National Debate Coaches Association National Championships
2023 — Rolling Hills Estates, US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Updated January 2023
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org please put me on the email chain
Pref Shortcuts: 1: substantive arguments about the topic 2: mainstream K's, good T debates 3: Theory, Pomo K's 4: Phil 5-6: Tricks
I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.
My background prior to coming to Harker in 2010 was almost entirely in college policy debate though I have been coaching LD since then and Public Forum since 2016. But it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates.
I do not judge very much anymore but enjoy judging when I am able to do so! Despite not judging a great deal I am very involved in our team's evidence production and preparation and judge lots of practice debates in class so my topic knowledge is fairly strong.
The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.
Critiques: I am familiar with most mainstream critical arguments that are prevalent but anything outside of that is likely to require more explanation. I took a handful of continental philosophy classes in grad school but that was a long time ago and my knowledge of a lot of the underlying literature for lots of critical arguments, particularly high theory, is likely lacking. Having said that I think I am an ok judge for critical arguments, especially when executed technically. I often find the strongest elements of K's to be the link and the weakest to be the alternative, though of course this varies from argument to argument. I also think impact turning is an underutilized strategy though I get that can be hard to pull off at times in LD.
Critical Affs: I think the affirmative should have a meaningful relationship to the topic. Thus topical, soft left affs are often very strategic. I am very sympathetic to t/framework against affs with little or no relationship to the topic. In these debates I think the best aff strategy is to impact turn framework, depending on what that looks like in the context of the aff. But overall I am likely not the best judge for non-T affs.
Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. I often find topicality arguments that are not based on expert/technical definitions of key terms of art in the resolution to be fairly hard for the negative to win. I am also more likely than most judges to vote on reasonability if well explained and this is true for most theory arguments as well.
In debates about counterplan theory, I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. The main exception is that I think that a lot of mainstream counterplans that compete on the function of the affirmative are not competitive (think consultation, delay). I am kind of a sucker for the argument that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive though this is not something I will automatically check in on, especially if the negative has strong explanations for their defense of their counterplan.
I will not judge kick unless instructed to do so and if this is contested I probably lean slightly towards no judge kick. I think debaters should be able to make strategic choices.
Theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time.
Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is a key part of your strategy invest some time.
The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.
Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.
Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.
Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.
Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.
Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery (especially important in online debates), quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.
Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.
Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.
Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.
Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.
Pronouns: she/her ♀️
Please also include: email@example.com
[if the room is empty and I'm not there yet, please feel free to go on in]
I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for 10+ years now. I always disclose. If I forget to, please remind me (I think this is where you learn the most).
I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember:magitude⚠️, timeframe⏳️, probability ⚖️. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts, and compare them with your opponent's as reasons for a judge to prefer your side.
- However, I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.
- Be sure to extend arguments (especially your T voters) even if they're uncontested. If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it. Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.
------------------------- Miscellaneous ----------------------------
Prep and CX: I do not count emailing /flashdriving as prep time unless it takes ~2+ minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner. Please keep track of your speech and prep time.
Full disclosure: Beyond the basic K's like Cap, Security, Biopow, Fem, etc., I'm not familiar with unique K's, and especially where FrameWork tends to be a mess, you might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or I might get lost.
I often read along to the 1AC and 1NC to catch card-clipping, even checking the marked copies.
Note (this was written when I only coached/judged policy)
If you can’t beat a “bad” argument then you are a bad advocate for your cause (and you should lose).
Don't expect me to understand or apply the necessary context to certain words or catch phrases that you might use.
I will try to be fair in evaluating whatever you run. Impact calculus is important.
I think there are a number of ways debate can be done really well (my favorite thing about debate).
I prefer you do what you are best at instead of what you think is best for me. Make me adapt to you.
Tell me why your interpretation is better for debate. Do comparative impact calculus. What impacts are most important (what framework should the judge utilize when evaluating T impacts).
The more specific the links the happier I'll be. I think perms should tend towards utilizing the language of the alternative text and away from the generic "do both" or "plan and every other instance". I find a lot of my decisions usually revolve around a framework argument.
I think topical k affs with advantages that are intrinsic to a simulation of plan action are the best.
The more of the aff it includes the more skeptical I am of the CP’s legitimacy. Competition/Theory arguments are best when based on evidence (especially topic ev). I'm definitely in the "neg conditionality has gotten out of control" camp--1cp 1k probably ok, 1 CP that does the aff, 1 k with an alt that could do the aff and a word PIC definitely absolutely not legit (affs need to learn how to go for theory). Theory requires development and impact calculus.
I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.
If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Bakersfield High School class of 2017
Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021
2x NDT Qualifier
NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021
CEDA Semifinalist - 2021
Damien HS Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2022-Present
Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present
Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Travis Cochran
If there is an email chain I would like to be on it: (if you could put both of these emails on the email chain)
College: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
HS: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
If you have any questions feel free to email me
Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared
I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)
New for 2022-2023:
NATO Rounds Judged: 61 (end of prelims TOC)
Legal Personhood: 4
Mostly going to be in the HS scene this year, my senior year topic was alliances and I am coaching for Damien this year so I have a broad range of topic knowledge from both debating and coaching as well that being said my topic knowledge is includes a wide range of both policy and K so pref me how you see fit.
I have gotten increasingly irritated of Ks not making a specific link because most 1NC cards yall read are ok and most 2NCs don't know how to make a link arg, so I have been defaulting aff more on a link level vs the K
As I am a full year removed from debating I have increasingly voted for fw more and more often and for me its just because the 2AC doesn't have the best answers and 1ARs miss important pieces of offense that are difficult to come back from, and most of the ground and clash args to me have some of the time just became true.
K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehiglight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.
For Critical Affirmatives: I like them, in college and in high school I have read them if you're going to read them though I need a clear understanding of the method that is the most important to me. I find that most K affs lose their method throughout the debate and most times I usually end up voting on presumption because I am not sure what the aff does. I think as ive gotten older this is really true and I really hate it when the aff doesn't have any tangible examples of what their method looks like to hang my hat on which is how i feel that alt/aff methods are won.
K affs VS Framework: I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate
Plan Based Affirmatives: For teams in HS, some of you are not reading a different aff against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K, I have seen some teams do it on the water topic but for the most part you are just reading your big stick policy aff against K teams. I enjoy judging the heg good aff vs 7 off debate, policy aff you do you.
Framework: Yall need to go for what is the role of the negative (RotN) to me I think this is more persuasive than like any type of fairness argument because really RotN is the internal link to any impact argument you are going to make and it means that all of their offense that they are going to go for about their education being better and why your model is bad its all internal link turned by making the arg that they dont have a role for the negative so their revolutionary testing doesnt matter with out a RotN
DA: 1NR on disads have become card dumps and i hate it, explanation is better than just reading a ton of cards like yes read your uq cards on politics but use your link evidence to have a deep explanation of the link. The more specific the disad the better which is not to say i hate the politics disad brovero was my lab leader and drilled me on the ptx disad but I do enjoy the politics throwdown
CP: kind of the same notes for disads the more specific the better, planks are not conditional, condo most of the times is probably good, unless is like 4 or more
1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.
2. I will vote on death good
3. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks - that being said - theory cheap shots are not always persuasive to me but given they are warranted and isolate a clear violation then it means you probably win the debate
4. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st
5. on T most times default to reasonability
6. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - These are fun debates, 2ACs need the standard meta DAs to policy making and policy debate of course counter interpretations and other specific offense vs their standards. FW teams yall always have these long overviews at the top of the 2NC which I do enjoy but yall need to do more work on the line by line in some of these debates because simply cross-applying from the overview does not answer the 2ACs args.
7. No plan no perm is not an argument
8. FW teams need a TVA - this is not necessary but affs need to have some type of framing question on the TVA
9. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.
Ideal 2NR strategies
1. Topic K Generic
2. Politics Process CP
3. Impact Trun all advantages
4. PIC w/ internal net beneift
5. Topic T argument
Rounds Judged: 6
Been judging some LD recently just, a lot of the stuff still applies from above here are some more specific stuff - I was a K debater so take that as you will
1 - Larp/K
2. K affs
4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil
I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.
I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.
I do not flow off the doc.
- I rarely read evidence after debates.
- Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
- Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
- Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards
- I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
- I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
- Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.
Updated for TOC 2023
Email for chain – firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: Harker, Harvard-Westlake
Tl;dr: good for: CPs, DAs, T, non-postmodern Ks. bad for: tricks, pomo, theory debates, phil.
1. I enjoy judging. TOC 2023 will likely be the last tournament I judge for a while. I know how much effort goes into preparing for debate tournaments, let alone a season end tournament like the TOC. I am excited to hear what you have to say.
2. Speed - you should not go your top speed, 80-90% is probably fine most of the time, maybe err on the slow side on (especially short) analytics.
***Theory is an entirely different ballgame - I don't know if theory arguments are just getting shorter or if I'm not catching as much because people go too fast, but people need to slow down a substantial amount. This is one of the most important parts of this paradigm, it is also the most ignored.
3. I care about evidence more than the average judge. I usually read the most important cards after the debate and compare what the evidence actually says against the debaters’ explanations. Evidence is almost never perfect – pointing out flaws in your opponents’ cards, comparing author qualifications, etc. will result in higher points.
4. I will only vote on arguments that I understand and can explain back to the other debater. I will never vote on arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.
5. Arguments should be complete in the first constructive in which they are presented. CPs need to have competition and solvency arguments explicitly made in the NC. DAs must have uniqueness. ACs must include solvency arguments. Ks should have a semblance of a FW argument in the NC. Incomplete arguments can be dispatched by brief, smart analytics.
6. General argument preferences – I prefer quality arguments related to the topic. All things equal, I prefer to hear a core topic DA instead of politics, a K with a strong link to the aff over a consult CP, etc. Of course, if you execute a niche argument really well, go for it, just be aware that the less familiar I am with it, the less likely I am to fully understand it, and the more likely it is that you get a decision that you may not like.
A. Policy arguments (CPs, DAs, etc.)
–I am best for these types of arguments.
-Impact calc + turns case are underutilized/usually a game winner if you do them well.
-The Politics DA is the worst argument that I vote on routinely. Dunking on politics during CX (while still being respectful of course)/dismantling it in the 1ar will likely result in higher points. Unfortunately, affs rarely do this and instead just read 4 impact defense cards :(
-I do not default judge kick, but I am open to it.
-I am open to most CP theory (conditionality, PICs, agent CPs, etc.) but am a hard sell on LD nonsense (must spec status in speech, no neg fiat, etc.). One condo is generally ok, two is pushing it, three or more is no good. However, debates that come down to 1ar theory are among my least favorite to judge (unless it’s a slam dunk)
-That being said, most CP theory arguments other than condo are likely better as competition arguments rather than theory
-I've noticed a proliferation of really horrible process CPs. I don’t like them. Most of these are consult CPs that lack a reason why bindingness/consultation are key – these should easily be beaten by permutations. If you have qualified cards from the literature about the topic (or even close to being about the topic), though, I am good for these.
-I like well executed T debates.
-But I'm usually not thrilled to be judging Nebel over and over again. Nebel/can't spec should be viewed as a last resort (cases where the aff is very very small). I will probably vote aff on the “PICs argument” if both sides debate this argument equally.
-I find myself usually unpersuaded by “only semantics matter” claims on T. A well thought out limits claim is definitely the way to go in front of me.
-On T I’m probably 50-50 on the competing interps/reasonability debate.
-In theory debates, I am generally persuaded by reasonability + drop the argument. I do not like judging theory debates a whole lot.
-I would not read an RVI in front of me. I have a hard time understanding the warrants for these. It will be nearly impossible to get me to vote on one.
-I prefer not to judge debates with out of round violations (disclosure etc.) The exception is if your opponent does not disclose first 3 last 3 - include screenshots/evidence and this is a near slam dunk. Other disclosure violations (round reports, open source, etc.) can be easily beaten by reasonability in front of me. Things like "misdisclosure/opponent lied" are uncomfortable to judge/you must include screenshots/definitive evidence in your speech docs.
-Yes - Neolib, Afropessimism, Set Col, other "structural" identity Ks, Security
-No - pomo. It’s not that am not ideologically against these Ks, I am just very unfamiliar with them which will make it hard for you to win them in front of me. It's unlikely you get higher than a 28.5 unless you are very good at explaining your argument.
-I probably lean neg in FW/K aff debates. Negs should articulate an impact outside of "limits because limits" and affs should have counterinterpretations that solve most of neg offense
-When going for a K on the neg, if your only link is some fancy packaging of "fiat bad" I am not the judge for you.
-Links should be contextualized/turn the case. This does not mean that all your links need to be to the plan; rather, if you explain why your links turn the case under the aff FW, you are in a good spot.
-Ideally the 2NR does most if not all of their work on the line-by-line – I’m fine with a short overview to explain thesis/impact but I’m not a fan of the 4-minute overviews followed by the neg saying “this was in the overview” to answer every 1AR argument.
- Neg teams should frame their link not only against the plan alone but through the lens of the permutation. Likewise, affs should frame their link turns not through the lens of the status quo, but through the alternative.
- I’m most well-versed in consequentialism but I think I understand Kant and some political theory a decent amount. I’m at ELI5 level for almost every other type, so tread carefully. You do not need an explicit standard text.
-I’m pretty tired of every phil debate I judge coming down to induction fails/consequentialism impossible.
-“Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids!” – Trix kids
7. Evidence ethics – if a debater claims their opponent committed an evidence ethics violation, such as clipping, they will stake the debate on that claim. If there’s proof that the accused the debater clipped, they get an L and the lowest points I can give. If the opposing debater did not clip, the accusing party gets an L and the lowest points I can give.
I don’t read along in the speech doc…usually. Usually if you’re talking, I’m flowing. Sometimes, however, I look if I suspect clipping is occurring. If I catch you clipping, I will let the debate finish, but you will lose. I won’t catch everyone who clips, I don’t think it’s my job to constantly check everyone, so when I check/when I don’t may be somewhat arbitrary, but the easy way to not get caught is to not cheat.
If I call clear (multiple times) and you don't clear up/I cannot understand the words you are saying, it is clipping.
Things like bracketing, cutting an author who concludes the other way (as long as it’s not egregious), etc. aren’t round-stopping issues to me. However, I am extremely receptive to theory arguments about them, and doing those things will tank your speaks.
This is how I evaluate these issues, even if no ethics challenge is raised.
If I notice...
-Card from an article which concludes the other way - your speaks get tanked (25) if you don't go for the flow/it is not egregious; you lose if it is integral to your strategy/you would lose the debate without it
-Card with paragraphs missing - you lose
-Clipping - you lose
-Cards that are miscited - you lose
8. Ways to get good speaker points
-Demonstrating topic/content knowledge
-Debating about author quals
-High quality/not scarcely under-highlighted evidence
-Going for an impact turn well
9. Last housekeeping things
-You must share your speech docs with your opponent - email is preferable
- Each debate will have 1 winner and 1 loser. The speech times are set as is prep time. You can’t use CX as prep time. Asking for me to give you a 30 will result in you getting no higher than a 26.
-I like evidence a lot, but good analytics >>> bad cards. Even if your card is A+, you only get credit for how good you explain it in later speeches/when you extend it.
- Debate is a communicative activity, so I don't make my decision by reading through all the cards in the speech doc after the debate. I think I'm a pretty good flow, so I don't backflow unless I think it was my fault. If it's not on my flow, you don't get credit for it - emphasizing/slowing down on certain arguments will greatly enhance my ability to understand them. People need to slow wayyyyy down on theory.
-Please be nice to your opponent
Affiliations: St. Mark's 2022 -> Northwestern 2026
Email Chain: mlcpolicydebate[at]gmail[dot]com and smdebatedocs[at]gmail[dot]com. Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the email's subject line.
-Will vote for any argument given better technical execution
-Don't steal prep
-Turn your camera on if possible
-Don't start your speech if my camera is off
-T debates are great
-Evidence quality matters a lot and reading a few high-quality cards with the intent to define/exclude is much better than spamming low-quality cards
-Biased for the negative on most counterplan theory, but the affirmative can definitely convince me otherwise
-Well-evidenced PICs are amazing
-Process counterplans are not so amazing
-Tell me to judge-kick the counterplan please
-Not too well-versed in any literature besides cap and Agamben
-Long overviews make me sad
-Taking a generic disadvantage and contextualizing it to the 1AC is strategic
-Turns case is awesome and is even better with spin
-However, that only matters if you win a substantial risk of the disadvantage
-Link uniqueness is important
K Affs/T USFG:
-If your strategy is not to defend the resolution traditionally, you should go for a counter-interp that provides the negative a benefit from negating the 1AC
-I personally think procedural fairness is probably an impact, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise
-You can insert rehighlightings
-Good formatting and strategic decision-making get bonus speaks; not making the email chain correctly and wasting time gets less speaks
-Clipping and any "isms" will result in an auto-L and as low speaks as possible
High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).
