I'm looking for aff or neg philosophy in slow introduction of 15-30 seconds.

When spreading please take a breath between arguments allowing me a chance to locate your argumentation on the flow.

Roadmaps, signposts, flow-able tags, and organized arguments on the flow while communicating decision rules for judging round are most helpful.

Express how you think the judge should weigh voting issues in the round by analysis and persuasion by extending arguments in 2NR and 2AR that you want me to consider in the calculation of the decision.

Do not be afraid to slow down to emphasize most important observations, and use concluding 15-30 seconds on your neg/aff philosophy in round to persuade. 

 RFD will be based on the last two rebuttal extensions. 

Debate theory arguments along with T, critique, counter-plan, case, disadvantages, turns, etc. are all within the range of a policy debate round.

3 minute cross-examinations are my favorite part  Please keep time schema fair, and your credibility as a knowledgeable debater intact by keeping cross-ex to two people. Four debaters talking in one cross-ex confuses time fairness for this judge. 

Congratulations on being part of the policy debate community!

I'm looking for aff or neg philosophy in slow introduction of 15-30 seconds.

When spreading please take a breath between arguments allowing me a chance to locate your argumentation on the flow.

Roadmaps, signposts, flow-able tags, and organized arguments on the flow while communicating decision rules for judging round are most helpful.

Express how you think the judge should weigh voting issues in the round by analysis and persuasion by extending arguments in 2NR and 2AR that you want me to consider in the calculation of the decision.

Do not be afraid to slow down to emphasize most important observations, and use concluding 15-30 seconds on your neg/aff philosophy in round to persuade. 

 RFD will be based on the last two rebuttal extensions. 

Debate theory arguments along with T, critique, counter-plan, case, disadvantages, turns, etc. are all within the range of a policy debate round.

3 minute cross-examinations are my favorite part  Please keep time schema fair, and your credibility as a knowledgeable debater intact by keeping cross-ex to two people. Four debaters talking in one cross-ex confuses time fairness for this judge. 

Congratulations on being part of the policy debate community!

Tags slow. Speed for the rest of the card is okay.

Overt Speed - not my favorite

If I request "clear" a couple of times - and you don't do it - I will put my pen down. If you see that, it's a problem...for you.

I am listening to you speak, I am not reading your cards as you spread.

Rebuttals - stop reading cards. Talk to me. Line by lines - yes!

Roadmaps and signposting make me happy. Be organized and direct my flows appropriately. If you don't, you might lose and that won't be my fault.

Multiple DA's annoy me. How many ways we can die and in what order?

Depth over breadth. I really dislike a bunch of off cases, and then you drop 9/10's of them.

T is important so prove why you meet. Or, if you are running a K Aff - please explain why T isn't important.

Agent cps, I understand how government works. Show me that you do too. Multiple CP's? Why? Game theory - nah. Not my fave.

Income Inequality is REAL. I think that I am going to love me some K's.

Peace

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

last updated in october 2015

hi, i'm anne

i debated at stuyvesant high school for 4 years, qualled to the toc, and i'm a junior at nyu now

i've pretty much read arguments on both sides of the political spectrum, and feel comfortable adjudicating any type of argument - regardless of the content of the debate, just do it well and i'll be happy

--special thanks to allan xu, you are a+ 

I'm an open college debater with 4 years of highschool policy debate experience.

In general, I'll be your flow-bot. General preferences include total and consistent clarity, depth over breath, unconditional respect for everyone in the debate, and why not brighten my day with a smile?

Affs/Performance: Consistent roll of the ballot, please - whether that means defending your plan or resisting pseudo-speciation. I'll protect the 2nr from total 2ar recharictarization of the debate. Other than that, run whatever you want. 

Kritiks: I'm decently well read, and this means I'll tend to "do work for you" without even knowing that I'm doing so; that is, I understand the jargon. That being said, I will not do any work for teams failing to apply their K to the particularity of the aff. K debate is about framing the relationship of the impact and the link. 

CP/DA/case: I'm game. Despite that I read and deploy the K more often, I actually prefer this type of debate becasue it almost always inevitably involves more clash. Be creative. Impact calc is a must. I'll read your evidence. Brink threshold and internal link magnitude are important yet unfortunately often absent from rebuttals.

