguments.

- To determine if I should discount a card entirely. If a card is bad, say that. I will then validate if the ev is bad, and if it just doesn't make arguments I will not evaluate it in my decision. If I'm not told a card is bad and the arg is dropped, I'll give the other team full weight of it regardless of ev quality to preserve 2NR/2AR arg choice on arguments dropped by the other team.

•  
• I will NOT use evidence to create applications that were not made by debaters to answer the other team's arguments. 

Theory:

2021 update: I'm fine with unlimited condo. I am very unlikely to vote on condo but will if it is certainly won.

Other theory stuff:

If theory comes down to reasons that the specific CP is a voter, I view it as a reason to reject the arg and not the team. To be clear, I will not vote someone down for reading a certain type of CP or alt based on theory args alone. Independent CP theory args are highly dependent on whether there is quality evidence to substantiate the CP.

DAs:

There can be 0 percent risk of a link.

Bad DAs can be beaten with analytics + an impact defense card.

Uniqueness isn't given enough credit in a lot of 2NRs/2ARs.

Link typically precedes uniqueness. You should do framing for these things.

DA turns case/case turns DA gets dropped A LOT. Try not to do that.

I miss judging politics debates.

Ks v Policy Affs:

I prefer line-by-line debates and very much dislike lengthy overviews and convoluted alt explanations. I will not make cross-applications for you.

I prefer Ks that have specific links to the topic or plan action significantly more than Ks that have state or omission links.

It is important for you to win root cause claims in relation to the specifics of the aff rather than sweeping generalizations about war. This is especially true when the aff has arguments about a certain countries' motives/geopolitical interests or reasons behind corporate/governmental actions.

Outside of something that was blatantly offensive, I believe that all language is contextual and words only mean as much as the meaning attached to them. Thus, args like "we didn't use it in that context" are convincing to me. I can be persuaded to vote them down, but I am going to be more biased the other way.

Some of the below section is also relevant for these debates.

K affs v Policy Team:

The aff should at minimum be tied to the resolution. Novices should read a plan during their first semester.

Honestly, I would just prefer to resolve a debate that is aff v. case defense + offense specific to the aff (reform CP w/ net benefit, etc) over framework. If you go for framework/if you're giving a 2AR v it, below are some random things I think about clash debates. This is not exhaustive, nor does it mean I will automatically vote on these arguments. I will vote for who I think wins the flow, but in close debates, these are my leanings:

- I dislike judging debates that solely come down to structural v procedural fairness. I find them nearly impossible to resolve without judge intervention.

- Fairness is an internal link. There are multiple impacts that come from it.

- K affs are inevitable and we should be able to effectively engage with them in ways other than fw/t when they are based in discussions of the resolution.

- Ground and stasis points in debate are important for testing and arg refinement.

- Arg refinement can still occur over the process of the aff even w/o a plan if it's in the area of the resolution. Everyone should have X topic reform good cards to answer these affs/go against the K.

- Being topical is not the end of debate.

- Affs that are directly bidirectional are not a good idea in front of me and T should be the 2NR.

- Creativity can exist with plan texts and is not precluded by defending one.

- Affs garnering solid offense from sequencing questions is one of the best ways to win my ballot in these debates.

- Debate itself is good. Gaming is good. W/L inevitable. The goal of a debate is to win.

K v K:

If you happen to find me here, give me very clear judge instruction. 

Speaker points:

They're arbitrary. I've given up trying to adapt to a scale but I do try to give speaks based on the division and tournament. Here's some important things to note:

- Confidence gets you a long way.

- If you prevent your opponent from answering in cross ex, that won't bode well for speaks and I will be annoyed.

- I will not give you a 30 because you ask for one. Though I will give birthday and Senior last tournament boosts.

- If I'm not flowing something, and you notice I am staring at you, you are being redundant and should move on.

Update 2023: I haven't had time to write a new paradigm but I don't think I've changed that much since I wrote this ten years ago. What has changed is that I haven't been very involved in debate since graduating in 2015. I am unfamiliar with the topic and I might be a little out-of-practice with listening to debates at full speed. I'm not a lay judge, but you might wanna slightly slow down on important arguments, explain topic-specific jargon, etc.

Heres my old paradigm:

I prefer real world impacts. That being said, I'm pretty open minded about what would qualify as an real world impact. But just be realistic about it. You're not gonna win that its better for us to go extinct than to live a life without value... but maybe you could win that solving for value to life is more important than solving for a 5% risk of extinction.

I'll be writing more here later about my feelings about various arguments, but for now all you need to know is that you shouldn't radically change your strategy just cause you're in front of me. I'm more likely to vote for an argument I disagree with if you show expertise and mastery than I am to vote for an argument I agree with if you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Contact Info:
Email:maneo7000@gmail.com

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Clark%2C+Karla

On Content: 1. I am a policy maker. 2. I do not have a problem with any type of argument but... 3. Please ask me to explain what conditional arguments I won’t accept. 4. To win my ballot you must advocate the arguments that you run. If you choose to run an argument such as a counterplan (or a plan for that matter) or a kritik then I expect all of major your arguments and actions in round to mesh seamlessly. E.g., if you run a kritik that opposes a particular action, idea, attitude, use of language, etc. then everything you do during THAT round should reflect your rhetoric. 5. In my opinion debaters should exhibit qualities of a good politician: able to communicate to a diverse audience and relate to each person on her or his level. 6. Your choice of language, rhetoric, appearance and professionalism during the round will be reflected on my ballot through speaker points. Verbal pauses such as “uh” and “um” are a matter of great concern. On Style: I appreciate wit and humor balanced with professionalism. I pay attention to cross examinations. Believe it or not, most debates are won or lost during CX. I have no interest in how much evidence you can read. If you read 50 cards in a speech and you analyze only one, expect me to credit you with one reason to vote for you: not 50. Number your arguments.

 

On Time: 1. I keep time strictly in round. 2. Prep time starts in as soon as CX/speech ends. 3. Prep time does not end until the speaker is at the lectern and ready. There are no hidden minutes in my rounds, whatsoever.  No excuses.  In a sporting event such as football or basketball the officials maintain the clock no matter the disadvantage that it creates for one team or another.  The clock will run constantly because that is what clocks do; plan accordingly.