College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.
Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.
Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.
Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com
Speaker Point Scale
29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.
29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.
28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.
28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.
27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.
< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.
Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.
I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.
I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.
I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.
Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.
Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.
GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.
A few issues that should be clarified:
Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."
Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.
Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.
Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.
Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.
Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.
Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.
Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.
Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.
Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.
Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.
Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.
Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.
Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.
I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.
Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.
I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.
STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES
I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.
After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.
I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.
I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.
Hi, I'm Gio, a current sophomore at Duke University. I debated in LD for Harrison HS and got 13 career bids (3 bids my junior year and 10 my senior year). I mainly read Ks, but you should read arguments you're good at.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Obvi, don't say anything racist, sexist or homophobic, etc. I would say that I judge very similarly to Hertzig and have the same views on debate. Here is his paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=3081.
Hello, my name is Lesly De Anda She/Her - Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Some things about me: I Graduated from Steam Legacy High School class of 2019’ debated for 4 years for Los Angeles Urban Debate League (LAMDL for short) I attended Fullerton College where I debated for 2 years in JV-Open Policy Debate to transferring to UC Riverside. I no longer debate competitively, but I am active in judging and coaching as much as I can. I am Policy Coach - STEAM LEGACY HS and affiliated with LAMDL. In the past I judged Policy Debate only but I now have dipped my feet in LD Debate and Public Forum.So I am becoming more versatile, I am still a little new to the lingo so please be patient with me.
Recieving High Speaks: I love strong speakers and debaters who asks great CX questions, I love to feel the clash in the room. I tend not to pay attention to CX but when it leads to clash I will take it into consideration. Please address me by my name and talk to me before round, I hate going into round feeling like I don't know anyone lol. Debate is a show, do your BEST and be CHARISMATIC this is your show and we are all just watching.
Recieving Low Speaks: if u create a hostile environment for the other debaters in the room or people in the room i will end the round and vote up the other team immediately.
- If say something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, any ism's etc. I WlLL DROP YOUR SPEAKER POINTS. i get it, debate is a competitive sport that can get very heated, but to me, this is an educationional space and should also make you feel safe. be a good person to the people you share this space with and contribute to the great things that this activity contributes in the best way you can do such.
- If you have spectators in your round, please be respectful I will LOWER your speaks and and VOTE YOU DOWN if you are TEXTING and even INTERACTING with them IRKS me and is super DISRESPECTFUL.
Spreading - Is okay with me as long as everyone in the room can fully understand you - remember you can read 8 off but if I didn’t understand you who does it benefit in round ? If you ask me if I can understand spreading then I will tell you no ._. Read my paradigm.
CX - I will NOT vote on anything during CX UNLESS brought up in the constructives or debater asks me too, if you are going to create a strategy ask me to flow, if not I will not pay attention to CX.
Prep - take the time you need before a round, the internet sometimes sucks and computers act up it happens, do not steal prep time while flashing or emailing files. I am very understanding so please do not take advantage or else I will be force to stop the round. If you need to cut a card while you are reading pls send a revise version before the next speech, I find it unjust and unfair.
Flowing - I do flow everything ( not CX unless stated to), but I will not flow if your spreading is illegible, if you know your spreading is not as good as it needs to be do not make me work harder to understand.
Policy/K’ Affs - I ran both myself, but have no biasness towards either both are awesome to run! Just make sure you know how to defend yourself against Topicality.
Topicality - T is work and you have to put in the work in order to win my vote on T, if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability. Good interps of what a "topical" plan should be --- that being said i will default to the better interp/definition and vote accordingly.
K’s - I LOVE A GOOD K debate and usually do vote on the K if the links/impacts are made clear. Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative then I will drop the K and vote on the AFF on this one. PLEASE do your research, and explain what the alternative does, and how the aff links into such.
(Policy debates)Tag team CX- Once you are in Varsity , I don't believe you should be tag teaming.
After a year of judging, I feel I am probably best at evaluating clash rounds than straight policy rounds, although I primarily judged the latter last year and enjoyed it.
Good judge instruction feels like a lost art and will be rewarded handsomely. The best debaters make my job pretty simple by accurately pointing out the key issues in the round, why those issues are key, and explaining why they are ahead on those issues.
I care far more about your grasp of the arguments you choose to read than the actual content of the arguments. Please demonstrate a high understanding of strategy, regardless of what you read. I would prefer if you stay away from exceptionally bad theory arguments.
Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter.
Below are some preferences I have for rounds that are fairly malleable. Even though these were not my favorite arguments, I have voted for a state bad link, a "trigger warnings" theory argument, and Kant takes out settler colonialism.
1 - Always enjoy policy debates with quality research. These are my favorite types of debates. However, sillier impact turns (spark, CO2 ag) are more difficult to win if handled properly. IR-based impact turns are fair game.
2 - Really enjoy topicality. I think there is almost always a better violation than Nebel. Precision is still probably good.
3 - I like some kritik debates - I much prefer specific links to some portion of the aff instead of state good links packaged as having some relation to the topic. These 2NRs must draw lines from the 1AC/1AR to be persuasive.
4 - When done well, theory debates are enjoyable. I tend to think DTA is persuasive against most CP theory (except condo...) but it is up to the debaters to resolve this.
5 - I am least interested in judging arguments that rely on your opponent missing a barely-warranted argument or are attacks towards your opponent's character or background. Debate is about argumentative flexibility, not individual people. Please clash and weigh.
6 - LD philosophy debate, when substantive, is great. Under EM or EC, please be sure to compare offense.
7 - Clash debates are almost always interesting. I have been on both sides and would be happy to judge these.
8 - Disclosure is good, but I'm more convinced debaters should make a good effort to allow for engagement in round that meet an arbitrary threshold of disclosure (e.g. open source v full text, etc)
I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.
1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.
2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.
3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.
4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.
5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.
6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.
7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.
Some thoughts of mine:
1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.
2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.
3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.
4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to a theory argument. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.
5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.
6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.
Tabroom Paradigm January, 2023
Interlake High School Speech and Debate Advisor
I am new to my role as Debate Advisor. I debated high school policy and college CEDA debate long ago. I was involved in the speech and debate community from 1979 as a freshman at Sehome High School in Bellingham, WA, through 1987 at Western Washington University.
HOW I DECIDE
I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative/pro advocacy versus those of the competing negative/con advocacy.
I am NOT the judge to present lots of theory to. Please just run a topical, well-reasoned case if you are on the affirmative and run your disadvantages (with specific links, clearly stated implications/voters) or counterplans when you are on the negative.
Save your strength and voices for theory rants in other rounds.
Finally, be nice, be funny and act like you enjoy the activity and the people you are competing against.
Please speak loudly, with emphasis and meaning.
Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the last speeches.
Please extend evidence clearly with a reference to where it was on the flow (e.g. 3rd answer).
I really appreciate when debaters can bring their arguments down to earth and provide some tangible impacts to decide on. Paint a picture of the AFF/ NEG world for me, so I can understand why the argument you're making matters. Tell me why to vote for you!
I dislike 1) when debaters try to speak faster than they are able to clearly, 2) rudeness, 3) “They are stupid” comments. I really dislike personal attacks on opponents. Such behavior usually results in loss of speaker points and if carried too far could be the cause of a loss.
Good cross-examination/crossfire matters a great deal to me. Questioners should ask questions to expose holes in their opponents’ cases and use follow up questions to answers to gain an advantage and ask questions in a way that is clear but tough for the opponents to answer. Respondents should directly answer the question or talk about good arguments they have made related to the question. Citing sources and specific warrants in your answers is a bonus—as is answering right away without delays because you are trying to figure out an answer.
SPEED (Sorry, please no)
Open Policy, LD: I don’t do well with excessive speed. I’ve been out of the activity for years and frankly it’s hard for me to write as fast as I used to or read my flow when I do. I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.
In Novice/JV divisions of Policy, LD, and in ALL divisions of public forum debate: I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.
I debated at Berkeley. Go Bears! For college debates, please add email@example.com
I will totally talk during your debate. I haven't judged on this topic since camp, so I might ask yall to clarify acronyms since those are big this year, or just skip bad arguments I'm not interested in (cough, new affs bad theory, cough cough).
Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.
Theory: rarely debated well, but gorgeous when perfected. With that in mind, I have some biases here:
Aff Biases: Ifiat.
Neg Biases: Condo. I'm a bad judge for going for Condo. Consider this the strongest opinion in this paradigm.
Nobody who understands debate dislikes hearing a debate about the case or go for a DA. They don't get their own section. Do it.
A few closing comments: unsorted
-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.
-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.
-Creative strategies are great, and I love a new DA as much as the next person. With that in mind, politics rules, and sometimes if it ain't broke don't fix it.
-Arguments I won't vote for
-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate
-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea
-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate
-new affs bad
I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.
-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.
-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.
-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.
-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.
-I don’t flow RVIs.
Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Currently debate for UC Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker.
yes email chain please -- firstname.lastname@example.org
I flow straight down on my laptop.
These things suck. Everybody lies and says they are agnostic but in my experience nobody but maybe 10 people really mean it. I am not going to pretend like I don't have preferences and won't internally eye-roll and react negatively to certain arguments, but I will try my absolute hardest to stick to my flow (with the exception of the arguments clearly identified in this paradigm as non-starters).
That in mind, here is my general approach to judging and some preferences:
I was largely a k debater in high school but I am exclusively a policy debater in college. I feel comfortable judging both sides of the spectrum. Regardless of the issue at hand, evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read every card mentioned by name in the final rebuttals before making my decision.
I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points (addendum: this does not mean I want you to give a 5 minute overview to "frame out" their offense - under no circumstances should judge instruction come before line by line.)
Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and have lots of good evidence. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.
Non-resolutional debate -
I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution.
I have been in many of these debates, mostly on the aff and always impact turning some part of T. I think that raises my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates. If you do have a counter-interpretation, tell me why your offense doesn't link to that model and it resolves some predictability/limits/whatever.
- I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. As someone that genuinely subscribes to a lot of leftist political ideals, I find this sort of revolting. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conviently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.
- Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.
- Procedural fairness is not a silver bullet for aff offense. If this is your impact, a vague sentence about not weighing the aff is not sufficient for me to zero all of their stuff, especially if they have impact turns to your model. I have never heard the sentence "procedural fairness is the only impact your ballot can remedy," nor do I know what it means, please don't say it at me.
- Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.
- I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.
Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework.
Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the alt doesn't solve the aff.
Usually these debates are pretty bad to judge because people just spread through their blocks and don't do line by line. I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans. I will totally kick positions for you if you tell me to, but please remind me to do so -- I have no theoretical qualms with judge kick, but I sometimes forget to do it unless you tell me to in the 2NR.
I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments (with the exception of ConCon -- I think there is a case to be made that we should just arbitrarily exclude that counterplan because it is so clearly bad for debate.)
All of that being said, I also think most cheat-ey cps don't compete! So if you're aff, you're not tanked -- you are just better off going for the perm than, say, theory.
Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff.
If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.
I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.
I am not comfortable evaluating arguments about debaters being in the same room together, "the COVID procedural," or anything else that has to do with out of round conduct. If you make the debate about this, I will be angry with you and likely vote you down.
Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.
If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.
EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:
1. There seem to be issues with clarity plaguing this activity. To try and discourage this, I will do the following things: a.) I will never open your documents during the debate. I will read cards after if you tell me too. b.) I will say clear 5 times, after that, I'm not flowing c.) If, on the other hand, you are clear, I will give way too high of speaks. Some of the best teams in this activity sound great -- its clearly possible to win without being unflowable.
As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.
I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.
Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.
I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab
No RVI's ever under any circumstances
- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding your round.
- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)
- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.
- In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool or interesting. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team that can't make your arguments without being mean to other debaters, strike me.
running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:
new affs bad
no neg fiat
plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates
my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for
Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up
I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)
email me if you have questions -- I kind of suck at responding to email sometimes but I will get around to answering your questions.
I debated for LAMDL in high school (Bravo’20) and now debate at CSULB. I currently coach Huntington Park High School and am an instructor at LAMDL, which means I’m fairly knowledgeable on whatever the high school topic is. Feel free to email me if you are interested in debating at CSULB.
People who have shaped my debate opinions: Deven Cooper, Cameron Ward, Jaysyn Green, Geo Liriano, Toya Green, Jonathan Meza, Curtis Ortega, Elvis Pineda, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega
End of season update
For tournament pref sheets, the first section is all you really need to determine where you want to put me, I've left a more detailed paradigm below because I enjoy reading other people's paradigms when bored and it has helped me personally in understanding debate.
How I prefer to judge:
- I heavily decide debates by technical execution as long as the arguments extended have a warrant as to why I should consider them as true. This means you must explain why your opponent dropping an argument matters and extend arguments fully across each speech. That being said, I don’t necessarily require strict line-by-line debating, just that you answer every argument made at some point in your speech and clearly signpost what you are answering.
- 2NR/2AR speeches that start off with an overview identifying parts of the flow they have won and why that means they win the entire debate make the ability to decide a lot easier than immediately going to the line by line. Both sides should isolate the most important portions of the debate, acknowledge whether they are ahead/behind on certain questions, and do their best to resolve them in their favor. 2 or 3 things actually matter at the end of the debate, and both sides are better off spending their time there than trying to extend everything in the last speech.
- Evidence quality matters a lot to me - the way cards are highlighted and how many warrants for a claim actually stem from the text has been a rising issue in my opinion. More teams should be willing to call out wack evidence for what it is, and I think I’m more willing than most to not give weight to bad evidence/substantially reduce their weight in a debate than most. To be clear, this is not me saying I will dismiss a piece of evidence because I personally disagree with its claims/warrants, this is more about current debate practices that lead to wack cards.
- That being said, logical analytic arguments are usually the best arguments I hear in debates, probably because they come from the debaters themselves and not the blocks/cards that other people cut. Setting these up in cross-examination is fun to watch and results in higher speaks.
- Clarity over speed — most of yall are going too fast to allow for pen time needed to get warrants for your arguments down. Other times, you’re going so fast that I simply don’t understand what you’re saying in terms of clarity and substance. If you can’t flow yourself when you hear a recording of your own speech, please readjust. If I can’t explain your argument back to you in the rfd, then it makes it less likely that I’ll consider it.
- I’ve debated every style and have been on “both sides” of the debate, and I enjoy listening to all of them equally. I am willing to listen to any argument made in debate as long as its explained and impacted out. There is no need change the content of your argument in front of me, just win the flow and you’ll win the debate.
- I appreciate being organized outside of your speeches as well: email formatting (Tournament Name - Round - Team (Aff) v. Team (Neg)), starting the round on time and minimizing in-between-speech activities, etc. It helps your speaks.
Speaker point guide
Regardless of a W or L, the best speeches do what is listed above and are full of passion, judge instruction, and provide the clearest path to the ballot possible. Avoiding over-complication, closing every door, sounding like you want to be there, and being respectful to your opponents are what will get you the highest points possible.
29.6 - 30 - you went for the S-tier strategy in the round, attempted to close all doors, had an expert explanation of your arguments and avoided over-complication
29.1 - 29.5 - you went for the A-tier strategy with 1-2 missed opportunities to capitalize on, had a great explanation of your arguments and provided great judge instruction
28.6 - 29 - You executed your strategy but did not go for the best one in the round, provided decent judge instruction but left a couple doors open, and had a good explanation of your arguments
28.1 - 28.5 - A definitive strategy or clear judge instruction was not found, and explanation of arguments is enough for me to understand what’s going on.
27 - 28 - Arguments were extended but not explained as round-winning, and there is no judge instruction/strategy to be found.
25 - A debater has committed an evidence-based ethics violation (clipping, miscut evidence, cheating, etc.)
0 - 20 - Discriminatory action made in bad-faith/full-intent has taken place. Depending on the severity and the request of debaters, tabroom/coaches may or may not get involved.
- I am all for being petty/sassy/having those ethos moments in debate, but I still expect yall to have respect for your opponents. I don’t care for the beef yall have outside the round.