T/Procedural: I'll vote on "stock issues". But for the sake of your speaker points (unless you have topic specific evidence that specicifcation has a quantifiable solvency deficit or theoritcal disadvantage), don't run spec arguments. 

Please add me to the email chain: john.dellamore@gmail.com

Experience: I did policy debate in high school and college.

Overview: I am fine with anything you want to read. I did strictly policy (CPs/Das/T) in high school and then leaned more towards Ks in college. I have read every K from Security to DADA. Impacts need to be well extended and weighed and my role as the judge should be made clear by both teams.

Most important thing for me: I love debate. I think the community has its flaws but is unique in the sense that there aren’t many places where a bunch of really smart students can come together and discuss anything from Chinese politics to DeleuzeandGuattari. I understand if teams make arguments about the flaws in debate and more than often I believe they are true. But on the other side, I think debate offers so many valuable skills, research being one of the most important, and should exist.

Specifics

Framework (read on theneg, “you have to read a topical plan”): I really enjoy framework debates. I really go either way on this. I rarely defended a stable plan text and understand the merit in that. I also have read framework on the negative many times and understand that as well. I believe a good framework debate comes down to well impacted education arguments. I understand the merit in “but the state is bad” argumentsbut I don’t believe that is enough, especially if the negative wins a topical version of your plan.

T: I believe competing interpretations are great because the negative can always find a definition that excludes the aff. Like framework, I believe a good debate comes down to the educational impact level. Simply extending “key to ground"isn’t enough.I am not totally sold on just fairness impacts. I believe fairness is just an internal link to participation and clash but is not an impact within itself. Finally, I really like affirmatives that address the topic through a tricky wording in the plan text. This creativity, I believe, is a great skill andleads to creative debate that negatetopic staleness.

DA: I really like DA debates and wish I could have had more of them myself. The best DA debates are ones that come down to the pieces of evidence. As I said above, one of debates greatness merits is the research and there is nothing better than a DA debate to show off the amazing research you’ve done. I think the other really important part of a DA is explaining the story. Saying that “Immigration brings in more high skilled workers and that is key tohegwhich is key to preventing nuclear war” isn’t really enough.

CPs: I love topic specific, alternative solvency CPs. The affirmative reads a lot of evidence and more often than not the authors will come up with different solvency mechanisms. CPs thatgooff of this are awesome. Advantage CPs are cool too, especially when they are very specific and the negative can explain the solvency on the CP better than the affirmative on their case. I have read Consults CPs, agents CPs…(anything that steals the plan) and I like them but also believe that they should be germane to the case/topic. Reading Consult NATO against every Affcan lead to a very stale debate. I like theory onthese CPs, especially ones that make “stale education” arguments.

Theory: Condo is probably a good thing but if theaff wins theneg is being abusive with it, I will voteon it. CP theory is good (as stated in the CP section). I will listen to whatever theory you want just make sure it is impacted well.

K: My favorite type of debate and the one I am most familiar with. I have read tons of Ks and heard even more. If you read a new K in front of me, even if you think it is stupid, I will consider voting on it and always LOVE HEARING NEW PHILOSOPHIES. Please show that you know the theory of whatever you are advancing. I will go into some specifics on each part of the K. The most important thing on a K is making it germane to the aff. Don’t just say “they conceded our warming link." It is best when you use examples from history as to why the aff is just another example of x.

-Framework: I am open to both sides. Ks can lead to generic debates but theaffhas to be held accountable for assumptions.

-Links: links that are explained as turns case arguments or separate impacts are awesome. Shows you really know the philosophers. Use examples as I said above.

-Impacts: Just extended them and do impact calc.

-Perms: Theaffhas the potential to be abusive here. I believe that theaff should be held accountable for everything in the 1ac so “severing reps” arguments hold little weight with me. If the other team drops it I will vote on it but give me a reason to. Also, a good perm do both with net benefits to the perm is awesome. If you can explain why the net benefits are good and outweigh any risk of the link I will be very impressed.

-K tricks (serial policy failure, reps first…): Love them. Just impact them well and give examples of how theaff leads to serial policy failure or what not.