 

About me:
I competed in NFL, TFA, and UIL for four years in Abilene Cooper High School , 5A.  I have been involved in debate in various roles (competitor, judge, consultant, coach) regularly for 20+ years in primarily TFA and UIL tournaments in Texas. 

 

 

 

 

Line by line argumentation is important, but a good value debater should excell at looking at the bigger picture; boiling the debate down to the absolute confrontation of two values versus respective voting criteria is the key to convincing me.  The flow is important, but verbal pauses such as “uh” and “um” are a matter of great concern.  I expect a passionate and persuasive delivery of each speech.

 

Edited for 2024

Daniels, Patrick Edit 0 2… I have been coaching and judging for twenty five years at the local, regional and circuit level for BCC. Look at the arguments our school runs and you can learn some of my biases and leanings as to how debate should function.

In the past two years my hearing has steadily declined. Since then I have been limiting my judging as I love this activity. It is quite hard for me to hear the higher register. I hate to say adjust your speed but it may help my understanding of the arguments especially nuances that could be slipped into a speech.

I am very frustrated by judges and jufging paradigms that demand or require students to do anything... It is frustrating to see "mention Dr Who and earn x speaker points " as much as it is frustrating to read, in 2024, I am not good for the K or Kritikal affs are illegitimate.

Students as academics should drive this activity. Let them do what they do best!

Please add me to the email chain patrick.daniels@baltimorecitycollege.us

My Thoughts on Debate:

I vote based on my understanding of the round. That being said speed is fine but I enjoy having some differentiation in tone. I am also a speech teacher and do believe that there is value in remembering that this is a speech activity. I like to keep my flow from getting messy yet somehow debate after debate that is where it ends up. At least half of the time it is my fault. So keeping me entertained helps me follow and flow the argument. Performing your speech reminds me that you are talking about something very important. There is a limit to useful speed. If you are gifted with 550 word a minute speech you may not want to steamroll through every speech to prove it to me. A few years ago at NFL's ICW did a great job of providing speed so they didn't drop an argument but also acknowledging that there were judges in the back looking to vote for someone.

Type of debates that I like:

I like good debates, and I reward debaters that have intelligent affirmatives with specific internal link stories and introduce impact stories. I also like debates where the negative creates crafty negative strategies that demonstrate a grasp of the case and how to beat the case specifically having a link story that shows the inherent problems specific to that affirmative. The

Specifics:

Emailing doc-I don’t take prep for preparing to send but I become annoyed at excessive flashing. I am old and miss paper.

Theory- Be clear, I hear all sorts of theory I just don't want it to get jumbled on my flow (see above). T is a Voter I default to giving aff the benefit of the doubt unless there is in round abuse. Hard for me to believe that an AFff is untopical and that you couldn't possibly have prepared for it in a world in which said team has posted their aff on the Wiki six months ago and debated you at each of the last three tournaments. Let's not waste time there is good debate to be had.

T- probably one of my most frustrating parts of debate. the overlimiting of many T arguments bothers my soul. The decision to try to prevent young people from debating what matters to them troubles me. I am old but still believe that the activity should be driven and decided by the young people that are DOING it! Reasonability or leaning towards a topic will probably make sense to me.

K Debate- I used to love K debate and miss it. Be clear, be true, and realize that I am going to apply your arguments to my smell test. (I am old)
I am willing to vote on Perf Con and wish more teams would take a chance.


DA, CP, Case- The evidence is key. Good evidence had better actually be good if you are calling on me to read it at the end of the round. Having a super power tagged card that isn't warranted could cost you the debate.

Alternative/Performance- as a coach in the Urban Debate League I see these debates a lot. I enjoy impacted debates that teach. Education is primary.
This is a speaking activity and every action can be seen as part of that speech act but it is up to you to make that argument.

Brandon Evans

Assistant Coach at Vanderbilt University 2014-present

Debated at Binghamton University 2011-2014

 

Throughout my career, I have had experience debating "traditionally" (topical policy affirmatives, multiple off) and not (kritikal affirmatives, 1-off kritik in every round, occasionally performance). I love this community and everyone in it so long as you do not preach hate and intolerance. I will try my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to run in front of me with an open mind.

 

Flashing Evidence: Please be competent at paperless debate if you are paperless. Prep ends when you say so before flashing, but do not take advantage of this and do not give me any reason to believe you are stealing prep.

 

Speaking: If I cannot understand you, I might say "Clear" or "Louder" once or move my seat. Speed is fine. Good debaters are fast and clear; great debaters know when to slow down and use emphasis for rhetorical flourishes.

 

Flowing: Be clear as to how you want me to flow your arguments. The form of your arguments can affect the way I evaluate their content. This does not mean you have to abide by the traditional line-by-line. If you ask me to evaluate the round holistically and invoke performative elements, I will take this into account while avoiding judge intervention.

 

Calling for Evidence: I will do it if I have to. You should be able to utilize your evidence such that this is unnecessary unless the opponent contests your reading of it.

 

Kritiks: My favorite. I was not a philosophy major, so you will need to synthesize your high theory into something that is understandable to someone who does not necessarily have your background knowledge (what you should be doing anyway). I should have at least a shallow understanding of any major critical author you cite, but I should not have to utilize this understanding at all vote for you. You should care about the issues you are talking about, even if you would like to experiment and advocate for a solution you do not necessarily agree with. All links should have an implication. Unless you intend to prove that the plan is bad, you should present an alternative Role of the Ballot; if you do so effectively, I view your links as procedural violations. I would prefer you to phrase kritiks this way instead of running plan-inclusive kritiks because you should win that the stasis of the debate is not the plan.

 

Theory (General): Proving in-round abuse is helpful, but potential abuse can be a voter. I think fairness is an internal-link to education and not a voter. I prefer substantative standards (Ex. Condo is bad for activism over strategy skew). I am open to reasonability as an argument; I am not sure why competing interpretations necessitates judge intervention any more than reasonability as there is no absolute definition to anything.

 

Framework: I will vote for it if you win it, though I would encourage at least some substantive engagement as well. If the team running a K aff does its job and explains why what it is doing in this space matters, it should not be hard to find other points of clash. If they do not do this and defend nothing other than some oppressive system being bad, then framework might be a more viable option for me. Remember, if you win an alternative Role of the Ballot, you do not need to disagree with the entirety of their project to highlight a significant flaw with it and win for it; the aff is in serious trouble if it tries to use theory to avoid substantial criticism. Read my section on topicality for other details. Aside from that, I would like to see K affs make connections to the topic and not just allude to it briefly as a prerequisite to talk about other things.