- Song Challenge: both sides get one chance to recommend a song for me to listen to in the RFD. It can’t be a song I already know. If you get past that, +.1 if I like it, +.0 if i find it mid, and -.1 if i don’t like it.
- If you have a fully disclosed wiki (i only require cites of all arguments read and tournaments attended with round reports, not open sourced docs), +.1.
- The best cross-examinations point out important logical holes in a team’s arguments and set up future ones as well, and typically sit on 2-3 major topics. You are free to use it however you want, but clarifying muddled portions of the debate and using CX in this manner is the best way for you to receive boosts in speaker points.
- Asking clarifying questions about arguments read in a speech requires CX time or prep time to be used.
- Teams are not required to answer your questions after cross-ex.
- Aff: I need K Affs to clearly explain how they generate solvency in the 1AC, whether its an epistemological shift in thinking or advocating for a movement, etc. Otherwise, I am completely fine with the negative making new arguments in later speeches if the 2AC shift is clearly identified. The best way to visualize solvency for me is through material examples grounded in aff evidence or explaining why a specific historical example is in line with the affirmative’s advocacy, which requires a higher threshold of analysis in front of me.
- Neg: presumption arguments in relation to the ballot don’t make sense to me unless the aff says the ballot is key for solvency. more presumption arguments should be made about the aff’s solvency, spillover, and materiality claims.
K v. K Debates
- The team that provides actual examples for the DA’s against the other side’s theory of power/advocacy/performance is more likely to win in front of me. These debates are theoretically heavy in nature and I need examples of how this impacts lived experiences, and how that side’s mode of study results in materially worse consequences.
- Affirmative teams should explain the permutation more and how it would actually look like — whether that means explaining what a combination of both theories looks like or how it is materially implemented, I need something. DA’s that stem from the neg’s K not accounting for x thing about the aff and the alt failing to solve the aff’s impacts do much better in front of me than DA’s that say not talking about the aff is bad.
- I have become more willing than most to disregard the permutation on either theory or substance, mostly because I think many aff permutations are not explained beyond the perm text and many DA’s to the K boil down to “arbitrary exclusion da’s” that can be resolved by an “alt solves the case” argument made by the negative.
- I love most variations of the Cap K (boooooooo semiocap), especially ones that center marginalized groups and turn more into K’s of organizing/state engagement strategies than cap root cause arguments.
- Aff: I prefer counter-interpretations that attempt to establish an actual model of debate for many teams to engage in rather than 2AC interps only suited to that particular affirmative. I personally believe Elijah Smith’s article about the Kritik-Focus-Model of debate is something that more people should read because it attempts to establish a predictable and limiting approach to K debate. Other examples include Tiffany-Dillard Knox’s passive voice articles, DSRB’s three-tier model, Rashad Evans’ Intersectional Debate articles, etc. They not only provide defense against the limits DA’s that inevitably come, but it allows teams to have meaningful interp v. counter interp debates about the quality of argumentation that results out of each model as well, and lets the aff resolve the DA’s that they make against framework as well. If this is not you, you are much better suited going for the impact turn by itself rather than trying to counter-define words in the resolution along with it.
- Neg: Clash/Fairness are all equally good in front of me, but I think its important for teams to understand that these exist on a sliding scale. How much clash/fairness the aff erodes is an important question that can be best explained by providing examples of what the aff’s model of debate (or lack thereof) justifies, and why that is a bad approach to debate as a competitive space. You should have at least 30 seconds of your speech dedicated to explaining why a high standard of clash and fairness should be maintained, because at the end of the day they are internal links to the skills we get from debate. In most instances, I prefer SSD over TVA arguments. This is because I only vote for non-carded TVA’s if they’re dropped since most of the time I conclude a risk of the DA outweighs. However, if a TVA has a solvency advocate included and the negative sufficiently explains how it accesses a major portion of the aff, the threshold for aff answers becomes significantly higher.
Policy v. K
- Extinction Policy Affs: each side should spend more time winning the framing of impacts if they want to win the debate.
- Soft-Left Policy Affs: conversely, I do not think the aff needs to win ontology-not-true arguments in order to win these debates. If the aff wins that they are a net-better option than the squo even if they use the state or do not address the root cause of whatever the K is, winning case probably means the aff is a DA to the perm. I would encourage negative teams to read a lot more case defense against these aff rather than just links on the K to push back against the permutation and the above argument.
- Most 2AC’s read generic “progress possible” “state good” cards that the plan does not help to progress or eventually result in. I am more willing than most to disregard these cards/minimize their utility.
- neg teams should engage the case a lot more than just reading impact defense
Policy v. Policy
- Case: Affs should prioritize well-explained internal links to solvency/impacts over shoving the aff with 3-4 impact scenarios that they most likely don’t access.
- DA: In a scenario where both teams are reading extinction-level arguments, teams should spend more time talking about the link/internal link portions of the DA than turns case arguments to establish priority.
- CP: Counterplans that compete on immediacy, certainty, or off of internal net-benefits alone that don’t solve the aff require substantial theory debating in order for me to vote on them. The 2AC strategy to list off permutations as fast as you can is unflowable and unclear as to what the perms even mean, and aff teams should spend more time describing what they actually are. no judge kick make your own decisions. I like process debates.
- Theory: Unless dropped, conditionality is probably the only reason to reject the team. I’m not aff/neg leaning on anything in particular, technical execution decides these debates. Teams should slow down when debating counterplan theory.
- Coffee > (HUGE GAP) monster, red bull, any energy drink
- Highlight color: yellow > blue > any light custom color > purple > green
- Pens: sharpie s-gel gunmetal > b2p > funny design > BIC cristal > random pen on the floor > g2 pens (unless they custom like the NAUDL ones)
Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.
I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.
· Add me in the email chain before the round starts
· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow
· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.
· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate
· I’m more techy
· I like performance and K’s and T
· Framework needs to be clear and concise.
I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.
I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.
Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.
Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.
I dislike trick debate
My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions
Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much
I debated for 2.5 years at Cal State Long Beach. I am now a debate coach at Cal State Long Beach. I was a K Debater running arguments pertaining to Afro-Pess, Misogynoir, Reproductive Justice (& Feminism in general) , sexual politics, and colonialism. During my time at Long Beach I also competed in IPDA and Parli; also having debate experience in World Schools.
Please add my email to the chain: email@example.com
I understand the debate space as an academic site centered on the development and dissemination of knowledge. I think of myself as a big picture judge; what is the role of the judge? How should I evaluate arguments? What about their plan, methodology, alt, etc. is bad or harmful? how do arguments interact with each other? I understand the debate as it is explained to me, and that is left in the hands of the competitor :)
I don't think there is any one way to debate, I think of most arguments as valuable and deserving of attention. Come as you are and say what you gotta say :)
Go ahead and speak at the speed you are most comfortable.
I flow on paper and I also tend to flow CX paying attention to interesting moments or points made.
I also pay heavy attention to the way power flows through the debate space and I am critical of the space people take up within round. With that said I like it when debates get heated and people get sassy but just make sure to be reasonable with one another.
Tell me how to navigate the debate. Persuade me and you have my ballot.
If you have any questions feel free to ask but other than that, Happy Debating!
Jaysyn Green (she/her)
-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualled to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.
-Have coached for 10 years; am currently at Lynbrook and Silver Creek High Schools. I judge and coach all forms of speech and debate.
I don't see myself as having too many conscious biases against certain kinds of argument.
I'll listen to all styles -- K, policy, phil, theory, etc. I care more about how you argue your positions than the actual content of the positions.
There was way more phil and theory read when I debated, so feel free to go for that stuff, although on theory I definitely do not default to an offense-defense paradigm (if that's how you want me to evaluate the theory flow, you have to argue explicitly for that).
I also think I may be a good judge for kritiks because I mainly coached k debate this year.
I'm probably the worst at evaluating policy v policy debates. When I did LD, it had not yet mutated into one-person policy. I can still keep up if you line-by-line each others' arguments and do weighing, but if your speeches are just long overviews that list out a bunch of impacts without engaging the other side, I guarantee I will get lost.
Here are the things I like to see:
- Good, explicit weighing, a clear ballot story, and clearly implicating/explaining the function of your arguments.
- Original analysis as opposed to merely cards.
That's about it honestly, but you'd be surprised how few rounds nowadays contain those things.
Side note: I won't vote on disclosure theory, because I feel weird about voting someone down for something that happened outside of the debate.
IMPORTANT: Please, please, please be fast with sending evidence. If it's taking too long I'm going to insist on continuing the debate.
Second rebuttal/summary obviously can't frontline everything, so make sure you focus on answering the responses that are most threatening to your side.
The final focus is so short that you really have to focus -- narrow things down -- and explain not only why your side is ahead, but anticipate/answer the strongest reason your opponent could provide for why they're ahead. Don't ONLY weigh, also respond to the other side's weighing -- or else the debate might end up looking an awful lot like a tie.
I do, admittedly, like theory and kritiks in other events. In PF, not so much. Not saying you can't read them -- but you probably shouldn't do so if your strat is just to read them bc you've seen on this paradigm that I mainly judge other events in which those positions are more popular. **Definitely do not run these positions at lay tournaments/against lay debaters. I personally think one of the benefits of PF is that it's a good activity for people who don't like fast/technical debate styles. So I'd prefer you don't use theory/kritiks to ruin their day.
EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students.
Please just call me Hertzig.
Please include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)
CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.
Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)
Trad debate - 1
T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)
High theory Ks - 4
Theory - 4 (see below)
Tricks - strike
*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).
If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.
I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.
I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).
I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.
For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).
Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.
To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.
Sean Kennedy - Debated at: University of Kansas
Coaching for: University of Kansas and Shawnee Mission South High School
In general I would prefer to judge based upon the perspective presented by the debaters in the debate. Framing issues are very important to me, and I think debaters should make it clear what they believe those issues are through tone, organization, or explicit labeling (ie "this is a framing issue for the debate" or some similar phrase). Embedded clash is fine, but I think that concept carries some limitations - there is only so far that I am willing to stretch my reading of a (negative/affirmative) argument on X page/part of the flow, that does not reference Y (affirmative/negative) argument on another page/part of the flow. Some of my more difficult decisions have revolved around this point, so to avoid any ambiguity debaters should be explicit about how they want arguments to be read within the debate, especially if they intend a particular argument to be direct refutation to a specific opponent argument.
Beyond that I will try to keep as open a mind about arguments as possible - I have enjoyed initiating and responding to a diverse set of arguments during my time as a debater, and I have had both good and bad experiences everywhere across the spectrum, so I think as a judge I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance.
As a caveat to that - I do think that the affirmative has an obligation to respond to the resolution, though I think whether that means/requires a plan, no plan, resolution as a metaphor, etc is up to the debaters to decide during the round. However, I am generally, although certainly not always, persuaded by arguments that the affirmative should have a plan.
I am also willing to believe that there is zero risk or close enough to zero risk of link/impact arguments to vote on defense, should the debate appear to resolve the issue that strongly.
Whether or not I kick a counterplan/alt for the 2nr (what some people call "judge conditionality" or "judge kick") depends on what happens in the debate. I will always favor an explicit argument made by either team on that score over some presumption on my part. I have similar feelings about presumption when there is a counterplan/alt. The reason for this is that although there may be logical reasons for kicking advocacies or evaluating presumption in a certain light, I think that debate as a pedagogical activity is best when it forces debaters to make their choices explicit, rather than forcing the judge to read into a choice that was NOT made or requiring that both teams and the judge have an unspoken agreement about what the logical terms for the debate were (this is probably more obvious and necessary in some cases, ie not being able to answer your own arguments, than I think it is in the case of advocacies).
Please be kind to your competitors and treat their arguments with respect - you don't know where they come from or what their arguments mean to them, and I think this community can only work if we value basic decency towards others as much as much as we do argumentative prowess. In that vein, jokes are good, but I'm certainly much less amused by personal attacks and derision than I am by dry humor or cheekiness.
New Note - I'm totally uninterested in adjudicating arguments that endorse self harm. I won't auto-vote against you but if someone you're debating asks me to stop the debate I will. If I end up voting for you, you will not like your points.
Things like wipeout/spark/other impact turns or like "death k" are a little different than this category for me and you can still read those types of hypothetical impact turns as they don't feel the same as [self harm good].
In person thing - its easier to flow your speeches if you face towards me when you give them - giving speeches with your back to me is :c
I am a coach at the University of Texas-Austin, Liberal Arts and Sciences Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School
Email Chain: yes, email@example.com
Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.
While there are some exceptions, most debaters I've judged the last few years are pretty unclear, so its likely I will miss some arguments. Zoom has magnified this issue for me (not necessarily the debaters fault). Final rebuttals offer you a space to retrace the part(s) of the debate you think are most relevant to the decision. This both makes it much more likely I will understand your argument and will likely improve your speaker points.
The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.
Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.
Another new thing - my favorite debates are ones where the affirmative defends a topical example of the resolution (how you interpret the words in the resolution are up to you, but in this scenario you would defend a change from the status quo and defend the implications of your change w/either a traditionally topical plan or a well thought out and carded counter-interpretation) - the negative then criticizes the representations, justifications, philosophy, ethics, or method of the plan and make arguments about whether I should weigh the plan or prioritize something else first. Obviously you shouldn't try to over-adapt and do this if its not your thing, but well executed policy v K debates with lots of research, examples, and high quality evidence will be rewarded with extremely high points for all four participants.
newer - I don't judge many non-framework debates anymore. I tend to vote neg when the neg wins clash is the biggest/most portable impact + explanation for how it improves over the year as a result of their interp and access aff offense via TVA or SSD. I tend to vote AFF when they win an impact turn to the end result of clash alongside robust answers to the NEG ballot can't access that offense args. I think 2NCs that lack an explanation of how 2nd and 3rd level testing occurs under their interp and changes over the year, with examples, lacks credibility when going for only clash matters (you can maybe win the debate on a different terminal impact, but lately I haven't really voted on other ones). Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. You can persuade me to think one way or the other in any given debate and I've learned to love judging these debates because I often learn new things about the activity and its potential.
older - but not un-true
I find myself voting negative a lot on procedural fairness a lot, even though I don't think this is the most persuasive version of T. The reason is that K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Testing arguments become much more persuasive to me when you give specific examples for how those would occur. What neg args would you be able to read against a potential TVA? Why is it good for the 2AC to research those positions, how would you researching answers to their answers be beneficial? A lot of this stuff just gets assumed and I think that a lot of repetitiveness from most framework 2NCs can be substituted for this kind of depth early in the debate. 2NRs sometimes seem to spend so much time on why they access AFF lit base/impacts that they don't end up extending a terminal impact or external offense at all. I think it's difficult to win a debate when you basically go for a CP w/o a net benefit.
-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine]
-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.
-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.
-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way
-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can potentially win that agenda politics disads are not a logical opportunity cost.
-uniqueness controls the direction of the link typically makes the most sense to me, but you can probably convince me otherwise
I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.
Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.
RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.
Policy/K - both great - see above for details.
Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.
Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.
Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.
If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.
"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.
I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Speed: You do you but quality over quantity with clarity
Voting issues are not necessary
Jargon or technical language should be kept to a minimum
I don’t count flashing as prep unless you are taking advantage
You don’t have to constantly remind me that your opponent dropped such and such argument(s)--don’t rely on a win because they dropped x amount of arguments
Evidence, analytical and empirical--state your source
Roadmaps and overviews
Weigh your arguments
Card cutting- you will lose the round
I debated LD, PF, CX, and Parli in highschool. The main event was Parli
Went to TOC for PF and was ranked 5th in the nation for Parli.
TLDR; Run anything you want, in order of my favour: LARP, Theory, K, Performance, Heavy Phil, Trix. I flow everything I can hear/reasonably read. I will say now tho I been out of the game for a while so may not be as fast as I used to be.
I'm tabula rasa, so I won't lean to any specific argument over another, so run what you'd like. Though I will not fill in any gaps for you and if I cannot say for certain you have won the round by the end, you will not win. It is most strategic for you to
a.) tell me which arguments you have won
b.) why you won them
c.) and why that means you won the round.
Prefs (In order of my understanding)
LARP / Case Debate - 1
Theory - 1
Philosophy - 1/2
K's - 2
Performance - 3
30: Perfectly performed debate on all layers + you were entertaining to judge.
29+: All layers of the debate were handled very well.
28+: Most layers of the debate were handled well.