Email: jgizzy96@gmail.com

Background: I debated for four years for Newburgh Free Academy. I was a policy and LD debate. I primarily did policy for my first two years and LD in my last two years, both circuit style debate. This is my fifth year coaching/judging for the Lexington Debate. I was both a critical and traditional debater so feel free to run whatever you like. Speed is 100% fine with me just be clear.I am currently a graduate student in New York City getting my Master's in Biological Sciences, with the intentions of attending Medical School next fall. I have been judging debate since 2014 in both Policy and LD.

My Theory on Theory:
In the past, I have viewed theory pretty negatively. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I will vote on it if you keep these things in mind:

1. If you say that you should have access to an RVI, tell me what constitutes an RVI. I generally do not accept "I meets" as a reason to access an RVI, but feel free to change my mind.

2. If the opposing debater is giving me a bunch of "I meets," annihilating the standards, or doing anything else to take out a significant part of the argument, I am not going to penalize them for simply not having a counter interp.

3. I have had tons of rounds in which debater N has a theoretical objection to the 1AC. Debater A then responds with a counter interp in the 1AR. By then end of the round, I have offense that links to both interps, and no reason to prefer one shell/standard over the other. Do not leave me in this position. Find ways to layer the theory debate and explain how standards interact.

4. No new 2AR theory.

5. Tell me why your theoretical objection comes before another

Specifics:

Kritiks: The Kritik is by far my favorite position in Policy and LD debate. Know what you are talking about. The explanation of the K needs to be done outside of of the author: for example, if you are running D&G, don't drop the term rhizomatic expansion and think that I know what that means. Explain it. Nothing gets me upset than a K team that drops terms and does not explain how those terms interact with the argument. I hate boring and generic links, do you work! Make sure to have a link scenario. The alternative, I feel is the most important mechanism of the K. Explain to me why the alternative is the most important part of the K and why this is the only way to accomplish the plan/case/WHATEVER.

Disadvantages: I don’t mind a few DAs here and there just don’t over kill it! Please if you are going to run politics don’t make it ridiculous and make sure your internal link is new and not something from four years ago.

Counterplans: Counterplans are counterplans I’ll vote on it if it’s there.

Overall:

Truth vs. Tech--I will evaluate arguments based on the flow and will do very little work to imagine some "embedded clash" that isn't there. But at the end of the debate I will decide each argument by asking who I feel won it based solely on the arguments presented in the round.

Strat: Establish your position/advocacy. Link. Impact. Weigh extensively. Tell me why I should vote for you. If you do not tell me what to do with a given point "x", I will not vote off it unless there is literally nothing else for me to vote off of. Do not assume that I will auto extend drops, or that I will impact/link/weigh cross applications for you. It's your job to tell me why you win, explain it to me like you would explain it to your parents! Act like I don’t know (even though I do) *this will also result in better speaker points*. If something is important to my ballot, please tell me so, and spend time on it don’t glance over it. * I am 100% okay with any kind of case. Do what you like this is your show!

As there are always new debaters, I have chosen to add the following information about myself to help folks in having some reference points to place me in time and space and to learn more about me if they would like. Additionally, as this is a professional community, I have decided to include parts of my CV which is followed by my judging philosophy. 

Education
PhD Candidate, English Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, May 2016
Masters of Arts in Media, Culture and Communication, New York University, May 2011
Bachelor of Arts in Ethnic Studies, University of California at Berkeley, May 2001

Faculty Positions
Adjunct Professor, Arts & Humanities, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2014-Present
Adjunct Professor, School of Education, Manhattanville College, 2012-Present
Research & Development Associate, Hip-Hop Education Center, 2014-Present

Research Assistantships/Fellowships
Graduate Research Fellow, Institute for Urban and Minority Education at Teachers College, 2011-Present
Graduate Teaching Assistant to Dr. Ernest Morrell, Teachers College, Columbia, 2012
Hip-Hop Education Fellow, New York University, 2009-2011
Kids on Color Research Assistant to Dr. Charles McIllwain, NYU, 2011
International Youth Media Research Assistant to Dr. JoEllen Fisherkeller, NYU, 2010-2011