 

Topicality: If both sides agree that the debate should be about the theoretical enactment of a policy option, topicality becomes a much easier sell for me. Spend the necessary time on T in the 2NR or it will be hard for me to vote on it. Field-contextual interpretations are best, as otherwise, the interpretation can be construed as a self-serving. It always helps to provide a topical version of the aff.

 

Disads: Turning the case makes it easier for me to vote on the D/A alone than just outweighing it. That being said, merely saying "the D/A turns the case" is not an argument because that statement can mean any number of things. Impact calculus is absolutely essential. I disagree that the importance of an impact is equal to the probability of it times its magnitude. I would advise you to argue that probability is a more important factor than magnitude or the other way around. I am more prone by default to weigh high-probability, lesser magnitude impacts over high-magnitude, microscopic probability impacts. Packaging your impacts as at least relatively realistic helps. A clear "no link" might make me vote on zero-risk, but understand that offense / defense makes this a rough place for a judge to be in.

 

Counter-plans: The block should give in-depth comparisons between the plan and the counter-plan instead of keeping it as generic as it was in the 1NC. Without this, small PiCs often become hard to adjudicate. Advantage counter-plans are highly underrated. Clearly explain the competition between the two policy options. Permutations need net-benefits in order to win.

 

Recording: I will be continuing to record rounds with Vanderbilt, and I plan to continue featuring them on Binghamton Speech & Debate's Live Policy Debate Collection. I am also in the process of learning how to effectively stream rounds. If you would like to have your round recorded, talk to me about it. I will not publish anything without the permission of all parties involved.

Hi, I'm John. I debated policy for the New School for 2 1/2 years, from fall of 2010 to fall of 2012. During my debate career I mostly argued kritiks, defended an advocacy rather than a topical plan, and refused to switch sides. Although there is nothing I totally refuse to vote on (so far), I probably vote for the kritik more often than most judges.

I tend to have a very high threshold on T and FW. On T, I default to resonability, and the neg will have to tell a clear abuse story to get my ballot. This means not just clearly identifying what the aff did wrong, but why it's important (with impacts). I tend to value education as a standard very highly in T debates.

On FW, if the 1AC includes a justification for their non-topical advocacy, then it's up to the neg to respond with offense against the aff's methodology and/or reasons to prefer topical affs for educational/political reasons. Arguing that the aff broke the rules, stole the neg's ground, or will always be able to defend that their principles are good is unlikely to get you far.

CP/DA debate: I'm more receptive than most judges to the argument that probability of impacts is at least as important as magnitude. I see very little value in debates where I end up weighing two far-fetched nuke war scenarios against each other. To paraphrase Boston College DoD John Katsulas, if you got up in front of Congress and argued that we must pass comprehensive immigration reform or humanity will go extinct, you would be thrown into a loony bin.

I am a former policy debate coach (2009-2015). I am pretty open to any style of debating, so do what you do best. I think all arguments in a debate should have clear impacts, so if you want me to vote on something, tell me why it matters to vote there. It is fine be to passionate about your arguments, but be civil to each other. Have fun!

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Monica He

New York Medical College '23
Tufts University '17
Lexington High School '13


About Me: I debated for Lexington High School's policy debate team as a 2N/2A. I have judged at various regional tournaments including Lakeland and Big Lex. I have debated more as a 2N and I know the pains of being a 2N. For example, I will give some leeway to the 1A for the 1AR, as I know how time-pressed this speech could be. Use this to your advantage: do the 1AR well and you may easily merit a 30 for speaker points. I also know how much bullshit the 2AR can have -- don't ever resort to lying. Ever. The 2AR should be used strategically to summarize your arguments up and give reasons to prefer your argument/case/impact over your opponents'. This speech is awesome for speaker points and persuading my ballot. Often I vote Aff because of how convincing the 2AR was (of course because of the arguments too). Lying about the claims of a random card or that your opponents dropped this or that is a reason for me to severely dock your speaker points. I really don't want to do that. Don't make it a first.

Overview: My ballot goes to whichever team convinces me of their argument the most, regardless of whatever form of argument that may be. I only ask that youthoroughly and clearly explain your arguments and show me you really understand what your arguments truly entail of. Impacting your arguments beyond scripted impact calculus blocks would also be nice -- if you want to win my vote.

Be respectful. Debate well. Have fun. :)

How To [ ] My Ballot:

• Win:
  • Clash: Give me specific reasons to vote on your arguments as opposed to your opponents' arguments -- you can easily achieve this through goodevidence comparison, impact calculus, etc.
  • Impact Calculus: This part of debate is so important and so key that if you choose to ignore this, you are almost guaranteed to lose my vote -- again, I don't care what argument you choose to run; I care that you impact your argument and give me a reason to pick your impact over the other team's impact. The same goes for framework -- if you choose to run a critical argument and lose the framework debate, then in my eyes, your critical argument is nonexistent. Please give me a reason to pick your framework over your opponents' framework. Otherwise, no matter how OP your K, DA, CP, etc. is, I can't and won't vote for you.
  • Ethos: Won't win my vote alone, but if both teams have done the above and more and you have more ethos, I might just vote for you. That said, ethos certainly doesn't mean domination -- it means speaking in such a way that really appeals to me. Be sassy if you need to, but still know your bounds.
  • Clarity/Good Organization: Makes it a lot easier for me to flow and to decide on my ballot. Whatever I don't hear/understand verbally will not go on my flow, and will, therefore, not contribute to your argument. I should be able to hear all the points of your 1AR, of your topicality flow, of your theory block, etc. If it happened to have been your kick-ass link card, then that would have been very unfortunate :( Don't expect me to automatically call for evidence if I miss something. I will ONLY call up evidence if there was evidence comparison and this debate is extended to the 2NR/2AR, or when I see it necessary for me to read into the validity of a card. Also, if you want to score a 30, do line-by-line. I LOVE line-by-line, and I will be more inclined to vote for you if you do a great job on the line-by-line.