27+: Some layers were handled well.
26+: Missed critical aspects of the debate and didn't handle most layers adequately.
25+: Fatal error / Lot to improve on.
0: Defending sexism, racism, etc
a. If you're going for a K, make sure the framework, link, impact, and alt are clearly stated. Provide a ROTB when applicable to make my job easier. If it's a K that is uncommon on the circuit, spend 15 seconds explaining the thesis PLEASE
b. If you say "the alt is to vote neg", provide justification in the sense of analysis, logic, or evidence.
c. General links are not ideal. Give me something directly from the aff case that links the case.
a. In addition to everything else stated above, give me good reasons why the aff gets to be non topical (if you are non topical).
b. Creative but logical alts make me more inclined to vote for you.
c. If you don't have me convinced by the 1AR, I probably won't vote for your K Aff.
a. Clever plans that go outside the expectations of the resolution but still are justifiably topical are good. Be very specific in what your plantext contains. (All the different types of Specs).
b. Give me a solvency advocate. Ideally two. Go for the perm.
c. (For Parli) Give me a copy of your plantext on a separate piece of paper before or during your 1AC.
a. Please, PLEASE, prove why the counterplan is competitive.
b. Counterplans should have advantages independent of the rest of the debate.
c. Perms by the neg are valid. Convince me though.
a. More recent evidence is better than not.
b. A direct link is better. Something specifically from the aff you're facing.
c. Give me quantifiable impacts.
a. In LD, CX, and PF you can spread all you want provided you send me a speech document.
b. In Parli I am fine with a fast pace however I won't allow LD / CX speeds simply because I cannot guarantee I'll catch everything.
c. I cannot spell if my life depended on it and I care less still to try so just keep that in mind.
d. If anything isn't answered on this paradigm, ask me briefly before the round.
Debated at Claremont, 2019-2021
Coaching for Peninsula, 2021-Present
Please have the email ready to send before start time.
I will evaluate debates according to the arguments made. Two important notes:
- Arguments need warrants in the speech they were introduced. I'll be willing to ignore new arguments entirely if something is said about it or if it is introduced in the 2AR.
- If debating is relatively equal, I will read cards to decide who has a better argument that is consistent with the explanations given in the final rebuttals. Sometimes I will read cards regardless, especially if instructed to do so.
I most enjoy policy arguments that are supported by recent, high-quality evidence. I think zero-risk is incredibly unlikely, unless a team makes an argument that is incoherent (e.g. bill passed).
The 1AR generally under-explains deficits. It's usually the only thing that matters, so explain them more instead of reading bad theory arguments.
Against process counterplans, I am more persuaded by perm do cp with reasons that interpretation of certainty/immediacy is good. I could be persuaded by limited intrinsicness if supported by an argument that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive, but I can be persuaded that textual competition is bad. Textual alone is an obvious disaster.
The neg should talk about the case. The aff should too.
Shortest section b/c few opinions. Read lots of cards and do lots of evidence comparison, and you're in a pretty good spot.
If it's in the 1NC, or not about a counterplan, you should probably take it out.
Theory arguments against cheating counterplans are good and I appreciate well-crafted interpretations. Here are a couple of arguments that I could (not) be persuaded by.
- International fiat. The neg can fiat functionally infinite actors, and any combination of them, to do whatever the neg wants them to. This makes generating deficits essentially impossible and is magnified when the neg fiats multiple actors. The best aff interpretation would probably depend on the topic, given 'USFG' is not in every resolution.
- Process CPs. You would need a much better interpretation than 'process CPs bad' but most that are read are blatantly illegitimate. They also don't compete, and in my mind, it is easier to win going for a permutation with reasons your interpretation of certainty/immediacy is good than advancing a theory interpretation that likely loses to an arbitrariness argument.
- If the counterplan is vague and not supported by evidence, I would be more persuaded by a deficit (regardless of whether or not you have evidence) than a theory argument about solvency advocates.
Conditionality: neg-leaning, but not impossible. The 2NR needs to do impact calculus, and actually play defense to aff arguments. The aff should give reasons why they need straight turns against CPs. Time and strategy skew don't matter because every argument intentionally skews both. The number has never had any bearing on my decision, because I care far more about why the neg should be stuck with straight turns than the 1AR being difficult. Pointing out why the way the neg reading conditional advocacies in a contradictory manner made it impossible to generate straight turns against each is good.
I don't love judging topicality debates, but I judge them a lot. I tend to agree with the aff, but I probably vote neg more. The neg needs evidence that explicitly defines a word in the resolution. If the word the neg is defining, and claiming the plan violated, is in the plan text, the neg must present an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (in the 2NR). The aff needs to win that they meet that interpretation, or counter-define the words the neg defined.
I think predictability matters more than limits. I tend to think that trying to make the topic as small as possible usually results in an interpretation that no reasonable person could predict. I could also be persuaded by overlimiting arguments, and both sides should have a case-list to substantiate their limits arguments. Reasonability means that the aff can win if their interpretation solves a sufficient amount of neg offense for the substance lost to outweigh the marginal difference between the two interpretations. It does not mean anything if the 2AR is we meet.
Framework: The best interpretation is that the aff gets to compare the consequences of the plan against critiques of their assumptions. I will probably be persuaded by the interpretation that is closest to this. I find 'K's bad' and 'don't weigh the case' equally bad, but I will hear them out. Arguments must be complete and consistent throughout speeches. It's not as easy to explain why the aff's epistemology or representations are bad and what we should do instead, but it does increase your chances of winning tremendously.
Agreeing that the aff can weigh the case means the neg needs a turns case/alt solves the case argument, an existential impact, and/or substantial defense to the case. If the neg does have this, I will be confused if the affs only answer is extinction outweighs. The aff should focus on winning a permutation and alt fails argument, or impact turn the K.
I am bad for the fiat K in all instances.
aff: If you aren't reading a plan, you should be prepared to explain why topicality is bad. I find that hard to understand when the 1AR proliferates short, very similar DAs to topicality; identify the impacts or internal links that you're turning and play defense to the others. Counter interp is usually irrelevant because it's arbitrary and unlimiting, but if you're interpretation is grounded in evidence that defines words in the resolution, or explained as only providing uniqueness for your stuff, I can be convinced that it matters.
neg: I'm better for fairness than clash, but either is fine. Defense is important, and the 2NR should pick a couple arguments and explain them in the context of aff offense. I can be convinced that debate is broadly capable of producing some sort of subjectivity shift, but I can also be convinced that a single debate is not capable of changing subjectivities, or that the neg accesses it better. You do not want me in a K v. K debate.
I am not the biggest fan of philosophy arguments and I have done very little reading. If your philosophy isn't tricks and is supported by evidence and examples, I should be mediocre. However, if you do not treat me like I know nothing, you may be disappointed with the decision.
I follow traditional framework debates much better than dense philosophy being read on the national circuit because the framework is explained like I'm 3 and no one drops (dis)advantages.
I vote for extinction outweighs against philosophy positions often and I think it's a good argument, especially when supported by arguments about epistemic modesty or humility.
Epistemic confidence makes little sense to me---some risk that you are right about your framework does not mean I should ignore an existential risk. Ethical frameworks serve as impact calculus, and they are not resolved yes/no. This is true in all instances. For example, if a soft-left aff were to read a framing argument, even if the aff wins that high-probability, low-magnitude impacts are most important, so there may be a high risk of the impact framing argument, but it does not mean I will ignore the DA if it's dropped.
Please number arguments whenever possible. Referencing the number in subsequent speeches makes it much easier to flow.
Insert re-highlighting if it comes from the original card. If you're reading sections of the article that are not in the original card, read it.
A marked doc does not mean deleting the cards you didn't read. Please minimize dead time and start cross-ex immediately after the speech ends, even if you need a marked doc. There is no waiting until it's sent. Hurry up.
Ask questions or post-round if you'd like.
2023 Update - It's been a while since I've judged, but I've noticed that the quality of evidence has dropped significantly. Going forward, I will be reducing speaks substantially for poor evidence. I also think there's not enough specificity in argumentation. Debaters will say "x piece of evidence is fantastic and says EU unity is low", but won't point out the warrants in the evidence for why EU unity is low. This also means I rarely hear debaters doing any good evidence comparison, which makes for messy debates and difficult decisions. Finally, please don't put anything in the 1NC that you can't give a 2NR on. I've judged too many debates already where an off is completely dropped but the 2NR goes for something else.
Email - email@example.com
I debated in LD for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years.
-good with speed
-SLOW DOWN ON THEORY AND T—they are especially hard to flow at top speed and in an online format
-slow down in the 2NR, especially at the beginning
-offense/defense (extremely unconvinced by truth testing)
-will not vote on arguments I don't understand
-2AR and 2NR impact calc are not new
-CX is binding
-compiling doc is prep, but flashing is not
-disclose (open source is good)
-ev comparison is important and will give you better speaks
-all arguments (even dropped ones) need a warrant
-clipping and ev ethics violations will result in a loss
-scrolling ahead in the doc is cheating
-enjoy this type of debate and was what I went for almost every round
-process cps/PICs are good so please read them in front of me
-consult cps (most of the time) are not good
-sufficiency framing is convincing
-politics DAs are good when they make sense and usually need to be coupled with a CP to beat a competent Aff
-for Affs, I like plans and enjoy small Affs—please have good evidence
-soft left and extinction impacts are both fine—I don't really have a preference
-heavily dislike Affs with large theory underviews/spikes
-ideally my threshold for a good kritik is one that is as tailored to the aff as the aff is
-I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality
-this goes for all Ks and especially security, but you need to answer the case or you'll almost certainly lose
-I'm extremely skeptical of pessimism arguments and I think pomo is often (underexplained) nonsense. K debate is usually just a bunch of buzzwords.
-good K debate=having impacts for your links, having links to the plan (not necessary but recommended), knowing how the alt works, not being evasive in CX, not relying on framework to win you the round, doing impact calc and explaining why the K outweighs the case and not just saying util bad, and answering the case
-links of omission are not links and the perm resolves them
-I am very persuaded by particularity arguments (the Aff should make the debate about the Aff, not the K)
-affs get to weigh the case—the K's impacts are consequential too and consequences prove the goodness of reps
-most Ks don't have a link and the alt fails—the Aff is probably a good idea
-if you win an extinction impact, the case should outweigh
-please defend the topic, but if you win your Aff (and I understand what the offense is), I will vote for it
-no, limits is not a prison—metaphors like these are meaningless and don't constitute real arguments
-many K affs appeal to various ephemera as ways to escape the question of T—these include buzzwords like “role of the ballot” that don’t actually explain what they’re winning, or concessions from the aff that are clearly irrelevant
-KvK debate is extremely difficult to evaluate usually and the Aff will probably win on the perm
-the impacts most convincing to me on framework are movements/skills
-default is reasonability, no RVIs
-condo, PICs, process CPs are probably good
-consult is not good
-not a fan of friv theory
-debaters should do weighing on standards, not voters
-debaters should make arguments about what an interpretation justifies to answer things like friv theory
-I really like well-fleshed out interpretations and really enjoy judging T debates
-have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive caselists, etc.
-very persuaded by util
-please explain your syllogisms clearly if not util
-I doubt any serious ethical theory would think extinction isn't a bad thing
-couple your NC with a CP or answer the case
-please don't read them
-most tricks don't have a warrant or make enough sense for me to vote on them
-please be nice to your opponent
-debate should be fun
Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge
Email speech documents to firstname.lastname@example.org
Any other inquires should go to email@example.com
A. Judging/Coaching History
- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)
- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)
B. General Philosophy
1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.
2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.
C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis
1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.
2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.
3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”
4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.
Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.
Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB
my email: firstname.lastname@example.org
HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:
- Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
- Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.
SPREADING: Please don't spread, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to go to fast I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.
HOW I JUDGE:
I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.
If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.
K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.
DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.
CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.
T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.
Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.
For nats, lay, pf:
Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.
Include me on the chain: email@example.com
I competed for Brentwood in LD from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him
tl;dr / prefs: Debate is a very really highly educational game evaluated through whether or not I'm persuaded to vote for you. Debate how you want to debate, I think good argumentation (claims and warrants and impacts AND implications for the round that tell me how to evaluate the content) are extremely persuasive. I think my primary obligation as a judge is to evaluate the round, but value the educational aspect of debate which has a strong likelihood of persuading my ballot.
I am good for K v K, Policy v K, LD Phil debates, Policy v T 2nrs, K v T
i am ok-at-best for nuanced policy rounds
I am probably bad for pomo, psych, and tricks
I think in round violence against your opponent or me can be a compelling ballot
Clipping ends the round
I'll evaluate arguments on the flow -- if it's not on my flow it might be my fault for missing it but it might also be your fault for spreading analytics that are super important -- if you think something should be in the RFD, it's good practice to make it clear.
I think explaining function of arguments and warrants as to why the function works in K affs is important in the 2ar
I like pastries and coffee cough cough
I think numbering arguments is good practice
I don't think saying "extend the advantage" is enough -- an explanation of the story is the floor and the way the advantage implicates the round is the gold standard.
Impact scenarios with internal link explanations are good
I dislike blips and would probably only vote on it if it's the only option
Phil positions should have carded offense
I don't want to intervene but sometimes rounds are genuinely irresolvable and in these instances I don't feel awful about making intuitive judgements that are usually informed by strength of link and reasonability.
I'm a very expressive judge, my face will tell you a lot of things about how my flow is going
A little bit of clarifying flex prep is okay
Don't read win 30 in front of me
Affiliations: downtown magnets high school & Cal debate
For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…
Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.
Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. I default that procedural fairness is an internal link to education but can be convinced otherwise. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my emulation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.
T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.
DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.
Have fun and do what you do best! :)
Debated @ UNT 2009-2014
Coach @ St Marks since 2017
Coach @ UTDallas since 2018
If you have questions, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.
-I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.
- Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins.
- I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation. I also don't think that's a very high standard for the negative to be held to, as many interpretations (especially on this space topic) will be hot fiery garbage.
- My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff to win these debates if the neg can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff is better read as a kritik on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.
- "The aff was unpredictable so we couldn't prepare for it so you should assume it's false" isn't a good argument for framework and I don't think I've ever voted for it.
- I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive.
- I think the neg gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's solvency evidence is really bad. - Absent a debate about what I should do, I will kick a counterplan for the neg and evaluate the aff v. the squo if the CP is bad/not competitive
- I don't think the 2NC needs to explain why severence/intrinsicness are bad, just win a link. They're bad.
- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff.
- I don't think illegitimate CPs are a reason to vote aff.
- Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say.
- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well.
- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. "Disad/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg advantage".
- My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying.
- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation.
- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff is lying/wrong.
- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well.
- If you're aff, and read a policy aff, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.
-Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg is no different than conceding a disad on the aff. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier.
- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense.
- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg argumentation.
I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence.
I've decided enough debates on clipping in the last couple of years that I think it's worth putting a notice in my philosophy. If a tournament has reliable internet, I will insist on an email chain and will want to be on that email chain. I will, at times, follow along with the speech document and, as a result, am likely to catch clipping if it occurs. I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'm unlikely to say anything about a missed short word at some point, but if I am confident that clipping has occurred, I will absolutely stop the debate and decide on it. I'll always give debaters the benefit of the doubt, and provide an opportunity to say where a card was marked, but I'm pretty confident of my ability to distinguish forgetting to say "mark the card" and clipping. I know that there is some difference of opinion on who's responsibility it is to bring about a clipping challenge, but I strongly feel that, if I know for certain that debaters are not reading all of their evidence, I have not only the ability but an obligation to call it out.
- Really generic backfile arguments (Ashtar, wipeout, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are really terrible, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout debates) and bad for debate.
- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.
Finally, here is a short list of general biases.
- The status quo should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality. It does mean that I will, absent arguments against it, judge kick a counterplan and evaluate the case v the squo if the aff wins the cp is bad/not competitive)
- Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really)
- The aff gets to defend the implementation of the plan as offense against the K, and the neg gets to read the K
- Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude
- Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education
- Consult counterplans aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable.
- Rider DA links are not intrinsic
- Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts
- The aff should defend a topical plan
- Death and extinction are bad
- Uncooperative federalism is one of the worst counterplans I've ever seen
Debaters I will be actively coaching at TOC: Mission San Jose SS, Westridge TW, Notre Dame San Jose AG
Debaters attending the TOC I have worked with over the course of season: St Agnes EH, Mountain House ES, Mercer Island KS, Millard North NL, Brophy TJ, Monta Vista KR, Saratoga AG, Charlotte Latin EL, Bergen County Academies AK
Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: email@example.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached this past year/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.
Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.
Hard and Fast Rules--
Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.
Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent). TOC Specific - I will be using the threshold outlined in the TOC Procedures doc for ev ethics.
Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.
Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).
For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.
Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence
^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.
K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.
Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR.Big fan of creative counterplans <3.
Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Cheating CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.
Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.
Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.
Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).
Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.
Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.
I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).
I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, as a wise man once said, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.
Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics
Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)
Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.
truth ≥ tech
1 - Larp/K
2. K affs
4-5. tricks or Phil
about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.
topicality: if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability.
Plan Affirmatives: I am born to write quirky interesting affs but forced to 2n. I appreciate affirmatives with the strong internal link chains and having an actual solvency advocate as well as a aff key warrant. also some of you are not reading a different aff against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K otherwise you do you extinction probably outweighs ???? the match up is still winable.
K affirmatives: I love topic oriented K affs but non topical affirmatives are fine too just please please please tell me what I am voting on. against framework I really need you to provide a role of the negative. counter interps > straight impact turns. I do tend to lean framework in these debates but not in a "white judge tryna gatekeep out black debaters" way but in a "debate is a game and games need models or there needs to be an explanation why models are bad"
Framework: Explain why your model is a good one for access and competition fairness is probably not an impact but I can be convinced otherwise. I think framework into a K aff should be a 60/40 match up but you just need to focus up and answer their impact turns and counter interps best way to frame the argument is "we don't exclude them but they exclude us".
Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. My background is mainly in Afropess, Ableism, Setcol, and other PoMo literature but please do not assume I know what you are talking about. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block.
Counterplans and Disadvantages: make sure that your counterplans are textually competitive some of them are already cheaty enough. Well explained net benefits to the CP is a must. I like interesting process counterplans. link contextualization is key. specific links are even better. I love good impact calc debates. please explain the internal link chain.
theory: go for it ! explanation of violation is vital need to know what is a voter and why I appreciate and will award with extra speaks for staking the debate on theory as oppose to having it be a short blippy extension in the 2ar/2nr/NR.
inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Long beach debate.
speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution.
quotes from GOATs:
- "debate is persuasive activity" - one of my debaters
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared
Shreeram Modi---Last updated for NYSFL 2023
I'd like to be on the chain, ask me for my email before the round.
NYU 22-, Lynbrook (CA) 18-22
You can find my full judging record here.
I'll try to look for the ballot that requires me to intervene the least. Whether that's a conceded impact turn or a PIC that would solve almost all of the aff. What this also means is that you should try to tell a story in your 2NR/AR that allows me to write my ballot using plenty of "even-if" statements and sit on a couple of issues. Final rebuttals that are scattered or forget that their opponents also have speeches will find themselves unhappy with a ballot they have functionally tossed aside into my hands.
Have a general idea of what the core affs are but most of the prep I've done has been K oriented so I don't know community consensus on T or DAs.
One of the best K aff topics in a while, surprised I haven't seen any Deleuze or Set Col affs. Can we please get some innovation?
Love the LD community just ignoring terrible rez wordings by the NSDA and reading their policy stuff anyways, I'm down.
Probably shouldn't be reading disads that equate migrants to terrorists :(
Game for everything, show me something new. I've gone for big stick policy affs to soft left affs to planless affs and have thought about strategy regarding all of these.
For soft left I find framing arguments that boil down to "no war ever" kind of silly and would prefer indicts to the epistemology or calculus of extinction impacts.
K affs should have some relation to the topic. The more it seems like you could change one of your cards and read it on the next topic the more I'm persuaded by framework.
Like them, go for them.
The riders DA is a silly argument.
Zero risk for questions of fact (reading 2016 ptx in 2023), everything else is answered probabilistically.
Better for process than most.
Prefer competition debates than theory since the latter usually presumes that you've won the counterplan isn't competitive.
Prefer specific analysis to be done in the linebyline.
Neg framework interps are often unclear, explain to me exactly how/what parts of the aff I should evaluate. "The aff is an object of research" means literally nothing.
Links and offense should be specific to the aff and explained through historical examples. If I can't explain the K after the round chances are I'll presume aff.
Please read an actual interpretation of the topic with definitions instead of wacky grammar rules. It's 2023 are we really still reading Nebel? I'll obviously vote on it if won but find these debates very stale. That's not to say subsets related T arguments are all bad, just that I would like to see actual definitions cut as justifications for them and not "the upwards entailment test".
T 2NRs that win usually explain to me a vision of what the topic looks like and give me things like examples of topical/non-topical affs, caselists of arguments they lose, and reasons why the aff's specific plan leads to that abuse.
Will /begrudgingly/ vote for friv theory but would always prefer you to go for a substantive route to the ballot.
Debaters who read tricks should recognize that they're reading tricks. Will be hard pressed to vote for a trick if there's any sort of ink on that area of the flow. That being said, fine for smart tricks debaters who don't recycle garbage backfile aprioris and know how to utilize their args across different flows.
---high topic knowledge shown through smart arguments
---good strategic vision of the round
---clarity while spreading
---enjoying yourself/having a good time
---good disclosure, send me your wiki before the round and I'll bump speaks if it's good (all cards open sourced + the entirety of the 1AC/NC)
---unprepared/no topic or position knowledge
---stealing prep/unnecessary dead time. On the flip side, reducing dead time (e.g. no prep 2AC's and 1NRs sent before cx is over) will bump speaks.
---incompetence at technology, in the era of paperless debate knowing your tech is an essential skill and one you should practice
Would prefer cameras on for online debates, this is an inherently communicative activity and e-debate is already draining enough without having to stare at 4 black boxes for 2 hours.
Please have your audio on throughout your speech so you can hear if I'm clearing you or saying you cut out.
Would strongly suggest that you keep a local recording of your speech and send it in case you cut out. It seems unfair to allow debaters to completely re-give speeches meaning if you cut out and there is no recording, you get what you said and your timer must remain running.
Updates for TOC 2023
(1) If the negative is making a claim about the future based on structural analysis about the world I need to know why the negative's theory about the world makes this claim about the future true. "the plan won't solve and nothing will get better because e.g. capitalism exists and capitalism is bad" is not a complete argument. I will vote aff unless the negative explains why it is the case that the existence of e.g. capitalism means the aff's understanding of the world, the future, etc is wrong/cannot be true.
(2) I like it when the 2nr/2ar cleanly outlines what's going on in the round and tells me what to do with all of the pieces: "If I win X, it means Y"/"They need to win X in order to win Y", that kind of thing. This is especially important to me in debates that aren't about whether or not the 1AC plan would bring about a world that is better than the status quo. I am very impressed by debaters who have the ability to distill a complicated round into its most fundamental questions.
(3) My flow template has space for the 1AC + 5 off case positions.
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I graduated from Greenhill in 2019. I have coached a bit and judged here and there and worked at camps since then.
I have talked a lot about debate with Rodrigo Paramo, Bennett Eckert, Aaron Timmons, Eli Smith, Chris Randall...so if you have technical questions maybe their paradigms will help give you a picture about how I tend to think about things. I have thought the most about "policy style" debate (plans, counterplans, disads, kritiks, topicality) and this is the style of debate I am most comfortable judging.
Mostly I am at a point now where I want you to show me that you have some strategic grasp on what's going on in the round. This means I'd like you to both thoroughly explain your arguments and thoroughly explain what winning these arguments means in the context of the round, i.e. why winning X,Y,Z, means you win the debate even if your opponent is ahead on A,B,C.
I think it's important that your cards say what you tell me they say. And when you implicate a card to address a particular argumentative context, I think it's very important that you remain within the bounds of what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of its text.
I find I tend to vote affirmative when the negative "splits" the 2nr (e.g., when the negative extends both topicality and a kritik as separate reasons to negate). I'd prefer it if you thoroughly developed your strongest ballot story and kicked out of everything else.
I don't think you should read arguments that you think are bad because you want to waste your opponents time. You are only wasting your own time!
"severance/intrinsic perms bad" is DTA
Newark Science '20 | Rutgers Newark '24
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine.
If it matters, I've done every debate style at one point or another (primarily LD through HS and Policy through college with other things woven in) so I don't care what you read, just don't make the room an unsafe space. I've always loved the creativity that debate allows so I would implore you to be free and do what you want as well because I genuinely don't care. My 2NRs have looked like trad to Kant to Bataille to Wilderson to Wipeout to DAs to whatever else.
* I hate over-explained roadmaps. Just say the pages. EX. "case --> counterplan --> disad" instead of "framework on the aff then the 2nd contention then the first contention then the underview then..." It's a waste of time. Signposting and having clean breaks in the speech are just good practices.
** On speaker points - If you ask for a 30, I'm deducting points from what I would have given you before; asking for a 30 with garbage speeches is like asking a teacher to round up your 93% (28) to 100% (30).
- Impact out all of your arguments!
- Efficiency is good! You should be grouping arguments and working to boil the debate down yourself. If you want to read a 4-minute overview, sure but make sure that there are pieces of the overview that explicitly implicate other pieces of the flow.
- Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient).
- Many debaters get lazy when people don't answer their arguments and that's bad. Just because they didn't answer the link doesn't mean that you don't need to still give a solid link package. Just because an advantage was dropped doesn't mean you don't need to make an overview for it. This is all given that you actually want to go for it or have an offensive reason as to why it's bad that they did not answer X.
I see debate as an interpersonal activity. The way we interact with each other and the words we say have meaning. Cross-ex is the only time both teams (or people for LD) get the chance to directly speak but it doesn’t mean that speeches aren’t in conversation with each other.
To whoever is reading this, if something explicitly racist, homophobic, or whatever happens, I will shut the debate down. I'm headed home after cursing out the X-phobe and doing whatever emotional check-in that's necessary. By explicit, I mean there are certain words and phrases that I can shut the debate down on (like the n-word or f-word, etc.) but certain phrases that can be interpreted as such is a touchy subject and a conversation for when it happens.
I like debate enough to still be here and I think everyone should have the ability to have fun. If I can laugh (in a good way) and enjoy the debate EXTERNAL of the techne of debate, your speaks will reflect that and if we’re in person you might get a solid high-five.
Ks are my favorite! BUT I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook", so lean to the side of over-explanation. The best K 2NR to me will include a properly explained theory of power, win framing (ROB/ROJ, paradigm issues, etc.), win framework (answering weigh the case and stuff like that), include well-developed link analysis on one solid link (dominate the link debate), and control the alternative/permutation debate (the alt explanation needs to compare worlds and if you do not defend an alt, what do you defend and what happens to the permutation?).
- If you are reading a K aff, I need to know why the aff is good for you, debate, and the world. I don't have an issue per se with K affs that say "my partner and I affirm X and it's just for us" but it bothers me that your aff recognizes such a deeply problematic status of the world or debate and your advocacy is kind of just affirmed for you; the general answer I've seen has been some variation of "if other X wants to use our advocacy they can" but that doesn't feel inclusive as much as "we don't care about you or how you implement this in your life".
- I also don't think that all K affs MUST solve or fix everything but you should DO something, even if that something is to do nothing (like sleep lol). Please resolve something or else this presumption debate will be a quick and clean loss for you.
- I enjoy seeing performative affs but you have to really be about it. I'm not asking for a minstrel show but if you have music playing, I think you should have a speaker or play it from your laptop with the volume high and mighty. If your aff is about having fun, you should probably look like you're having fun and not that someone has a gun to your head. If your aff is about doing what you want then take that chance in front of me and take over the space (don't physically harm someone though. Going to jail over a debate is so wild to me).
CPs are cool with me, just establish competition. A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff, especially against a K or Non-T aff. Theory against abusive PICs is fine but more than 3 shells feels arbitrary (why are you reading PICs bad and then Countries PICs bad like you didn't only add 1 line to the shell?).
- I'm not really a judge-kick kind of person because I think strategic 2NR choices are a skill that debaters should have/build. Not to say that I won't do it if you win the argument that justifies it but I will be upset because it means your 2NR is split and you'll definitely be lacking depth in other key places.
DAs are great, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it. I can and have voted on extinction impacts and all that but I also vibe with impact turns. I think DAs are kind of underrated and although I did not read them much, they were always my favorite strategy.
- I enjoy impact turns to DAs. I did them a lot and think that they're great when executed well but you have to 1) be committed and 2) make sure not to double-turn yourself or make perf cons because it will break my heart.
- I will say that reading a great number of cards to flood the aff is a pretty funny strategy.
T/FW shells are interesting, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW interp/debate model and compare it to the aff's. This year of debates has changed my views from before as I think there needs to be some new levels of innovation across the spectrum of arguments. I have a HIGH threshold for voting on Theory especially if the violation is unreasonable.
- Fairness doesn't make sense as a voter to me because the true fairness that y'all seek doesn't exist and the argument "as fair as possible" doesn't make sense when y'all don't have a way to measure fairness. Fairness seems to be just based on your (or your coach's) feelings and intellectual capacity at the time.
- I will buy condo bad if it's more than 3 off in LD and 5 off in policy but you (aff) need to actually extend your arguments and answer the neg's. Other theory interps I have no distinct opinion on, and as with anything else, is up for debate.
- Case lists are probably a good idea in T debates.
- The 1AC Underview v 1NC theory v 1AR theory chain is kind of ridiculous to me (especially because when it comes to the implications you're just debating yourself...) but I'll evaluate it all the same lol.
Tricks (or Trix or Spikes) are a no.
harts 22' - csulb 26' - lamdl4eva
coaching conflicts: intellectual virtues academy
about me: debated policy for 3 1/2 years in high school for LAMDL, now currently debating for CSULB. did pretty traditional debate up until my senior year, where I focused on more critical arguments, which is what mostly dabble in now. my experience mostly pertains to different forms of anti-blackness literature like afropess, black rage, etc. to set col, anthropocentrism, migrant literature, etc.
general: debate is, but not limited to, a game. that being said, im not going to vote on "debate is a game" alone. i think debate is a competitive activity that can transform subjectivities and alters the way that we engage the world. it's pretty hard to prove otherwise in front of me. so the way that we play or engage in the game is important which is why framing is prior for me as a judge and will go a long way in debates. that being said, play the game however you want in front of me, as long as there aren't any (isms). overall, debate should be a safe place for strategy testing, argument refinement, and political expression. that engagement can take many forms and im open to all of it.
interested in debating at CSULB? over the next couple of months i will be doing a lot of recruitment for folks invested in debating at Cal State Long Beach. so if u are a junior/senior in the next upcoming season looking to continue debate in college while obtaining wildly affordable tuition and outstanding benefits please feel free to ask, i probably will ask regardless, so yeah go beach brah
people who have influenced my debate career / ppl who i feel like i judge similar to / special shoutouts:Deven Cooper, Dayvon Love, Diego Flores, Geo Liriano, Jaysyn Green, Destiny Popoca, Lauren Willard, Cameron Ward, Gabriela Gonzalez, Elvis Pineda, J-Beatz, J-Burke, Von, Cameron Ward, Toya, Jorge Aguilar, Ryan Upston, Y'Mahnie Harvey, all of #LAMDLGANG
"IR topics are cool bc we learn abt the world and stuff" - E.C. Powers, Wyoming Debate 5/22/23
tech over truth, debate is a game BUT...never ever will I vote on arguments I deem to be violent (I.e. extreme impact turns like racism/homophobia good) violence to debaters in round is something im more than comfortable to end the round on and auto L a team depending on the violence they committed.
traditional debate: i enjoy it
policy affs: im good for them. all policy affs need a solvency advocate. you should explain / have a good explanation on your internal link chains - should be able to defend the representations of your plan with either no links or impact turns
k affs: pretty good for these, k affs should have a solvency mechanism. affs are not held to solving racism broadly or stopping structural violence, but rather providing a performance or method to resist those forms of violence. affs should have a tie to the resolution and should provide a good role of the negative. if your aff cannot be negated, then i won't hesitate to pull the trigger on fw or case turns. im a bigger fan on the counter interp + impact turn traditional fw combo, but impact turns on fw are good with me too, but your threshold of beating fw will be higher without a counter interp.