Debate Teaching Positions
Instructor/Coach, ACORN Community High School, 2011-2014
Instructor/Coach, Metropolitan Corporate Academy, 2009-2011
Institute Instructor, National Debate Education Project, 2002-2007
Institute Instructor, Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, 2006
Instructor/Coach, Richmond High School (California), 2001-2003
Instructor/Coach, John F. Kennedy High School (California), 1999-2001
Institute Instructor, Bates College National Debate Institute, 2003-2004
Institute Instructor, Stanford National Debate Institute, 1999-2003
Institute Instructor, California National Forensics Institute, 1998-2002
Institute Instructor, Southern California Urban Debate League, 2000
Institute Instructor, National High School Forensics Consortium, 1998-1999

Executive and Administrative Positions
Founding Director, Teachers College Columbia University Debate Institute, 2012-Present
Executive Director, Seattle Debate Foundation, 2004-2009
Program Coordinator, Seattle Debate Foundation, 2003-2004
Program Director, Bay Area Urban Debate, 2001-2003

Judging Philosophy
Like Chuck D said about Hip-Hop: "come as you are". If I'm your judge, I believe the game is yours. You as debaters should determine the arguments, the procedures, and the framework of the round. I will listen to all arguments and modes of presentation and will vote for the arguments that are the most persuasive (by virtue of the way in which the debaters argue them) and for the team that best explains the criteria for and reasons why they should win (i.e. clearly breaking down the impact calculus, methodology, framework etc).

Despite my love for critical arguments I will listen to anything; I do love a good rumble. When I debated, I could get down with kritiks, counterplans, topicality and disads (and if I was Neg they would often all be in the 1NC, but not the 2NR). I will vote on your argument if you win it: explain the warrants, significance, weight (in relation to your opponents' best arguments), and evidentiary support (this could be from a wide-variety of texts [audio, print, visual, dance, academic, organic, personal narratives, music etc.]; it's up to you to explain the qualifications and reasons to prefer your evidence). The bottom line is this is your game and I don't believe that I should be in the back of the room judging debates if my lens for the round privileges a particular argument, style, framework, advocacy, ideology, etcetera: this is a debate--your debate. At the same time, a blank slate is not really a reality. Judging is subjective and we all have a sociocultural location from which we come into this activity. If you have any specific questions, please ask prior to round. I will do my best to be fair and consistent in adjudicating. That said, my background will inform what lens I will use to adjudicate the round if you don't provide me with an alternate conceptual/theoretical framework. What this means is that I have a cultural studies epistemology and I find footing in critical theories of race, gender, class, and education, which would contend that education should be the practice of freedom. 

That said, here are some suggestions/clarifying points:

For those critical ("critical" is being used broadly here) teams that do pref me, here's something for y'all: your arguments are more persuasive when they are articulated with historical and temporally recent and relevant examples. If we are at tournament in the wake of a major event, I find it compelling when debaters incorporate those events into their analysis. The key here is to make your criticism come to life. In running arguments provide me with references to real-life situations/culture/movements etc....and perhaps pay homage to those who have inspired your argument...there are a lot of folks out there whom we forget have tremendously impacted our worldview and advocacy. If your work is derived from their work, perhaps pay homage and due respect, and I mean this to say it's beyond the evidence. Mind you I'm not asking for some kind of tribute album; but if you're unclear as to what I mean, please ask.

New note: (As I edit this philosophy, I would be remiss not to mention how I am thinking about Tamir Rice and the lack of indictment in the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases. To be sure, I do not think that these cases are anomalies, however, as they are preceded by a historical legacy of gratuitous racial violence and struggle.)

When debating framework or any procedural position, please provide and assess examples of cases, arguments, performances, ontologies, epistemologies etc. that are included or excluded under your interpretation or your opponents'.

Not all dropped arguments are winning arguments. Clearly you should capitalize on dropped arguments when they occur, but don't just assume that's a win and shadow extend. Extend the warrants and the significance of the dropped argument. If you don't debate line-by-line, you still need to be responsive to your opponents' arguments and tell me why I should view the round holistically or why certain arguments trump all others.

2NRs & 2ARs: going for every offensive argument is not usually a wise strategy. Know what you are winning and go for it. I know sometimes people are afraid of putting "all their eggs in one basket", but often times teams go to the other extreme and can't adequately cover/explain any of their positions when they go for everything. I often find myself unable to vote Negative when the 2NR goes for everything. 