• Lose:
  • Neglecting to Sign Post/Road Map: I shouldn't have to designate a section for this, but in the past I have been ignored in this simple request, and I have been throughly confused and annoyed. Please just do it. Not just so that I can flow your arguments on the right flow, but because it's a respectful thing to do for your opponents, your partner (if you have one), and I.
  • Clipping Cards: DO NOT DO THIS. I consider it cheating not only debate, but also cheating your opponents and me. As a judge and a former debater, I would feel personally offended by this act. If you do this, the highest speaker points I give you will be at most a 24.
  • Being Obnoxious/Disrespectful/Overly Aggressive: If you resort to any of this, I will not only severely dock your speaker points, but also stop flowing your arguments. Swearing is fine -- I'm a college student for crying out loud -- but if you're swearing unnecessarily in every.fucking.sentence, then I'll probably dock your speaking points, roll my eyes, and stop flowing.
  • Stealing Prep Time: This is such a novice thing to do, and SHOULD NOT exist at all in non-novice debates. I will be less harsh with novices because I understand debate is a learning experience. That said, it doesn't mean it's okay for novices to do that. It is disrespectful, rude, and cheating. Stealing prep time will result in very low speaker points and will be noted when I am deciding on the ballot.

Specific Arguments

• Theory
  • I am more than willing to vote on theory IF it is argued properly. I believe that theory is an integral part of debate, and when used realistically, can be a lethal weapon. For example, if the Neg is running a billion CPs and a trillion Ks, then the Aff should definitely run theory and I would love to vote Aff on theory. The boundary for me is if the Neg is only running one CP or one K, and the Aff runs theory. The Neg is probably going to win the conditionality debate. If the Neg is running a CP and a K, the conditionality debate would be decided by you guys. In that particular case, I can go both ways. When you do run theory, please IMPACT your arguments. If you lay out all your theory points without an impact, I will be very unlikely to vote for you. It's the equivalent to having an argument but without an answer to the "so what?" clause. You must answer the following questions: Why should I care about your theory arguments? So what if the other team severs? Framing your theory arguments in the context of debate is the best way to get me to vote you on theory.
• Topicality
  • I will vote on T if and ONLY IF it is argued and structured properly. Most of us know that the T consists of the following: interpretation, violation, standards, and voting issue. If you want to win the debate on T, you MUST carry all of these in some way through the 2AR. You NEED to frame the debate on T, making sure to emphasize that everything else in the debate is irrelevant because the Neg is non-topical and WHY the fact that the Neg is non-topical important in the debate (and in debate in general). Not impacting your T arguments is asking for me to ignore your argument, even if you have the best interpretation or violation blocks ever.
• Counterplans
  • As I mentioned before, I was mostly a 2N, so I have a soft spot for CPs. In particular, I really like case-specific CPs because I believe they are more realistic and better for debate purposes. They promote clash and topic debate. They're awesome. Use them. When you're running a CP, NEVER forget to answer theory (e.g. condo), perms, and ALWAYS provide a reason for mutual exclusivity.
• Disadvantages
  • Case-specific disads are the best kinds there are. Being from Lexington, I have a soft spot for politics disads. They were the first kind of disads I learned in my novice year and I will always love them. I don't really buy the intrinsic bad theory argument, but if the Aff drops it, then it could be potentially devastating. However, if the Neg does NOT impact intrinsic bad, I still won't vote on it.
• Kritiks/K Affs
  • I am fine with both. What I am not fine with is super obscure Ks/K Affs that are NOT explained well. I am human too. I don't have a mental encyclopedia of all Ks and K Affs. Please don't assume I do. Please also keep in mind that I tend to err toward policy-oriented options, but I will vote on the K/K Affs if they are well organized and well debated. The alternative MUST be present in all Neg speeches and impact calculus should involve the framework debate and should give me a reason to vote you as opposed to your opponents. The alternative must also be legit. If your alternative sounds silly in theory, it will probably sound silly to me. And unless you have the ethos of Alex Parkinson, you probably will not end up convincing me that your alternative is legit.
• Case
  • This is where you can impress me a lot. Do really nice line-by-line and I will love you. Case is an awesome place for clash to take place, and I love clash. High speaks to whichever team does better line-by-line and/or better clash on case. Just so you know, I have not debated the current topic before, but I am familiar with some of the literature. Policy-wise I should be able to follow along relatively easily. If you throw something obscure at me and use debate/literature jargon excessively without first explaining them, I won't be able to follow you and I meant just stop flowing. Not a good idea. I highly advise against it.

UPDATE AS OF 1/15/2014
Everything above still stands true, but I want to add a short blurb to address some things I saw in my last tournament, which was the Bronx tournament (New York City Invitational) at Bronx Science. I want to specifically address performance Affs: I have absolutely nothing against them, in fact, if done correctly, I will be thoroughly impressed. However, many of the performances I have seen have been slightly lacking. I would like to see a performance that more engages with the resolution specifically to increase topic education and increases critical pedagogy. The performance should address the issues found in the debate community and/or society in general (e.g. racial oppression). If you are truly passionate about debate and about portraying your personal narrative through performances, you absolutely need to form a relationship between your argument and debate as a space to express your story. Do not even bother using performance in your debate if you only focus on the performance itself and not about the debate itself and your performance's impact on debate.

Background:
I'm now a lawyer in NYC, but I debated (exclusively in policy debate) for four (4) years on the national and local circuits for Fort Lauderdale High School from 2002-2006. During that time I attended three summer debate camps, including two summers at Dartmouth. I debated in outrounds at numerous national tournaments. After my high school days, I completed my undergraduate degree in political science and global development studies and I went on to law school at Boston University (Class of 2014). I have judged on and off since 2006, some years more extensively than others. My law and political science background have given me a better perspective on policy making generally however, and I feel like I understand most debate arguments better than I ever did as a high schooler. 
Specific Preferences: 
The more specific clash there is in the round the more I will enjoy the debate. I don't care what arguments you choose to run in the 1nc. Just run what you think is most strategic. I really enjoy good theory/topicality debates, well thought out CPs, and tricky disads. When you read topicality or theory please slow down a bit. Other than that I shouldn't have an issue with your speed -- so long as you are CLEAR. I don't care how smart you are -- don't be an ass in CX. The only reason I'd ever enjoy hearing a consult CP in the 1NC is if the 2AC tears it apart (joking!). Also.......if you want to actually win my ballot my final advice would be to do some terminal impact calculus in your final rebuttal. 