k's: big fan. not a big fan of "we're kicking the alternative and only goin' for the links" type of 2nr. i think kritiks should have an alternative that resist/remedies the links, especially if the links are to the squo. best type of kritik debaters are ones who can contextualize/recontextualize the links coming out of the 1nc, good on why aff's don't get a permutation, can implicate performance/non-performance, etc. k teams should definitely know their lit base. usually these debates are fun with the things above. im a huge dork for teams that go for the impact turn instead of just no links, more specifically for policy teams. k aff's should always go for the permutation. 2nrs that go for the K without case defense are doomed to fail. you should always have case defense, even if it's only for 40 seconds.
da: in high school 80% of my 2nrs were disads. personally a huge fan of disads with high uq - aff teams should go for link turns, no links, etc.
cp: counterplans should have a solvency advocate and they definitely need a net benefit. usually good for counterplan + disad combos. every speech where a counterplan is in the order should be extending counterplan text... also you should be running counterplans that are mutually exclusive with the aff or they just become easy perms/aff planks to solvency.
t: usually good for t - in the past i wasn't a huge fan of it, but judging some more debates i think that clever interps of the resolution can make for interesting debates.
fw: fairness is not an impact, it's an internal link - my favorite impacts on framework are limits and clash - good 2nr's on framework will exploit a tva or switch side, and sit their hat on 3-4 things. yes i think fw can be/is racist. yes you have to prove it to me. teams on either side of this debate should have to articulate what model each team produces, why their bad and why their model of debate is better. "go protest" is not a good response to k affs.
theory: pretty good judge for theory. definitely think it comes first in most instances and teams should flesh out a shell if going for it in the 2nr/2ar. do not go for multiple theory args in front of me in the 2xR cuz u will not win lol. definitely need to extend interps and impacts
voting issues (isms): if someone does something to you that's problematic in a debate, you should make it an argument. but, there are ways to do such. you should relegate your impacts and implicate them to models of debate and how voting a team down is necessary to incentivize teams to NOT do messed up things, and therefore produce better educators and activist when they leave this space.
misc: safety is a big issue. if you feel in danger, uncomfortable, or just not up to debate pls let me know so i can either get tab to handle the issue or address it myself. now as an educator and a coach, i want to make sure that all students are taken care of in debates because your safety is the most important thing. also i love petty and dramatic debates. debate is a performance after all. but, there is a fine line between petty good and petty bad. it shouldn't be too hard to understand those boundaries/binaries. i will not go back and read evidence unless you tell me to. usually i don't understand why judges go back and read ev without judge instruction to do such... feels like intervention to me especially when the arg / evidence goes dropped... please do not tell me to read ev unless it's something that is going to be apart of my RFD - dropped args are true args but they obviously need to be impacted out.
speaker points (for me, i start at a 28.5):
29.5-30: amazing speaking capabilities, going to win a speaker award, very entertaining, swag on 100, hella firme, vibez asf - might give one or two every tournament.
29.5 to 29.2: great speaking, maybe not amazing but definitely pretty good. probably will get a speaker award, good speech execution, etc.
29.1 to 28.6: good speaking, might get a speaker award, did good
28.4-28: you were in the room lol
27.9-25.9: you probably did something really weird or just like did not contribute/worsened your team's chance to win, you teammate probably hated you in this debate
anything below: you either didn't debate/exist or you did something crazy like (isms) and i sent a tactical nuclear strike to your speaker points and probably gave you a 1 and said some rightfully mean things to you
music-recommendations: we're bringing back da music recs --- (+.1) to your speaker points if you recommend me a song, (+.2) if the song is good/fire, if the song sucks you will receive a neutral / (+.0) to your speaker points. the one rule is that it cannot be a song i have heard before
yays and nays:
- 2nrs with case defense
- 2ars that open doors (please don't just rant...find structure & judge instruction to seal ur ballot)
- i don't know what else to put tbh just follow the rest of my paradigm above
- case v case 1nc's
- non-competitive cps
- violent impact turns
- floating pics
- neg condo bad
- "we're nolinking the kritik cuz were kicking the ____ adv" no u aren't lol
- "no frick u read a topical plan cuz i wanna have topical debates and i don't like k's" cry about it
- fun! duh
- competitive integrity
- calibri font + blue highlighting - green highlighting - yellow highlighting
- jokes (nice ones)
- giving me food <3
- talking to me like a human
- firery debating styles
- eye contact
- lakers/lebron references (0.1+)
- starting the round late
- not clashing
- stealing prep
- being rude in a not good way
- times roman numeral font
- "go protest" no go home
ELC '21-debated for 4 years (Policy Db8)
Add me to the email chain: Isaiortega28@gmail.com
Be clear when spreading
Tech>truth even tho truth frames how I should evaluate args
I'm open to any type of argument, as long as it isnt problematic, so go crazy lol. None of the preferences I'll list below will override what team did the better debating so do what you do best, I'm comfortable judging all types and styles of debate. BUT, if you do adjust your strat a bit based on my specific preferences, you'll likely have a better chance in winning my ballot and get better speaks.
As for a general preference (or what you might look for when ranking judges): I’m mostly a K debater but I’m also cool with judging any type of debate style.
Line by line is great.
Tag teaming is cool.
No new args in the rebuttal part of the debate will be evaluated.
Usually flow straight down so lmk if I need to switch something up when giving me the order of the speech.
If you display any form of racism, sexism, etc., I'll automatically vote you down so be respectful and if at some point you feel uncomfortable in the debate, lmk
lastly, have fun! Debate is a pretty cool activity (even tho its pretty stressful at times) so try to enjoy yourselves.
In high school, I was often reading soft left affs so I sorta prefer these debates. But don't let this stop you from running any big imp affs! As long as you debate it properly and handle the framing/imp framing, you should be good.
-If you're reading a K-Aff, give me a reasonable and good explanation of your solvency. Tell me what the ballot means and why it's important (and if you imp turn, tell me why your analysis comes first). I recommend imp turning fw even tho a counter interp can help limit or minimize neg offense. And if you're debating fw, I prefer imp turns bc its pretty clear that you're not debating according to the rez (depends on the k-aff)so you might as well tell me why your form of debate is better and list your standards and impacts well throughout the debate and why your analysis comes first.
Neg: Throughout high school, I usually read kritiks more than any other thing. I usually read a lot of Set col but I'm open to other Kritiks as well (Biopolitics is kinda cool ngl--read this a few times but didnt really add it to my strat) and I think I have a good understanding for most kritiks except maybe some high theory stuff (Deleuze, somewhat Baudrillard, etc.). However, you should assume I know nothing about your kritik and explain it in a good manner that doesnt lead me to assuming a ton of jargon and literature. I'm cool with voting for DA and CP's as long as you have a good Link/imp scenario and a good net benefit. But plz have a good Internal link...i get frustrated when the link is pretty dope but has no correlation to the imp so give me a good scenario
DA: Plz do impact calc. it does a lot for you and the debate and is a good way to evaluate args and impacts. Make sure to have a good Internal Link and do good on the link work. Also, make sure your evidence is pretty relevant to the DA so dont give me a politics disad with evidence from an year ago.
CP: Make sure the DA and the CP exist in the same world and explain the process of the cp. I won't judge kick cp, do it yourself. Make sure the cp has a net benefit and is actually competitive. And when answering perms, dont group em all together as one perm.
K: I think I've mentioned some stuff about the K already but when debating a kritik, explain it to me like I'm unfamiliar with the kritik and know nothing about it. Don't assume I'm familiar with the lit and impact your args out. Though I may know a lot of the jargon you're referencing, it's important that your ov and blocks arent heavy in terms of lit bc then its just rambling. Though ov's are great and whatnot, often times ppl are to block reliant so that eliminates any actual line by line debating so try to minimize being block reliant.
I love a good fw debate but I will say that I tend to allow the aff getting to weigh the aff.
As for the links, try to have as many case specific links as possible and make sure you carry the links throughout the debate. I also need you to impact out your links and explain to me why the aff's actions make the sq uniquely worse. With this link story, I also need a good alt debate and an analysis of why the alt solves for the issues of the K
T: T debates are pretty cool. I tend to like education impacts more so contextualizing and being specific are important for me. I also think that in order to win, your interp needs to show me a definition more predictable and that the literature (evidence of the interp) needs to be in context of the rez, not some simple webster def stuff.
Theory (procedural): I'm just eh about it tbh. It's not my strongest area but I understand some stuff. Make a good arg and do a lot of imp comparison and show how the other team essentially skews the round by going forward with their strat. Do this and you should be fine.
Stuff that might boost your speaks:
other stuff that'll boost your speaks
- if you bring me a snack or a drink (xxtra hot cheetos is the move, gatorade, idk something cool)
i debated LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 5th year coaching @ greenhill, and my first year as a full time debate teacher.
- i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
- team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-now);
- program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22)]
i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: email@example.com. would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"
I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.
That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality or framework 2nrs [like, T-framework against k affs, not kant] if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.
I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.
i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.
7 things to know:
- Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
- I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! you will be far likelier to win if you develop one flow for the 2nr, and will be served poorly by the attempt to go for every 1nc arg in the 2nr. In principle, this is also true for your 2ARs. if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it i think that likely means the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.
Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.
topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.
Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:
Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)
Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds.
Online Debates: You should record the debate in case of technical issues. Do not clip or steal prep.
Please read the arguments you feel most comfortable with - I will listen to and vote on arguments with both claims and warrants regardless of my argumentative preferences.
I will not vote on arguments that I do not have on my flow - I don’t flow off of the doc and expect you to be clear.
As a debater, my favorite affirmatives were ones with plans and big-stick advantages. Being knowledgeable about your affirmative is invaluable perceptually and strategically.
I enjoy NCs that include counterplans and DAs. I think that case debate is important and should be utilized far more. I will kick the counterplan if you tell me to.
Smart impact calculus and turns case arguments win debates - don’t rely on your prewritten overview.
I don’t like tricks and believe that you must win truth testing for them to be a reason you win the debate.
I lean heavily neg on T-FW debates. I think that the aff should defend a plan and I find fairness impacts the most compelling.
I will default to reasonability, drop the argument, fairness and education but all of these preferences can be changed by debating.
Hi, I'm Max, I'm a first year out who did LD for 3 years. Won the TOC and a couple other tournaments, read predominately policy arguments but dabbled a bit in critical international relations theory, settler colonialism, and ethical philosophy.
Add me to the chain, firstname.lastname@example.org
UPDATES FOR NDCA 2023
-- I haven't actively judged/coached/thought about debate in a few month's and I'm probably not super familiar with the topic and commonly read arguments, so explanation of very niche concepts and acronyms would be appreciated. That said, a lot of general "world knowledge" about the topic I'm probably familiar with (i.e. I know what the Schengen Area is, can name most ASEAN member states, etc.).
-- Parts of this paradigm were written a while ago, and make me sound considerably more dogmatic than I actually am. I won't actually sign my ballot as soon as the neg says T-FW vs a non topical aff or throw out 1AR theory because the neg said reasonability. That said, my general tolerance for arguments that are obviously silly, logically incoherent, or just general bastardizations of their source material has gone down dramatically since I stopped debating. I understand that some of this is an inevitability given the way strategic incentives are structured in debate (i.e. the way we view impact calculus places an enormous premium on existential impacts, which then incentivizes critical arguments to make ridiculous sweeping claims about the world to "outweigh" those impacts), but if you can manage to minimize the quantity of obviously ridiculous arguments you make, I'll be much more inclined to grant higher speaks, vote for you, and just generally respect you more as a debater.
-- I'm extremely impressed by debaters who have an in depth understanding of the source material that undergirds the arguments they read. For instance, while Russia war good, consult ICJ, and riders are all respectively terrible arguments, if you demonstrate a nuanced understanding of US nuclear strategy and the role various legs of the nuclear triad would play in a counterforce strike, the details of the international litigation and dispute settlement process, or the process by which a bill passes through and is altered in Congress, I'll be very impressed and very excited to vote on those otherwise low quality arguments.
-- Debate is a game (not sure why this is a controversial take in an activity where we compete to win) – it’s a really fun game that can teach us lots of cool things, but don’t take it too seriously/please be nice in round/have basic human decency
Big fan of strategies that:
-- Spend most of the NC on impact turns
-- Use advantage counterplans and smart case presses to punish bad affs
-- Use long, good evidence
-- Don’t rely on the other debater dropping/mishandling arguments
Strongly dislike strategies that:
-- Are designed to avoid clash
-- Are recycled across topics
-- Allow you to read off a script during a rebuttal
-- Try to explain all society/history/IR/etc. with a theory from the depths of god knows where in academia
Might vote you down for/won’t vote for strategies that:
-- Ad hom other debaters/force me to evaluate out of round events (exception is disclosure)
-- Say racism/sexism/other isms good (will def vote you down for this one)
Other things to know:
-- I find clash and especially fairness standards in T Framework to be extremely compelling, and if debated equally I lean heavily negative in clash debates.
-- That said, while I'd recommend reading a topical plan, you certainly don't have to read a big stick policy aff - I think that well constructed topical K affs that materially solve for some instance of a structural impact through a plan (big emphasis on materially solve through a plan - not a fan of "our orientation is good so vote aff") and leverage a critical theory of power to do impact calculus and attack the internal links of disads and counterplans are extremely cool.
-- It is capital T true that fairness is an impact, but most people don't explain why very effectively
-- When dealing with a high probability extinction impact while reading critical arguments, please reference the earlier notes on "being the debater who minimizes the reading of silly arguments." Reading basic case defense to reduce the probability of said impact and prove that status quo immigration does not in fact result in existential ecological collapse = a not silly argument! "Reee ontology and the ROTB means the aff disappears" = a silly argument.
-- Behind nuclear strategy and IR theory, I think symbolic logic is one of the coolest areas of study/literature that can be used in debate. However, I also hate bastardizations of it. Tricks debaters, do with that information as you will.
-- I think that a lot of popular theory and non topic specific topicality arguments (condo, nebel, etc.) are fairly obviously bad arguments, and gain strategic value almost exclusively from the fact that they exploit the time structure in LD very effectively. Because of that, I'll be very sympathetic towards the debater answering theory in most of these situations.
- On the topic of silly arguments, psychological theories that have been rejected by 99% of psychologists and readings of history that have been rejected by 99% of historians are probably silly – there’s a reason they exist in debate, English departments, and nowhere else
Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and email@example.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth
If you would like to increase your chances of getting my ballot dramatically here are a list of things your opponents are most likely not doing that you can take advantage of
-go for theory
-Listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order.
-read qualified, recent, high quality evidence that is highlighted to make grammatical and conceptual sense. Call out people who do not. Read evidence appropriately, not unnecessarily/repetitively.
-Know what your evidence says- if your 2NC OV is "LOL THEY DROPPED X" and you did not read a card that even mentions X let alone explains it you are doing things wrong. Teams who call out such shenanigans will be rewarded.
-make smart, complete analytic arguments. Especially about: link threshold, "sufficiency" of solvency, Kritiks, analytic CPs.
Economic decline causes war- not an argument
Economic decline causes war: diversionary theory- still not an argument
Economic decline causes war: diversionary theory is statistically proven and shows politicians try to regain popularity lost due to poor economic conditions by starting conflicts and triggering rally around the flag effects- this is about the bare minimum
This is particularly true for 2ACs on the case. A smart analytic about an internal link is almost always better than impact defense in the genre of "disease/warming only kills 4 billion people"
-Resolve arguments- do not just explain your side, explain why it responds to/defeats the other side. Don't just say "our impact is fast" , explain why theirs is slow and why timeframe outweighs whatever criteria your opponents impact is best at. This is particularly important in debates where each side reads 10 impacts and the only other "debate" going on is impact defense.
-Debate FW strategically, and specifically. The way people argue "weigh the case" vs "its scholarship" is not a debate, its a plea for judges to intervene on the side they personally agree with. I am willing to completely ignore what the other team said if you win your FW makes it go away, the way 99% of people debate FW today does not do this/is a waste of time. If you go for "weigh the case" vs links to the plan it will hurt your points because you are demonstrating you either do not understand framework or did not listen to your opponents, neither of which proves you did the better debating. Similarly, if you say "scholarship" as shorthand for "you link you lose" but never actually explain what is problematic about the aff "scholarship" that would hurt your points.
-Know what you are talking about. I have heard some explanations of how different aspects of the law would work this year that upon researching/asking lawyers turn out to be wildly off base/backwards. A lot of this relates to "creative" interpretations of evidence. If you are going for court clog you should know/be able to explain, or barring that have cards explaining, how the court system works. I do my best to not let this influence evaluation of arguments, but if you say "there are 11 supreme court justices" and the other side calls you on it this would damage your credibility.