Check out the acoustics in the room to see if this affects the sound/clarity of your voice. I suggest doing a mic check prior to the round. This mic check is also important if you are playing any audio. 

Open cross ex, ins and outs, different use of prep time, are all okay with me. I don't take prep for flashing.

In general, respect is important to me: respect for myriad cultures, literacies, and linguistics. Your argument can come from whatever socio-economic, political, or cultural perspective, but open and/or intentional disrespect will leave me feeling very uncomfortable and will be reflected in speaker points. That said, I do get irony, you don't have to be Cobert; just be really good at it. I fundamentally believe that debate is a site for us to feel safe to learn about the world around us, from multiple perspectives, experiences, linguistics, and forms of communication. We may disagree, but we can do it respectfully and compassionately. Basically what I'm saying is that I don't want anyone to feel that they have to check their cultures, indigenous knowledge, languages, and identities at the door in order to debate.

One last caveat is that although I value all forms of "evidence" (personal, organic, academic) in terms of the personal, I don't expect you to put yourself on blast. You may speak from your social location, but not to the extent that you feel uncomfortable, or feel like your privacy is violated. You decide who gets to know what about you.

Lastly, I believe that we are all in this activity because we have love for it on some level. Let that show in your rounds and in the way you treat your opponents and everyone else at the tournament. I pledge to do my very best to be fair, respectful and to contribute to the education of all folks in the round. If you have any questions, just ask before the round.

Peace, love, & Justice,

Jen

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

Education: Harvard University '18

Affiliation: Lexington High School

Years Debated: 2010-2014

Debated: Policy (4 Years)

Judging Experience: I have experience judging policy and LD rounds for 5+ years. Haven't judged in 4 years, so I'm a bit rusty.

For this year - I'm not familiar with the topic yet, so acronyms and other topic specific things will need to be articulated more.

Note on Prep Time: Just ask for prep, not specific amounts that's annoying. Just prep.

Policy

Theory - Most things are reasons to reject the argument (except for like Condo). I love a good theory debate. If you attempt to weigh theory versus a T violation, you must explain reasons to prefer one or the other.

T - I think reasonability is a strong argument (#2aandproud). But that being said, you have to address the voting issues.

Ks - Fine by me. I'm not the best at understanding these, but if you articulate well, then you're fine.

CPs & DAs - A good, clean strat. Impact calc is always good. Bonus points if you run XO and politics and you don't go to Lex.

Case - Please, please, please label/signpost where you are on case. Especially in the 2AC.

Non-traditional, Race, Identity, etc - Probably not the judge for you. I never looked forward to these affs/negs, and don't understand the intricacies of them. That being said, I have voted for them, greatly respect them, and do have a basic understanding of the arguments as a whole.

Other Items

Flashing - I don't take prep time for flashing, but if you take an absurd amount of time, then the timer starts.

Clipping - If you clip and the other team catches you (via a recording or other method) you will lose and get 0 speaks. I have a zero-tolerance policy on card clipping - the tabroom and your coaches will be notified.

Marking - You must flash/physically mark after your speech the marked evidence. In extreme cases of not knowing where you have marked MANY cards it will result in disregarding the evidence.

Rudeness - C'mon be chill - we're all part of a community. Be fun, be cool, be funny! If you are rude, violent, bully, or insult the other team your speaks will suffer accordingly.

Jokes - For every good joke told in round, you get 2 brownie points. If you tell a bad joke/pun, you lose 1 brownie point.

Swag Moments - If you say or do something that demonstrates the massive amount of swag you have (like getting a concession or admission in CX that gets the room to go 'WHOAAAAA') you get 3 brownie points.

Brownie points - If one gains enough brownie points, said points may be exchanged post round for prizes of little to no value.

LD

Mostly the same as above. Spell your arguments out more. I'd prefer more policy-esque arguments, but if you want to to kritikal stuff, then just explain it WELL.

Really spell out your AC/NC in the rebuttals. As a policy debater I tend to do more weighing on issues and view framework a bit differently. Watch out for other jargen type things that I might not get (I get like Value Critereon and stuff, but blowing through theory is not a good idea).