If you have any more specific questions ask me before the round. Just debate well. 

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

Tabula Rasa

I am a debater for CUNY, I have been debating in college for 2 years mostly in open and jv.I have judged for UDL tournaments and some tournaments in the northeast. How I evlautate debates I pretty much vote on anything , As long you are clear and give me a road map then I will be fine. Also I do like a Roll of a Ballot:). For people who care about speaker points im generous, as long you know your arguements, and speak clear yall be fine.

 

T- I dont really vote on T and I do not like the argument, but if you can convince me to vote for T I will.

 

DA/Cp/Fw- I like this arguements, and I dont mind policy stuff. But if your going to defend the USFG do it hard. Give me reasons why I should vote.

 

K- My favorite arguements, I am familiar with most K arguements but explain the K  arguement and what does the world of the alt look like, and explain your link to the resoultion if you are running a k aff.

 

Theory- I dont like theory arguements

 

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

I debated policy and then switched to LD on the national circuit as part of GBN's team and have since coached policy at various high schools across the country. I can handle any speed, as long as its clear and you slow down tags. I have a philosophy degree focusing on language, ethics, and political philosophy. This means that I have likely read most of your authors and that if you want to run moralistic based arguments or K's in front of me, make sure to do them well. In my opinion the most important thing in an argument is its warrants. Thus, if you fail to mention the "why" when extending, I'm going to have a hard time evaluating your argument. As long as you do this, I don't care whether you run personal narratives, bring a painting into the room for your K, etc.

If there is a place where it's easy to vote off of, that's where I'll look to. So if one part of the flow has been cleanly extended the entire time while another part has ink from both sides, I will more than likely vote off of the first part.

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – All I ask is that you engage each other's interpretations and arguments--don’t just read and extend. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate – I think case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques – Most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC. For example, I like specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I'm fine with critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative. A general note: given that I'm trying to evaluate your arguments as though I'm hearing them for the first time, please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments--don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Nontraditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.

In Round Decorum – Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.

Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points – 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask. Feel free to email me after round with questions: miles.owens43@gmail.com

Anna Pinchuk
3rd year policy debater at Binghamton University

I will support and evaluate any form of debate that you find educational and useful for yourself. That means that I am comfortable watching and evaluating "standard debate", flowing line-by-line and listening to the case and T-debate. I would also enjoy and support other forms of engagement with the topic and debate community whatever they might be. 
I would be flexible in flowing the way you want me to and evaluating the "performative" arguments that aren't necessarily theoretical. 
I find myself rewarding debaters who are passionate and care about their specific form of debating ( "traditional" or otherwise), and the debate community in general with high speaker points. Below are a few things you could find useful, BUT how the specific debate develops might change them; I'm also open to be persuaded otherwise. 

"Traditional" way of engaging the topic - 
- if you're going for T, extend your interpretation in every speech and very clearly/specifically. Assume I'm not very familiar with the topic's limits & ground
- if you run framework, be very specific in terms of the topic-education that you did not gain in this specific debate round. I do find most aff's that kritik the political and social institutions and/or have a relation (even if it's not very direct) to the topic to be topical. You've got to be more specific than "they did not talk about USFG, therefore we lose education." Arguments that it is unfair and/or you lose ground are harder to persuade me to vote for. 
- if the argument in any flow is conceded but not explained, do not assume that I will automatically vote for you. Explain how it relates to the rest of the debate. 

Other forms of engaging the topic - 
- I really enjoy those debates and find performance, personal narratives, music, pictures, cultural artifacts etc. to be arguments. I will be fine with evaluating them against theoretical arguments that the other teams makes if you ask me to do so. 
- I'm find myself looking at a bigger picture and evaluating the entirety of the debate in those rounds. Meaning that it is very important for you to control the framing/role of the judge and ballot. If you win the framing of the round, I'm more likely to vote on that vs. a small dropped argument that does not challenge that framing. 

Being respectful to the other team in forms of listening, speaking and argumentative engagement will positively impact your speaker points. 

Good luck!

I debated for Georgetown Day in high school, I go to Brandeis now.
Debate how you want. I will be neutral in my evaluation of every argument. Don't be mean.
I will list some of the things that I think below:
don't make silly theory/framework arguments.
i generally think that states and international cp's are good for debate
i am not the biggest fan of the aff making framework arguments against the k
explain the k/don't just read a ton of cards and expect me to do all the analysis for you. please know what you are talking about (this applies to everything)
if you're negative, then try to have a good link story for the k
i generally view topicality in terms of limits

Debated for three years in south Texas, primarily on the TFA circuit. Current student at Tufts University 

I like to enter debate rounds with a clean slate, and I’ll probably flow any argument you make in the round. With that said, don’t read something like Ashtar or Timecube in the round unless youreally think you can convince me. 

Kritiks: I’m familiar with some of the more mainstream kritiks (cap, nietzsche, foucault, etc.). Feel free to read whatever you want, but a 2NC with a brief overview of the K would not be a bad idea if you want to be safe. As someone who is now looking at policy debate from the outside looking in, I appreciate a good Framework debate. 

Counterplans: I love a good counterplan + disad debate. 

Disads: They’re good. If you’re going to use debate jargon like double turn, I’d like for you to explain to me what the double turn is logically. I’m fine with the jargon and I will flow it, but debaters who can explain these arguments without using a lot of technical jargon will be rewarded with speaker points.

Topicality: T can be a voter if you make it a voter. For that, give me standards and why your standards outweigh. 

Other stuff: On-case debates are cool, just make sure to sign-post if you’re going for multiple advantages. I can flow spreading well; if I can’t hear, I’ll give you two times to adjust by shouting clear. If, after two times, you continue speaking at a rate where I can’t understand, I can’t promise to be able to flow everything. Rebuttals should be more than “my tag line answers your tag line;” give me analysis and tell me why this card answers the other one or why your argument is better than that card. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the laptop.

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

Matt Schnall Judging Philosophy (updated February 2021)

The three most important things to know about debating in front of me are: First, I am an exceedingly open-minded listener; I am willing to take most any argument seriously. Second, in convincing me, argument strength (logic, appropriately evidenced premises) is generally more important than technique. Third, debate should involve interaction — between you and your opponent; between you and me.