Online debate update
-i will have camera on or off if debaters prefer-feel free to express your preference
-I am using a desktop computer (for tabroom/to see your doc, I'm flowing on paper) without a webcam and using Zoom etc on a tablet sitting next to me. This means I'm rarely looking "at" the camera
-my headset is wireless, I may get up and move around during CX/prep but I can hear even if I'm not on camera
My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.
Rounds Judged on the topic- a lot
My Ideal affirmative- 2 well constructed advantages
My Ideal 1NC- 5 off and case
Cliffs Notes-Top 10 Things you should know
1. I vote on arguments commonly considered "bad" frequently because a team mishandles them, it is my belief belief that most bad arguments can be defeated by making a thumbs down motion, so if you fail to meet that minimum threshold I will be qualmless voting against you. The overarching principle of my judging is "least intervention"-Much like Harrison Ford in Ender's Game under no circumstances will I help you with bad arguments, I believe in self help.
2. I vote on kritiks a lot because the team answering them reads a lot of bad generic answers instead of making analytic arguments based on the specific arguments they have made in that debate. To clarify this sentence - what I mean is an analytic based on your 1AC- ie "tradable permits empirically don't cause commodification and extinction since we already have them for SO2". In general I think most debaters have no idea what they are saying when reading a K and that affirmatives SHOULD win about 80-90% of the debates in which the negative goes for one.
3. No plan affs- 100% of the time when I vote against you on framework its because the other team won theory was a trump card over issues like education/K impacts and you didn't advance theory offense for your interpretation. I end up voting for no plan args frequently because the neg collapses/has no idea what to do.
4. Theory needs to come back with a vengeance
A. Entirely plan inclusive counterplans- I have never heard a theory argument to defend them that passes the minimum threshold explained above. That being said, winning a solvency deficit against them is basically impossible.
B. More than 2 conditional counterplans is just you being a chazzer
C. K frameworks/roles of the ballot that stack the deck absurdly are worse than entirely plan inclusive counterplans
D. Reject argument not team produces terrible debates with very bad strategies. Voting on theory doesn't fix this, but it improves it substantially.
5. I believe you have a choice
A. Clearly articulate your ground/say as much in CX
B. Because your position is vague you are susceptible to a reduced credibility modifier that taints many of your arguments. Plan vagueness affects plan solvency, alternative vagueness affects.... etc.
6. IMO there are, in fact, risks of things. Debaters should be aware of this and make arguments about how I should resolve risk. The plan may be popular with 5 people and unpopular with 6, should I place more emphasis on the number of people or maybe are those 5 more important? Very few link cards establish such a clear threshold that you can say with certainty (when contested) yes definite link. (this point is largely irrelevant now as the tides of history have turned and no risk people have been successfully marginalized)
7. I will always defer to debater argument resolution if one side does it and the other doesn't-no matter how bad or illogical I think the argument is. This is to me, the most important part of debate.
8. I try really hard to flow well. Teams who willfully ignore line by line/structure - I will not do work for you to figure things out if the other team does line by line barring some argument why I should.
9. I often call for lots of evidence after a debate, most of the time this is just out of curiosity. When making my decision evidence is only a factor when it is a point of contest or someone has made an argument for why it should be a part of the decision. I am not a judge who reads every card from both sides and makes a decision based on the evidence.
10. Evidence quality in debate is in terminal decline. If you have good evidence and you make an issue of it in the debate (talk about quals, or recency for uniqueness) you will most likely crush.
Making a decision:
Everything is debatable but speech times: The role of the ballot, whether evidence or analytic arguments are more important, is it acceptable for the other team to read off their computers, who gets presumption and why etc. If neither team makes an argument on the issue, the following are my defaults:
1. Evidence and analytic arguments are treated equally- I will look at the total sum of explanation offered for an argument, from any form. So if a well explained analytical will beat a poorly written piece of evidence. If one teams reads qualifications and the other doesn't, the team who read quals will receive a slight bump in the level of quality I assess to their explanation (assuming all other factors are equal). Treating them as equal until told otherwise is my way of encouraging debate.
2. Presumption, in the case of a tie or too close to call resolution of an argument, goes to the team advocating the least change. I would use presumption in the instance where each team had an advocacy and an offensive argument, and each team dropped a terminal defense argument to their own offense such that the net risk in either direction of presented offense was exactly zero. In that instance the "hidden disad" of change makes sense as a decision making tool. In no other circumstance I can think of would I use presumption unless explicitly instructed by the debaters.
3. If an argument is unresolveable (or tough to resolve) I will use a "needs" test- the burden of explanation will be assessed to the team who NEEDS the argument to win. So for example
-on a CP permutation, if the neg would win the debate without the permutation, then the aff needs it to win- so the burden of explanation is on them
-for CP solvency, if the neg would lose if the CP did not solve the case, then the neg needs to win solvency- so the burden of explanation is on them
4. Concession= truth. If you drop epistemology comes first/is a side constraint, then it is. You can drop that framing issue and still win as long as you beat the link (that your epistemology is flawed), but you will not be allowed new answers to the impact. I use a reasonable person standard- if I was unaware that the 1NC presented a epistemology first argument (based on what was said in the 1NC, not my prior knowledge of the negative team), then if the aff says "they didn't say this, therefore our answers aren't new" I would allow it. But remember, everything is debatable. If the 2NR comes back and asserts it was clearly stated when they said XYZ, the aff has to disprove that.
5. The threshold for how good a response to an argument has to be is directly related to the quality of the initial argument. Saying "RANT" is sufficient to beat a lot of voting issues. If the other team answers RANT in their 2NC sever perms are a VI block, and thats all you say, you will be in trouble. Similarly, many counterplans (consult, recommendation, delay, lopez) are easily defeated by theory arguments but almost impossible to beat on substance. A well rounded debater should avoid trying to ice skate uphill.
6. I spend a lot of time on debate. Other than eating and playing video games, basically all of my time is spent cutting cards, coaching, writing and reading about debate. A lot of judges say "I'm not a very good flow". I'm a very good flow, I may even go as far as to say probably one of the best. All that being said, it is very possible that you could say a string of words, or utter a quote from an article I have written that fully conveys your argument to me, but would leave a less experienced/judge with a life with no idea what you were saying/what your argument was. I try to temper this fact by using a "reasonable person" standard for what makes a complete argument. I feel this is essential because otherwise any student who was in my lab, had emailed me a question, or had just read a lot of the 3NR would have an absurdly unfair advantage vs a similarly skilled student. So if I made a joke in lab about saying "purple monkey dishwasher" and that meaning "we do the whole plan minus the reps", so you say that in a debate and expect me to vote on it, I won't. Unless you are debating someone else from the lab who had equal access to that information. Similarly, even if I flowed an argument/got the jist of what you were saying, but feel that the other team is being reasonable when they say your argument was poorly explained/did not constitute an argument I will be open to that and you need to respond.
1. I like fast debate. That being said, some people give fast debate a bad name. You can be fast only after you are clear and efficient. I should be able to understand every word you say, not just the tags. If you are stammering (or displaying other verbal missteps) excessively you are going faster than you are capable of going imo.
2. Points are determined by how well you perform your function, which depends on what speeches you give. A 1AC should be perfectly smooth because you can practice it as much as you want. A 2NC assembled on the fly vs a new case can be excused a few missteps on the other hand. I think auto giving the 1N low points because they could be replaced by a robot in most debates is a bit unfair- a blazing fast 1NC and devastating 1NR can be game changing. That being said, rarely do people perform up to that level.
3. Points are assessed relative to the field in which you are competing. The same speech can be a 29 at a local, but a 27.5 at St Marks.
What is your threshold for T?
The threshold is established by the other teams answers- if they make good defensive arguments and argue reasonability well than my threshold will be high. If they don't it will be very low.
What are you favorite kinds of debate?
Ones in which there are clash, since that is not really a thing anymore its usually impact turn debates- heg bad, de-dev, CO2 ag and warming good- loved to go for these when I debated and love to see them debated now. CO2 ag is the upper limit of stupid I think is acceptable.
Did you run kritiks when you debated?
Not as much as Bricker would want you to believe. My senior year in HS and my senior year in college I went for K's about 30% of the time, in the other years of my debate less than 5%.
Did you ever read a critical aff?
By today's standards no- I always had a plan, though sometimes the advantages were not nuke war.
You bash the politics disad a lot, will you still vote for it?
Yes, almost always because the affirmative never does anything of the things that highlight the problem with politics.
Are you OK with speed?
Yes, if anything I dislike slow debate. However this is a double edged sword- if you do fast debate terribly I will punish you for it.
Is Fem IR beatable?
What race do you play in SC2?
Usually random, but if I pick -zerg.
If you were in Game of Thrones, which house would you belong to?
A note on jumping:
I want to see good debates. I'm not interested in charging you 10 seconds of prep to jump your speeches. If, however, you show total technical incompetence at jumping/severely delay the round your speaks will suffer. A good jump is like a good road map- its not hard, so get it over with quickly.
Standards for sharing should be reciprocal, and as such are established by the team willing to do the least. If Team A doesnt jump speeches as a policy that is fine by me, but then Team B is under no obligation to let Team A see any of their evidence. If Team A doesn't jump analytics, Team B doesn't have to etc.
A note on quality:
I generally believe that there are certain "norms" in debate- don't steal prep time, don't clip cards etc. These norms are not rules, and as such as a judge I don't think its my job to enforce them. In fact, I think it SHOULD be the burden of a good team to be on top of is the other team stealing prep, are they clipping cards etc. Encouraging students to take responsibility for this is the best model imo. However, there are debates where there is a huge mismatch in terms of the quality of the teams involved. I no longer think it reasonable to expect novices entered in their first varsity tournament to check to see if the Baker Award winning team they are debating is stealing prep. I also don't really care to argue with you about whether or not you are stealing prep. So my solution is that for all things that could be considered a violation of good sportsmanship I will severely jack your points if it is a debate where I subjectively decide the other team should not be responsible for checking you.SO
-If I think you are clipping cards/stealing prep/misquoting evidence/lying in cx in the finals of the TOC vs another excellent team I would expect the other team to catch you
-If I think you are clipping cards/stealing prep/misquoting evidence/lying in cx during a preset vs a vastly inferior team I will severely dock your speaker points
Hi, I’m Anish. I debated for Peninsula for four years and qualified to the TOC twice.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
I was pretty bad at flowing, so please slow down and pause between your arguments.
I primarily read policy arguments, but I’d be more than happy to vote on philosophical and critical arguments as long as you explain them well and do comparative impact calc. I dislike most tricks and theory arguments because they’re underdeveloped and often lack warrants.
It’s the debater’s responsibility to flow — asking what was read must be done in prep or cross-x
Smart analytics can beat carded evidence
A lot of counterplan theory arguments are best settled as competition issues, not voting issues.
You can insert rehighlighting
I am a lay parent judge. Please add me to email chain: Email: email@example.com These are my preferences:
K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.
Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.
Speed: Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.
Signpost & crystallize. This is very important. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention to. Please crystalize effectively. Please sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.
Links & extensions: The link between each contention and its value/impact must be clear. Don't just cite cards, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round and to your value premise and towards the end towards addressing voting issues.
In general, focus more on why your arguments are more superior beyond just using the technicalities of dropped arguments, etc.
Finally, keeping up with the spirit of debate, be polite, courteous and follow the rules.
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org - include on all chains
Affiliation - USC
Read what you want. I don't understand the separation between teams calling themselves "policy debaters" or "K debaters."
I think that dropped arguments are mostly true and conceded arguments are 100% true.
I am growing increasingly concerned with highlighting and evidence tagging, word salad highlighting and "the aff causes extinction" are not acceptable.
Reading a 10 card link wall is not always preferable to less cards and more thinking.
I think of debate as a competing research activity.
- If I can't tell a coherent narrative about your side in the RFD I'm probably not going to vote for you.
- My favorite speech is CX, but this is not a speech for you to get more arguments in. I prefer when the Cx'er listens to their opponent and asks strategic follow-up questions.
- All debates ARE ABOUT LISTENING, if you show me you are actively engaged in your opponent’s arguments your speaker points will increase, if you are not listening I will be super upset.
FW: I think the best FW debating answers the question of why FW is important for the thing that the aff is trying to solve for. This can include the necessity of having a fair game and a ballot that reflects the desirability of fairness. However, if you go for FW as some abstract Willy Wonka thing, chances are you are going to lose on the impact turn.
- Not a fan of the approach of listing a bunch of bad/good debaters. None of us know these people and you can be a bad person and debate either style of argumentation. Same goes for aff solvency, not sure how 5 debaters doing x good thing after debate is evidence of reading the aff being good.
- Not a fan of reading the advocacy statement with US should in front of it and calling it a TVA
- Affs should defend "some-thing" that I can endorse.
- Not a fan of "debate is a game" "no it's not, debate is my life" - obviously debate is both, make me understand why a limited/predictable game O/W their offense and vise-versa.
Theory - Will vote on any theory although the vast majority are not reasons to reject the team. Often times two teams read debate buzzwords and expect me to weigh debatbility vs. real world neg flex - hard to resolve.
I'm comfortable voting on presumption if your K aff isn't explained or I couldn't explain the central goal of the 1AC EVEN IF presumption is not an argument in the 2NR.
There are some arguments that in order to win in front of me will need quality evidence to back it up. Debating about the "earth being flat" or "climate change is good for x because island populations will survive and repopulate - only 4 billion oppressed people will die" are such examples. I don't think anyone's livelihood is improved in relation to the time we would spend making these arguments. BUT if the evidence shows a dedication to the subject in order to actually make us better able to combat the position "in the real-world" I will consider much less of my own ethical concerns in making the decision. There is a difference in playing devils advocate and just being ignorant.
I will tell you "clearer" twice - If I have to tell you once assume I am following along with the whole doc. I won't take initiative in stopping the round based on clipping, but if the other team issues a challenge and stakes the round on it chances are I will have made up my mind. Absent this challenge card clipping and unclarity will just be reflected in your speaker points.
Furthermore, an ethics violation is only an ethics violation if the team stakes the round on it. If a position is introduced and debated through the round it is just a procedural. If the other team truly violated the rules either end the round and I will decide or make actual impact claims as to why rule violations are bad and I will vote on the substance of the argument.
Update Berkeley LD 2023 - I am open to your wacky tricks, moral debates, or whatever I may be forgetting, but it is hard to believe "you skewed my time" *mic drop* is a reason to vote on some random theory.
I see that third level clash is difficult in LD which reveals to me that contextualization will literally win you the TOC.
good 1NCs will be small and have a ton of preempts.
peninsula 22 ucla 26
email chain: email@example.com
i don't flow off doc
limited topic knowledge
Please add me to the chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton. Teaching and judging debate since 2017.
thoughts on how I decide
> I live for when debaters take the presentation of their arguments seriously. I am good for speaker points if you: get off your blocks more, have ethos moments, dig into evidence, give your offense/args snappy names, don't spread at top speed, give an overview, be organized, speak directly to me, etc.
> Read what you want, however you want, I don't care. I'll take any strategically applied argument into serious consideration for the ballot. However, don't rely on speed, quantity of arguments, or techy/blippy arguments. I'm good with speed but I am not the fastest flower so keeping up can be difficult for me, please take that into consideration.
> My decisions are usually based on a combo of meeting your burdens as aff/neg and controlling the big picture of the round. Most of the time this will come down to telling me how I should frame and weigh impacts. I need clash, comparisons, and warrants for that otherwise I'll decide myself what impacts matter the most.
> General: perms, links, solvency, and impacts need to be clear about how we get from point A to point B, don't lose sight of your warrants. - Policy v K: read a TVA. I don't think K's are unfair but I may be convinced for a round. I'm not interested in you solving for the K, I’m persuaded by models that center policy/education for the purpose of doing good in the direction of the K. How can T/FW/debate be used for the intents and purposes of the K? the more you answer this question and leverage your response against inevitable impact turns, the better off you'll be.