Daniel Mendes
East Side High School graduate (2014)
Newark, NJ
I go to Rutgers- Newark 

 SHORT VERSION
Just like any other judge I am best with well explained arguments and good analysis. I prefer this over teams that just read a million cards . I'm probably more suited to critical arguments as I have more experience with them but run what you are good at. I don't like cheap shots, I think debate is more educational and pedagogical than a game, treat your arguments wth value.
I don't see debate in a vacuum or disconnected from the real world.

Traditional Topicality/ Framework / Theory:
I find that when teams read this, it's always very recycled, the same blocks from 10 years ago.
If you are reading this against K affs, ... Those old same standards aren't that persuasive to me. Make it persuasive, do lots of analysis, voters are a big deal for me don't make it a blip.

FW
I like good framework debates, but I think that your impacts have to really be fleshed out and have good analysis. Affirmatives should directly respond to standards, not just read their anti FW block and think it'll win them the debate, also don't just read a roll of the ballot and think you're good, justify it with counter standards and compare or it will cost you. 

Theory
I hate cheap shots, so when it comes to theory, if you are going for go for it. Make the impacts more nuanced and developed, make it matter and I will see it ias a legit argument.

Counterplans:
These are fine, I like hearing all the creative and crazy ways to solve for advantages. Specific is better than generic. It better be competative.

Disads:
I will vote on it if it's good and you win it. Don't just read hella cards in the 2nc block. Do big picture stories, you can read cards obviously but analyze it and make it apply to aff arguments
I may not be super familiar with the latest scenarios but if you explain all the steps in your overview and you win it then you're good. 

Kritiks:
Awesome, win it. Make a good persuasive specific link. The Alternative is really important, I should know if it's something material or educational or etc. Read a framework especially against policy affs. Framework is also pretty important (roll of the judge and ballot and all that)

Policy/plan/USFG/Fiat type affs:

I'll vote for it. However you MUST win your framework interpretation against Critical arguments. Explain your permutations, what they look like, how they work, why it functions. I have no problem voting for these affs but you're not winning on fraework its hard to vote for you

Critical/ Performance Affs:
Nice, just tell me what ur method does and what that means in context of the debate community as well as the real world! I don't think these affs must defend the federal government or have a plan but I think planless affs should be atleast somehow related to the topic because then we can diversify our arguments and make them apply to whatever the res is :)  

Case: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE engage in a case debate. Neg- Put specific offense on case, challenge the aff! Aff- Please use your case past the 1ac. Extend your cards and smart arguments, the 1ac is 8 minutes of offense for you in the rest of the debate, use it like that!

Flowing: I'd say I'm pretty average at flowing, if you're going through a huge list of standards or something slow it down, Slow it down on the tags. I am not a flow centric judge, i look at my flow to see what you said, if the analysis aint there neither is the argument. Frameworks and precedurals come first obviously then comes the aff vs counter methods,plans, alternatives, or SQ 

25s and a loss: Racism good, Slurs, inappropriate behavior. Just be appropriate and behave please

Good speaks: Be clear, and win. Be persuasive, be funny and approachable, it seriously helps a lot in making the round a better experience for everyone! I give speaker points for teams who know how to emphasize lines in their warrants rather than reading through it 500 wpm like a robot. I like passion and when people care about the things they read. 

I'm really laid back and I think debate is an activity that's fun and to learn and be competitive. Dressing and acting "proper" and closed cross ex and all that strict stuff is silly to me. Feel free to ask my any questions. 

Also I just want to say that if you don't agree with my decision feel free to ask questions and we can have a conversation with me after the round about how I interpreted the round, don't bicker with me and don't be rude. 

They/them pronouns

IMPACT CALC WINS DEBATE ROUNDS!

LGBTQ+ rights/litigation attorney during the week, debate coach by weekend.

Coaching/judging CX for about 15 years now, but definitely not a topic expert. Please explain your topic specific jargon. I don't judge a ton on the nat circuit because my work schedule limits my ability to travel, but in general, I'll adapt to your style.

Tech over truth, insofar as it minimizes my own intervention. But that's not an excuse to throw out a bunch of poorly developed/bad quality args. I also find that debaters sometimes lose the forest for the trees- even if you're ahead on tech, you still need to synthesize and explain WHY that matters in the round.