A short explanation:

“Taking all arguments seriously” means that I am open to persuasion on almost all issues in a debate, outside of time limits and speaking order. Creative and strategic arguments tend to particularly engage me. This doesn’t mean, however, that everything you say is automatically an argument. Generally, I will only consider arguments that are complete. So, if you say x will cause y to happen (or prevent it) but do not explain why y would be good or bad, there is no argument and no response is required. Similarly, “perm do the aff” requires some explanation in order to become an argument.

In terms of truth versus tech, I appreciate technical proficiency and rhetorical skills in debate. They make it easier for me to be a good judge. Good line-by-line debate, preceded by a coherent story, is usually the best way to convince me to see things your way. Nevertheless, I do my best to evaluate arguments however they are presented, and if your opponent persuades me on a point, the fact that you have been faster, more emphatic, more eloquent, or repeated your argument in more ways will not carry the day. In evaluating evidence, I will begin by giving weight to the supportive warrants a proponent has flagged or the gaps articulated by the opponent. Once I am reading a card, however, if there is a gap that is plainly inconsistent with the proponent’s explanation, I will not ignore it merely because the opponent did not point it out.

Interaction means clash; it means listening; it means asking and grappling with difficult questions in cross-ex, not dodging them. It means I may interrupt your speech or cross-ex to ask a question. Even if I say nothing, I will provide a wealth of non-verbal feedback. If I frown or look puzzled, I probably don’t (yet) understand your argument; if I shake my head, I may not (yet) be convinced. In either case, try it again. You will be most successful if you treat me as an active listener who is working to understand and evaluate what you are saying, rather than a passive canvas on which to paint some preconceived picture.

Clarity and online debate:

I decide debates based on your arguments. To do that, I need to understand all of your words, and more generally to understand complete arguments as they are made. I can do this in person at a reasonably high rate of speed, but it does require both comprehensibility and digestible, transparent argument structure. For online debate, I would recommend slowing down to a speed consistent with your technology. I will look at evidence if resolving an argument depends on it — and to this end, please include me on the email chain — but do not expect that I am reading along with your speech doc.

More details:

My background — I debated in college and coached college teams with some success when I was much closer to your age than I now am. Over the last 25+ years, I have stayed involved by judging somewhat regularly. I did a bit of coaching and argument development and judged more heavily over the period in which my children were high school debaters (2010-2016). Harvard will be my first debate judging on the criminal justice topic.

Clarity —

(1) Comprehensibility should be the same for tags, citations, and evidence: I am listening to, and flowing, cards. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback.

(2) An argument is not an argument until I understand it. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument. Obscure wording is not your friend. If a tag is more than 10-15 syllables (not words), you probably need to simplify it. Pay attention to me when you are making any novel or intricate argument, particularly theory and advocacy statements (plan/counterplan/alternative advocacy) — if I look confused or stumped, explain further.

Predispositions — I expect that a debate will involve advocacy by the affirmative team and a response to that advocacy by the negative team after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Beyond that, I will entertain debate on framework, theory, etc. I am predisposed to resolve theory disputes in favor of competitive balance and educational value, but I can be convinced otherwise. All else being equal, I would prefer to see a debate about the topic.

Time limits and speech order are not negotiable. On a two-person team, each debater must deliver one constructive and one rebuttal speech, and I will not evaluate advocacy that takes place by a different person, including a partner, during that speech. Absent reasoned argument to the contrary, rebuttal speeches, including the 1NR, are limited to response to or elaboration of arguments from prior speeches; however, outside of the 2AR, I will not entirely discount an argument as new unless the opponent so identifies it.

Incomplete arguments — As noted above, I do not evaluate an argument if it does not contain — or I do not understand — all of the elements necessary in order for it to affect my decision making (such as an argument missing a link or impact). Whether an argument is complete is of course a subject for debate, but if you think your opponent’s argument incomplete, you should point it out. If I agree, then I will treat the argument as newly made when it is completed. This might cause the argument to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, and it would always allow you to make new responses after the argument is completed.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Scribner%2C+Evan

I am a policy debate coach at George Washington High School in Denver. 2015-16 is my thirteenth year in debate and my ninth year of experience as a judge. Outside of debate, I'm an economist for the Colorado General Assembly.

I am a tabula rasa judge. Everything else on this page is a summary of my tendencies, and I'm providing this information because I believe it may be of strategic use to you. That said, I believe that judges should modify their philosophy to the debate before them more so than debaters should modify their performance to fit cranky judges. You do you.

I like framework debates because they tell me what to value when voting. I perk up when you identify a clear role for the ballot or, barring that, a clear set of criteria I ought to prioritize. Clash on these issues is what I anticipate in the latter rebuttals.

I come from a relatively traditional circuit. For this reason, I am most comfortable evaluating debates about policy. Affirmatives advocating action by entities other than the USFG, or affirmatives with no plan whatsoever, are unfamiliar to me. I will vote for them, but I am sympathetic to defensive negative positions that question their efficacy. Performance in a debate has never inspired me to take action outside of the round. I do not view debate as an instrument of social change, though I will vote for a framework that posits it as such. Identity politics are not an academic interest of mine, so if you prefer to go that route, recognize that I may be less well versed in terminology than other judges.

I almost never pull cards after a round. I perceive debate as a clash between competing debate teams and not as a clash between their authors. Keep in mind that while you have your evidence (and your opponents' evidence) before you, I do not. I advise emphasizing whatever points you want me to take from your evidence. If these are not clearly communicated, I likely will not weigh them.

On a related note: I've been around policy for a long time, and I'm comfortable with speed. That said, if I can't understand the text of your evidence, I will flow the tag as an analytic. In varsity, I expect you to flow your opponents' theory shells, etc., competently - dropping these can put you in a poor strategic position.

Finally: please be kind to one another! Debate should be a fun activity for everyone. Being unkind will damage your speaker points and will incline me to vote against you.

If you have any questions, please ask. I'm happy to discuss anything prior to the round!

Lexington High School 2013
Wake Forest University 2017

Short Version:
Do what your good at, and at the end of the round you should be fine.

Long Version:
In high school I read hard core policy aff’s, and was a DA, Case and Kritik debater on the neg.

DAs:
Love DA, case debates. In high school I went for politics all the time.