> To make both our lives easier, have moments where you break down the debate and explain to me what is happening and straight up tell me why you win. for example, tell me what you're winning and what your opponent is losing, etc. i'm not saying write the ballot for me but thats also exactly what I'm saying. I am very receptive to this.
email: simha[at]umich[dot]edu. varsity policy, add: mittypolicydocs[at]gmail[dot]com as well
Archbishop Mitty '22. University of Michigan '26 (debating). more experienced with policy than the critical side of things
tech>truth. i will try to be as non-interventionist as possible. above all, this takes precedent. however, bias is ever-present and hopefully the below makes all of mine clear. these are not too important but it might be in your best interest keep them in mind when debating
biased towards arguments with better evidence, regardless of argument content, but quality of debating trumps this. make arguments about evidence to prevent intervention. ideally, teams will utilize truth with technical debating, but the former is not always necessary
plan vs DA/CP
i assess risk as cumulative probability. evidence quality and/or quantity can dictate this but only insofar as it is debated out
links usually matter more than uniqueness. turns case is best when couched in evidence and link-specific but a little silly when purely analytics
most issues are best settled at the level of substance rather than theory, such as competition, vagueness, etc.
send perm text for anything that isn't "do both" or "do CP." do CP is yes/no. offense/defense for other perms
competition determines legitimacy seems like a fine frame. legitimacy determines competition does not follow and is substantially weaker
if equally debated, i will lean neg on most theory, with a few exceptions such as international fiat, and aff on competition against questionably competitive counterplans such as those that are functionally but not textually competitive
default judge kick but would prefer if the 2NR flagged it. gettable on condo bad only if it’s egregious. other theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. arbitrariness is strong for the neg. 2NC counterplans are fine in response to 2AC newness, questionable if not
plan vs T
fine for the neg if evidence with intent to define a word in the resolution. if not, it's a non-starter
we meet is yes/no
can be convinced either way between precision/arbitrariness and limits
default competing interps. reasonability can be persuasive, but it requires substantial external defense to really mean much
plan vs K
good for the K as long as there is external mitigation to the aff in some way (ie. an exclusive framework, alt solves and/or case debating)
most importantly, make framework interpretations clear; im not making up my own middle ground. given equal debating between entirely exclusively frameworks, i will likely conclude aff. not a hard preference, but inclusive frameworks are more intuitive than exclusive ones
denying the desirability of competitive equity between the aff and the neg does not seem strategic to me. claiming that my ballot does anything other than determine the winner/loser of the round is a tough sell
K vs T
equally debated, i will conclude in favor of the neg
for neg: fairness > non-fairness impact. not sure how a competitive game functions if it's imbalanced
for aff: do whatever it takes to beat "read it on the neg." a counterinterp could be nice but not needed. aff offense is often best when specific to the round
K vs K
the aff usually should get perms but it should be explained in depth
also fine for policy-style or whatever other counterplans. sometimes the non-framework option is the cleanest
should go without saying but anything explicitly racist, sexist, transphobic etc. is not allowed.
i will not evaluate arguments about someone's character based on actions outside of the round. this is non-negotiable. use the proper/designated outlets to report your given concern
evidence ethics challenges require staking the round on the challenge. if you do not stop the round, i will not consider it. if the round is stopped for this, i will then decide whether or not the challenger has a legitimate claim or not based on NSDA/tournament guidelines and will use the appropriate recourse. when possible, however, i would strongly prefer to see debating of the evidence in a substantive manner. if it is that egregious, instead of bringing an ethics challenge into a round, settle it before the round
rehighlighting can be inserted if part of the original card text, read the card if it's outside of that or a distinct argument (eg. a CP). absent verbal explanation of the rehighlighting, it will not be considered
in most cases, i will only intervene to strike an argument off my flow for being "too new" if the argument in question is made in the 2AR. if you want me to outlaw an argument for newness, tell me it's new and ideally why it's too new to be an extrapolation of something previously said
sending the email is not on prep time but be reasonable. you must start cx to ask questions. you can also ask questions outside of cx which requires using prep time after the cx timer ends. minimize dead time
Peninsula '22 | USC '26
Add me to the chain:
Did policy for three years LD for one year. Clarity > speed - if I can’t hear your argument I’m not going to flow it. Be nice!
Ran almost exclusively policy in high school so very comfortable with these debates. Especially love counterplan competition debates and in-depth DA turns case/case turns DA.
I don't like it unless there is in-round abuse. Reasonability and DTA are powerful, especially if explained thoroughly. My view of reasonability is that I should weigh the impact of the abuse versus the benefits a debate over the topic. Don't run ridiculous theory arguments.
Condo is good.
Your critique should directly disagree with the plan or implicate the solvency of the case in someway. I do not like links of omission. Links should be clearly explained and turn/ow case. Case is critical in the debates, if you do not touch it I probably won't vote for the K.
Read a plan!
Not comfortable with evaluating these debates.
Don't run any calc indicts, frivolous theory, and random independent voting issues.
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.
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.
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.
Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)
I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I am currently a debater at Georgetown.
I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.
I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).
I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.
Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.
Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.
Policy Aff v K:
FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.
Would prefer not to judge debates about silly theory arguments, RVIs, T arguments written by coaches, or other tricks. Err on the side of extra explanation for LD-specific things.
+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech
1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – email@example.com
2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email
3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I would obviously prefer it because I'm used to it, but I also would prefer if I were in for zero rounds, so…
4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning.
5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that just leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump.
6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception isis you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.
- I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off.
- I am a blunt judge. If you choose to pref me, that’s on you. Blow me up and I might say some harsh things. I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
- I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from PTSD. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
The longer version:
I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:
-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,
-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,
-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,
-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.
I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.
If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.
If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.
-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.
-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.
-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.
-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.
-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.
-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.
Neg K v plans:
-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.
-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.
-Generally, contradictions justify severance
-Generally, the neg is allowed to read Ks
-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve.
-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.
K v K debate:
I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.
I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.
K stuff in general:
-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5.
-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism.
-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points.
General: I don't like to read cards as a default. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.
-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.
-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"
-Make the intrinsic perm great again
-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.
-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.
-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.
-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.
-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.
-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.
-answer turns case!!!
Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)
Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net
I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.
I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less bayesian lens. This means my existing knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; rather, it will simply take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens
I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.
Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those specific elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.
I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote on them often.
If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.
Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.
Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.
Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.
In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.
Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.
Affirmatives should usually be topical.
Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.
Extra T is probably bad
Severance is bad
Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps
Conditionality is OK
PICs are OK
Alt agent fiat is probably bad
Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually
Probably no RVIs
Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality
I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.
I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.
Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.
It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.
Arguments I will not vote for
An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.
A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.
A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.
Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.
Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for
Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.
Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.
Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.
I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.
1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)
2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)
2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)
2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)
2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)
General Preferences and Decision Calculus
I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 70% of your fastest.
I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.
I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.
Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.
I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.
Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.
I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.
I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.
I will apply a higher threshold to random theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.
Tricks and Triggers
Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.
Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs
The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.
I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.
I default to the presumption that floating PIKs must be articulated as such in the NC. If it is not apparent that the kritik alternative allows you to also enact the affirmative advocacy, then I will regard this argument as a change of advocacy in the NR and disregard it as a new argument.
To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.
The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 90% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.
My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.
It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or pocket box that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.
I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:
30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.
29: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.
28: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.
27.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.
26: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.
25: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors
Below 25: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.
Rude or Unethical Actions
I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.
A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to both your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.
To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that s/he has clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.
I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.
Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Currently coaching the LD debaters at Canyon Crest Academy. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom
1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts
2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow
1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.
2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read
3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.
4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow
1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level
2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate
3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework
I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.
Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along
PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.
I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.
2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.
3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.
2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.
2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.
2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.
3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.
1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.
2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.
3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.
Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.
Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.
2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.
2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.
3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.
4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.
Debated at Downtown Magnets High School for 4 years
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: Open to any argument. Spreading OK. Don't be sexist/racist/homophobic etc.
Updates for TOC
- I don't like tricks
- For phil, I need it to be really clear. I don't understand unexplained abstract philosophies, even if it's Kant. Impact comparison still matters
- Phil + Tricks = :(
- Perms are encouraged against the Kritik, many debaters in LD don't perm them and idk why
- Quality > Quantity
- Spreading is fine, but be clear
- Don't clip cards, if there is evidence of clipping I will end the round and give a win to the other team
- Flashing/emailing isn't prep but please don't take forever
- If you're reading theory slow down a bit, and tell me if you want it on a new sheet
- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but they still have to be impacted out
- I'll weigh a performance the same as evidence, I will flow it too
- Debate is whatever you tell me it is (If the negative reads framework and claims debate is a game..and the aff has no response..then it's a game)
- I have read arguments like death good, I think these are legitimate arguments. Don't shy away from running weird things in front of me. As long as you aren't racist/sexist/homophobic you're fine.
Traditional Affs: I like comprehensive, well-thought-out advantages compared to 7 advantages that all end in nuke war or something. Make sure you give me some type of framing in the 1AC so that I know how I should weigh the aff vs the negs off case, and always use your framing against their off case (please).
Kritikal Affs: I won't vote on it just because you read it. The most important thing for me is an explanation of how the affirmative relates to the topic and how the particular survival strategy/method/epistemology/etc is important for debate. If there is no connection to the topic, I will not shy away from pulling the trigger on T. Kritikal affs that connect to your identity are cool too, but don't make it seem like you're using the oppression of x group for a ballot. If I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. An advocacy statement of some sort is probably good here.
Performance: The most important thing about performances is that they should be used as arguments. If the 1AC has a performance of some sort, the 2AC should use that performance offensively. If the performance gets lost, I'll probably be skeptical of the 2AR bringing it back up. For the negative, you should press them on the performance in some way. Arguments about performances being bad for debate are legit, but make sure they have an actual argument behind them. For example, "this isn't theatre, this is debate" is not a good answer to a performance.
Kritikal Affs vs the K: The aff should always perm the kritik. There's a good chance that your theories aren't 100% mutually exclusive. I don't buy the "this is a method debate so no perms" argument, but if it goes conceded coming out of a 1AR/2AR then I will evaluate it. The aff should also explain why the perm is necessary and why the negative's theory alone fails. For the negative, you should be winning a strong link to the affirmative and a reason why the alternative is mutually exclusive to the advocacy.
Framework vs the K aff: I'm not biased towards the affirmative in these debates (despite my history of running kritikal arguments). I do think framework is valuable, and seeing people debate the way they believe debate should be is always fun. If there is no TVA I'm more sympathetic to voting aff, but if there's no answer to the TVA I'm definitely voting neg. Fairness is an okay standard but I prefer arguments along the lines of truth testing, stasis args, and deliberation. Tailoring your framework to have benefits like grassroots activism and legalism good arguments are also persuasive. Framework is a definitely a viable strategy in front of me against a kritikal affirmative, but make sure there are also arguments that engage the case. For the aff, "They are excluding us" isn't really an answer to framework (please don't make this argument), but proving why their frameowork is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. is good offense against the framework. I prefer affirmatives to defend their model of debate. Why should we be able to talk about things only tangentially related to the topic? Why is posing a hypothetical policy implementation bad for debate? These are questions I'll probably be thinking of as the 2AC answers the framework flow. Disads to their model are good leverage, but make sure to answer every standard on the flow. Also, counter interps are nice.
Kritiks: For Kritiks please have multiple clear links to the affirmative. A generic link that you have can always be contextualized to the aff, so try to contextualize each link to the affirmative. A specific link should also be contextualized against the affirmative. Please explain what your alternative is and have a framing that doesn't contradict the alternative. I find that the key arguments to a criticism are usuallly framing/framework, link, impact, alternative, permutation. If a team concedes a framing, I'm most likely voting for the other team. For example, if the Aff reads framing about how specific scenario analysis is good for policy making and broad structural criticisms are bad, I would say they are ahead of the K debate (given that the negative concedes their framing). I'm also okay with teams kicking the alternative and going for the links as case turns, but you must tell me to kick it. I won't kick it for you. Also, "fiat is illusory" isn't really a winning argument. Also, please explain the K. Even if I heard your criticism before, a shallow explanation of the K won't help you win the flow.
Disadvantages: For DAs, I prefer specific links. Internal links are appreciated, but not necessary. Recent DAs are probably better than older ones, make sure the uniqueness and answers to uniqueness are recent for these debates. I think the uniqueness can overwhelm the link in some cases, and I am open to impact turning if you persuade me (nuke war good? Sure why not). Disadvantages should have impact calculus and turn the case in some way. The affirmative should explain why the disadvantage uniqueness overwhelms the link, why there's no link, no impact, etc. Make sure to spend time to make arguments on the disadvantage because if it's undercovered then I'll probably vote for it. Impact framing/calculus is really important, especially when the disadvantage has an impact of a higher magnitude (like war, or extinction) compared to the affirmative. Explain why your impact is more significant than the Affirmative's impact.
Counter plans/Advocacy: Make sure the counter plan has a net benefit, and tell me what the net benefit is. Advantage CPs are also cool. Consult CPs are legit. If there is a link to the DA and the CP clearly avoids that link, I'll probably vote neg on the counterplan. For Kritikal affs I enjoy counter advocacy debates, still explain the net benefit though. I'm not particularly fond of counterplan theory, but I will vote for it if I feel it's a winning argument.
Topicality: I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).
Theory: I will vote for it. Just make sure you slow down a lot cause I want to catch what you're saying in the standards. 1AR/2AR with only Condo is viable, but if you're just repeating your standards then I'd say don't. I don't really lean aff or neg when it comes to condo/dispo debates, but I will say that for these debates both teams need to have a clear interpretation that makes sense. The aff should probably say 1 or 2 condo worlds, while the neg should probably argue their specific number of conditional worlds that they read as a counter interpretation. I lean neg on CP theory, I generally think the negative gets anything outside of the affirmative. It's up for debate if a PIC/PIK constitutes being outside of the aff.
Speaker Points: Speaker awards make this activity a little less shitty so I will try to give high speaks.
Hi. I am a lay parent judge. Please do not spread. I prefer normal speaking. Run whatever arguments you want. Good luck.
My name is Daria. I've participated in Speech at Cal State Long Beach for two years. I've been most active in ADS and Impromptu, and I have given speeches pertaining to political legitimacy and social issues.
I am new to the debate side of things but I am a quick learner :-)
Please speak at the rate most comfortable for you. I'd prefer if you do not spread but I will clear if necessary.
I am inclined towards identity arguments (gender, sexuality, race, class, ability), politics (legislation, international relations), colonialism, and the environment.
I appreciate debates that are impact driven and I highly consider the way participants weigh impacts when it comes to my RFD. I am a big-picture judge, and I consider context more than structure.
During Cross-X I look for competitors who explain their arguments thoroughly and ask questions that expose the underlying assumptions of their opponent's arguments. I'm alright with a spicy cross-x as long as you're being respectful toward your opponent.
I believe debate provides the opportunity for people to expand their minds to other ideas and explore effective methods of communication.
Debated for Orange Lutheran for 4 years - qualed twice.
Be nice. (ad homs r bad)
Speaks start at 28.5 and go up or down from there
Evidence ethics is stake the round - see Samantha Mcloughlin
Clipping is an L20 but you need a recording to accuse someone
The doc is for cards - if I can't understand you then I'll miss the argument and I'm not great at flowing so pause between arguments
Death is not good
You can win on any argument if you debate well as long as its not morally abhorrent
If you already won the debate then sit down early/take less prep for better speaks
Favorite kind of arguments
Impact calc wins rounds
Know your positions
Winning competition is usually a better idea than going for theory but dta on cps is underutilized esp for stuff like private actor fiat bad
Zero risk isn't a thing
Default competing interps and dtd on T
The 1ar is probably pretty hard - 1ar theory is smart but i slow down and i need to hear warrants for your offense or I won't vote on it
Default reasonability on 1ar theory but can be convinced otherwise
Semantics/pragmatics first is stupid - predictability matters and you probably won't win going all in for one or the other
Smart topic T shells are great!
No RVIs but will vote on it if its dropped and I heard a warrant for it thats not time skew
Debate is a game, fairness is good
Affs should be topical but if not, go for the impact turn + win defense
Not well versed in k lit so explain your argument clearly or I won't vote on it
Affs get to weigh the case, negs get links to the plan
K alts about a "mindset shift" usually don't make much sense and might be cheating
Debate is about arguments not people
These debates are usually pretty messy and I'm not well versed so make sure you explain it well
Default epistemic modesty, extinction is bad
No one even reads straight up phil in LD but if you do and do it well then these debates are great
Going for a million induction fails spikes in the 2nr probably won't win
Tjfs are bad
Tech > truth but If I don't understand the argument then I won't vote on it
Default comparative worlds
More likely to vote for it if you aren't being sketchy - i.e. you know what an apriori is don't pretend you don't