In general, it's your debate, not mine. You can choose to follow my preferences on here if you want to, but never limit your ability to debate based on my personal preferences.

I find that case debate is frequently underdeveloped on the high school level. At the end of the round, I'm basically going to ask myself if the aff is a good idea. As the neg, don't make it harder than it needs to be- tell me why it isn't. As Aff, give me good impact calc and spend time weighing the impacts of case v. off.

T- I have a relatively high standard on T. The standards debate is important and needs to be fleshed out well. I tend to default to reasonability in a world where the standards debate isn't developed or impacted out properly. That being said, if you do the work in the standards debate thoughtfully, you can definitely get my ballot.

Theory- Make it interesting. Super generic theory is lame, and it makes me very sad, especially when you use it to avoid poignant and interesting debate. I really hate rounds that are just people reading blocks at each other instead of actually engaging. That being said, I really appreciate nuanced framework and pre-fiat args, so go for it- tell me all about how fiat is illusory. Tell me all about how policy debate is inherently elitist and how valuing procedural fairness is a bad idea. Or tell me it's a key prereq to structural fairness. Or not. Engage and have critical thought.

Condo is fine, PICS are fine, dispo is silly.

I love good K debate. However, you need to truly know and understand your K and articulate it well. Even if I know your cards, I'm not going to interpret them or argue them for you- that's your job. Good analysis always preferred over bad cards. I'll appreciate it if you do a nice job with the alt debate- make me understand the post alt world and flesh out alt solvency. Perf con matters on a reps focused K.

Framework debates can sometimes really frustrating to judge when they are just block vs. block. If the framework debate is what really matters, engage in it with critical thought and clash, and explain to me your vision for the debate space.

K affs are fine, with some notes. If there's absolutely no potential for clash or when the K aff is just making for really lazy aff debaters, that's sad to me. I don't need a plan, but I appreciate an advocacy statement. I think non-resolutional debate can be really valuable, but I also think that topic education is important, and I hate when either Aff debaters or neg debaters use the K as a way to bypass properly engaging with the topic lit.

Other Notes:

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. I'll tell you if you aren't. I appreciate it if you slow down on your tags, especially super long ones. For the love of all that is holy, if you spread those Lacan tags at me, we will not be friends.

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., you will absolutely pay for it in your speaks, and we're gonna have a post-round chat.

A good analytic is always better than a bad card.

Be conscious of how you are communicating with your opponents. Give meaningful trigger warnings. Respect pronouns. Be kind. Don't talk over people in cross. Be good humans.

At the end of the day, debate is a game. Have fun and learn stuff.

Former Captain at New School University
3 years experience debating, 2nd year judging.

Oh hai. I like kritiks. And warrants.

General stylistic preferences:
Big picture over line-by-line
A few well articulated stories over 20 blippy arguments
Smart arguments over bad cards


Policy Debaters: Don't be too scared, I probably have a higher threshold for explaining a kritik against you considering most "K" debaters were handed a back-file they don't understand and pronounce it "Zee-zek". Link turns and offense on the alternative will be your best friend. That being said, I love a policy option that is not inherently imperialist/islamophobic/etc. Chances are, you're lying about all of your cards so I'm going to give as much weight to "Mitt Romney is the zero-point of the holocaust" and "Consult Gaga" as to "Canadian soft power key to avert nuclear war" and "Consult India"


Counterplans/DAs: I didn't debate these, nor do I judge many. There's nothing wrong with running them in front of me, but if you're looking for a judge who gets the nuance of CP theory, I'm not that guy.

Theory: Sometimes theory debates are really great. Most of the time, they're just a nice way of telling me you refuse to engage the other team's arguments. I'd prefer if you told me why their K is wrong rather than telling me it kills aff offense. I probably am unfamiliar with your blippy theory arguments and you'll probably be reading 10 of them in about 5 seconds. This is probably bad for you and me. I'd rather you save the theory arguments for when there is legitimate abuse and the arg is articulated well.


Kritik Debaters:
I prefer warranted analysis to 20 "cap causes war" cards. I'm not going to vote on a K just because I'm a K hack. I think ethos is pretty important.