CPs:
Case specific CPs are great and will get you good speaks if clearly articulated. I am not a fan of generic process CPs, I tend to err aff on theory pushes, but can be convinced otherwise. Generic word PICs suck. Specific PICs are great.

Kritiks:
Specific link and alt explanation will reward you. However, do not assume that I know the literature behind your kritik as well as you do.

Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations.

Performance:
Clearly articulate your method.

Kritical Aff’s:
Fine by me, but make sure you know what your talking about, have a defense of what your talking about, and clearly explain to me what your argument is.

Theory:
Generally believe that two conditional options is good, but can be convinced otherwise. Three is pushing it, and four or more is definitely absurd.

General:
Be polite and nice in CX- this doesn’t mean you can’t be firm or persistent. Smart and strategically used CX will get you a long way with speaker points
Evidence comparison is great
DO NOT clip cards. If I catch you, I will give you zero speaker points
Good jokes are awesome
Clarity over speed

Fran Swanson
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart ’13
Harvard ‘17
franswanson95 [at] gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

I debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart for 4 years and I'm currently a college senior. Assume no familiarity with the topic: acronyms, “norms” that have developed about topicality, and other topic-specific knowledge must be explained.

The aff should defend a plan that is an example of a topical action by the United States federal government. Teams that do not do this (or vaguely claim to in 1AC cx but shift out of this later) will be vulnerable to framework/topicality. A topical example of the aff when paired with well-impacted arguments about ground and fairness is a persuasive 2NR.

Each debate comes down to a few key questions. Give 2NRs and 2ARs that "write the ballot" by resolving these. Make fewer, more well-explained arguments (this goes for the 1AR too) with "even if" statements. 

Debate in a way that shows me how hard you work: read high quality evidence, be familiar with it, have an end-of-round vision, and plan strategic CXs.

Silly T violations, procedurals (ASPEC, etc), and bad theory arguments (new affs bad, no neg fiat, etc) are a waste of time and will hurt your speaker points.

Kritiks must be made specific to the aff/advantages/impacts (possible with an IR or consumption K, impossible with a death/suffering K). Don't neglect the case-- use solvency deficits, impact defense, and framing arguments. The aff is often in good shape with well-explained perms, attacks of alt solvency, and distinguishing the 1AC from the neg's (usually broad) link arguments.

Theory must be slow, consistently explained/extended, and impacted to be winnable. I will hold the 2AR very closely to the 2AC/1AR extension. Conditionality is good, within limits. A well-explained, impacted, and flowable push by the aff could persuade me otherwise. Theory requires a significant 1AR time investment. 

Non-condo theory is usually a reason to reject the argument but can be explained otherwise with significant investment on impact assessment. Conditions, consult, process, and agent CPs need specific solvency advocates and are very susceptible to theory. They are often so poor that they can be beaten on well-worded/explained perms and low risk of a net benefit.

Don’t overlook the internal link level of the case debate. Negs with well-impacted solvency take outs are in great shape against 2AR “try-or-die” framing. Case turns and impact turn debates are awesome and often determined by evidence and time frame comparison.

Competing interpretations seems like the least arbitrary way to evaluate topicality but a well-explained reasonability argument can help the aff. Reasonability requires a counter-interpretation. Evidence comparison is essential. So is a case list and topical version of the aff. Topicality is never a reverse-voting issue.

Dropped arguments are true but must be impacted and can be outweighed by other arguments.

I've debate for a couple of years at the City University of New York. I mostly debated kritikal literature but ran policy my novice year so I am familiar with the mechanics of how the mechanics of those arguements (DA, CP, T , Theory) would operate.

For either kritical or policy, I require a clear explanation from you consistent through the debate for me to evaluate it at the end of the round. Specifically for K's how the case can't solve / makes the world worse and how the alternative can remedy those problems. For DA's, the link and internal story has to be clear laid out as well. CP's must show solvency yada yada you get the picture.

I'm fine if you go for T but if you just extend a definition and violation and a vague abuse story I won't pull the trigger for you. Basically, a good amount of development must be dedicated to the T arguement for it to be viable. This means standards for why your definition is better why their violation makes it bad for debate and so on and so forth. 

That being said feel free to run what you are most comfortable running, I'm here for y'all.

Impact calculus is very important but don't forget the links. For example, how should I weigh solvency deficits and links ? In my mind, the lower the risk of the link, the lower the risk of the impact.

Offense-defense: this is the second most important issue. Realize that winning a bunch of defensive arguments will most likely make it hard to win if your opponent has an offense against you.

Nexus question: what is the most important thing to evaluate a debate. You don't have to clearly flag this in the 1 AR for me, but I should at least see the inkling of the doors to analysis you are going to blow up in the 2 AR.

1 ARs and 2 NRs if you could clean things up for me, it would be so much appreciated. Labeling groups of arguments helps me know what you are extending or responding to.

Prep time starts when cross x ends. Please don't try to steal prep time.

If the aff is going for theory against the neg like process counter plans bad, they should know I have a high threshold for rejecting the team and not the argument. I think the 2AR has to provide examples of arguments they would not have been able to run or examples of in-round abuse. This is not impossible. It just requires some thought on your part going into the 2 nc and 2 nr as to what kind of topic-specific education you think is lost or round advantages the neg procures. Against topicality try to use offensive reasons to prefer your counter-interpretation. I may have trouble voting on reasonability unless you can articulate what the vagueness of the resolution is this year and what might be considered reasonbly topical or untopical.

arontrujillo@gmail.com

I debated for 8 years culminating in successive quarterfinal losses at the NDT when I was debating for Northwestern. After a long hiatus from the debate community, I returned to coaching and judging debate last year. While the bulk of my experience was in traditional policy debate, I have been actively coaching critical debating for over a year. My philosophy is essentially that everything is up for debate in a round. (except for speaking times) That said, there are some arguments that I find more persuasive than others, particularly with respect to framework and stock issues.
Framework -- While I will evaluate any framework arguments presented, my bias is in favor of frameworks that create clash. I do believe that the principal goal of debate is to develop critical thinking skills as opposed to performance skills, thus a framework debate which asks me to evaluate one versus the other is going to resolve in favor of critical thinking. That said, rote recitations of standards based on education and research burdens are not particularly persuasive. The key to framework debate is to keep the arguments clear and on point. I have seen many examples of debaters confusing framework with decision rules. For the sake of clarity, I believe that framework arguments define the METHODOLOGY that a judge should use to evaluate a round (as a judge/legislator/executive/citizen/teacher/etc), whereas a decision rule is typically an argument in favor of a particular ethical construct (utilitarianism / moral relativism / etc) As for stock issues, here are my thoughts:
Topicality -- I believe that topicality should be about relevance and jurisdiction for the judge. Arguments based on technical definitions are not particularly persuasive. As a general rule, if the AFF is clearly focused on the geography, subject area and actor that are represented by the resolution it will be difficult to get me to vote neg on topicality. That said, I have voted many times for critical AFFs that eschew some or all of those relevant topic areas based on their framework arguments. Moreover, in order to get me to vote for topicality usually requires a fair amount of dedication to the argument in the debate. Unless the AFF drops all topicality arguments, I will give a lot of latitude in answering multiple technical violations in rebuttals.
Advantages / Disadvantages -- Policy debates that feature straight up negative strategies which argue that the disadvantages of a plan outweigh the advantages are becoming increasingly rare. That said, I will admit to enjoying those debates and, in particular, good analysis on probabilities and terminal impacts.
Critiques -- I believe that negative critiques which challenge the fundamental philosophical assumptions of the resolution of a particular AFF are excellent strategic choices. That said, I have several concerns with many negative critiques, the most important is that many teams do not understand their own arguments. In my opinion, there are two types of critiques: Arguments that the AFF rhetoric or philosophy create or could create an impact and Arguments that the AFF is fundamentally inconsistent with an ALTERNATIVE whose adoption will result in a more significant net benefit than the AFF. The first type of critique is essentially a disadvantage, except that the "link" is based on rhetoric or philosophy rather than a specific causality from the plan itself. That link depends upon the notion that the words used in the debate are important and need to be considered directly by the judge. The second type of critique is more prevalent, however. The standard which I will use to evaluate those criticisms is to directly evaluate the claim of competition. If the Neg can prove that their alternative is indeed fundamentally inconsistent with the AFF, then i will weigh the critique. If, however, there is no inconsistency, then Perm arguments are often successful. If you rely on this type of argument consistently, consider striking me if you are not very good at explaining why your criticism applies to the AFF more than the status quo...
Conditionality -- I firmly believe that AFF conditionality would destroy debate, but that Negative conditionality is generally OK. That said, if a negative runs a disadvantage to an AFF advantage and a link turn to the same advantage, conditionality may not apply. Put simply, teams can not drop arguments that have offense on them. (a clear example is a negative that runs a turn to an AFF that claims economic growth based on government incompetance AND a De-Development disadvantage that claims to outweigh everything. In that case the AFF can simply agree to both and capture the impact of De-Dev...)
Abuse arguments -- I have never voted on an abuse argument other than taking evidence out of context. I doubt seriously that I ever will. If a team brings up new arguments in rebuttals, I will ignore them, but not vote against that team. 2NC is a constructive speech, so I will often allow new arguments. That said, I will give 2AR more lattitude to read new evidence against those arguments. If a team is mean spirited, abusive and generally offensive, it will seriously hurt their speaker points, however. I have no opinion about disclosure pre debate -- that is up to individual teams and coaches to decide.
Last, I would also like to point out that I have a very strong opinion that judges should NOT do debaters work for them. If an argument is dropped, I will not extend it for a team and if an impact is claimed and not disputed, it will be as claimed. Too many judges tend to impose their own value systems upon debates these days and I try very hard not to.

 I am currently in Law School at George Mason. I used to Debate as a 2N for Liberty University. but it has been a few years since I have been involved in the community. Keep in mind that because I am not currently involved in debate my topic knowledge will be fairly thin so it would behove you not to assume my understanding of topic-specific issues or terms. 

On the Neg

The strats on NEG I’m most familiar with are pretty straight up. I like a nice disad/case debate. Never really went for counterplans but I am familiar with how they work and the theory behind them. I've argued Ks but pretty much stuck to the security/cap/anthro genre. I am open to other arguments and have judged some K debate but keep in mind that you cannot assume I am familiar with your specific arguments. The explanation is key.  I will enjoy any argument as long as it is well executed and well explained. 

On the Aff

same as with the neg don’t be afraid to throw a curveball. My partner and I liked to play heavy offence as both aff and neg. I’ve found few neg teams are prepared to defend against straight turned disads. Regardless of the tournament’s rules I don’t care if you have a plan text. I just care if you out debate the other team. You can run advocacy and performance in front of me as long as you win that you should be allowed to run them.

As a judge

 Don’t expect me to cross apply arguments for you. One of the things I hate most while judging is when one side lets an obvious double turn slip by without contesting it.  Stylistically I’m pretty relaxed. I’m not going to penalize you if you debate a different way than I did I don’t care if you look or sound like a lawyer or if you are in the same clothes the whole tournament. All I care is that however you debate you do it well. I will not clean-up for you, I don’t care if you brought all your points through the debate. If you get to impact calculus with twenty seconds left I’m not going to give your individual cards a lot of weight, show me how they work together. Don’t undersell analytics, I’ve seen disads where showing me how the link story breaks down is enough. If the other team can’t beat your arguments then I don’t care what arguments they were, you will win. Humor is a huge plus for me. Joke around, have fun it, can only help you. That being said do not be rude or offensive to your opponent. There is a line between funny and hurtful and I expect you keep that in mind, you can be petty, but not vicious. Bad language doesn’t bother me, however if your opponents make it an argument be prepared to defend your language. 

On theory

I don’t enjoy theory debates, however I will treat them the same as any other flow. If you win the argument then you win the debate. For topicality I defer to competing interpretations if you win that you are a better model for debate than you win T. I strongly believe that theory should operate as defining the activity and making sure that both teams are on an equal footing. I do not enjoy strategies where the main goal is shotgun theory and go for what the other side drops or misses. On conditionality my threshold gets lower the more conditional worlds there are. That being said no argument is unwinnable. If the aff wins that there should be no conditionality then you don’t get to be conditional. If the neg wins that they get to have four conditional worlds, then they can have four conditional worlds.

On performance

if you can justify it you can do it, know, however, that I need your performance to be interpreted for me. If you can give me an advocacy statement that will be helpful because it will give me something to frame your arguments around. The main thing is that after your performance I can connect the dots.