Knowledge bases I am very familiar with:
Cap
Queer Theory
Feminism
Spanos
Heidegger on technology

Knowledge bases I'm sort of familiar with
Post-Althusser Frenchies (Badiou, Derrida, Foucault)
Hardt + Negri
Race theory
Wilderson
Deleuze

K on K Debate: I don't have any predispositions for how K v K debates should be had. I think I have a "default" that will influence my decision if neither side frames what the purpose of the round is. That default is probably framed in traditional offense/defense/permutation terms. That being said, I think that frame of evaluating the debate is probably not well suited for two teams that don't defend fiat. Debaters should frame how I view evaluate the round, and why thats uniquely good for education/liberation. I'd probably be the most tabula rasa here compared to any other circumstance.

I like when teams defend something. That seems to be my only burden for K affs, even if it means you only defend that "defending things is bad". Just be upfront about it, rather then making claims like "the aff wins because we start a discussion" and permuting any advocacy they ever make. As the great John "Rossita" Fowle once said, it's really easy to "add their something to our nothing" and therefore ensure aff victory.

Framework: I love good framework debates. I hate bad framework debates. For K affs, I will almost NEVER be persuaded that the aff steals neg ground, or kills clash. You're better off indicting the way they engage with politics/the world rather than going for standards. In other words, I'd rather you read 9 minutes of policy making good, roleplaying good, etc, then 9 minutes of OH NOES WE CAN NEVER DEBATE THEM.

Topicality:
Unless their aff is blatantly abusive (give one visa to one immigrant, for instance) then don't bother.

I think there are two standards for topicality.
One: If a team is intentionally not engaging with the USFG, congratulations, they probably have offensive reasons why topicality is bad. That being said, you'd be better off having a substantial FW debate about why engaging with the USFG is good rather than trying to tell me that queer theory explodes the topic
Two: if you're going to use the USFG, don't be shady. This means I will probably vote on all sorts of T for a team with a policy option and policy impacts that is clearly abusive. I think abuse can be easily shown with FX T affs and Extra-T affs.


Cards: Don't piss on my leg and tell me its rain. Don't read me a card that specifies that the fluid on my leg, is in fact, comprised of distilled rain water. I don't need a card to tell me what is blatantly true or false and neither should you. I will weigh un-carded arguments fairly generously as long as I am familiar enough with the arg to know you're not lying. Debate should be about what you know, not how many lonely nights you've spent in your dimly lit room cutting cards while listening to Bright Eyes.

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

My General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is what you make it. I have an extensive history in circuit policy/ld and college policy debate. I care about education more than fairness, good cards over the quantity of positions, and quality arguments over the number of arguments in a debate.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact in a single speech.

The role of the affirmative is to affirm and the role of the negative is to negate the affirmative in an intellectually rigorous manner. However, I would personally like to hear the affirmative say we should do something. I would prefer to hear about an actor outside of the folks reading the 1AC (Nonprofits, governments, the debate community as a whole, etc) do something but that is not a requirement. Most of it sounds good to me.

Please don’t say racist, sexist, ableist things or things that otherwise participate in -isms . Sometimes these are learning moments. Sometimes these are losing moments.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate. I would like to evaluate the debate with this information ahead of time. More personal issues/things that someone did last year are difficult for me to understand as relevant to my ballot.

I decide debates by figuring out 1. framing issue 2. offense 3. good defense 4. if the evidence is as good as you say it is 5. deciding which world /side would result in a better outcome (whatever that means for the debate in front of me)

These thoughts are fairly general yet firmly how I think about debate.

My RFDs have been less "little c, little d mattered to my ballot" and "let's talk about the conceptual, big-picture things that both sides missed that will help you win the next debate". If you want the small line-by-line issues to matter as much you have to give them weight in your final speech. That requires time, investment in explanation, and comparative claims.

LD***

Tricks, silly arguments, etc. Please skip. I haven't read your ethics phil but I've voted on it when it makes sense. 4+ off is grounds for a condo debate. K links require longer than 15 seconds to explain.

Public Forum****

If you already know what evidence you are going to read in the debate/speech you have to send a document via email chain or provide the evidence on a google document that is shared with your opponents before the debate. Those cards have to be provided before the speech begins.

You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

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.