Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Note (this was written when I only coached/judged policy)

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

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.

T

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).

K

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.

K Affs

I think topical k affs with advantages that are intrinsic to a simulation of plan action are the best.

CP

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.

Other

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.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

I'm a teacher and debate coach at Montgomery Bell Academy.

Put me on the email chain: abrown123564@gmail.com

Here is how you can make me want to give you a ballot + good speaks:

1. Make the debate comfortable and fun. I am not a good judge for you if you get super aggressive, snarky, or rude in round. I am a teacher - treat your partner and opponents the way you'd treat your classmates.

2. Please do not "cut corners" in your prep - I get very sad when I see incomplete DAs, incoherent T arguments, meaningless Adv CP texts, or evidence so un-highlighted it doesn't say anything, etc, deployed for the purpose of winning through out-spreading instead of out-debating. I generally don't think teams should be reading more than 6 off.

3. Do not forget you are in a public speaking activity. I am not evaluating the debate based off your speech doc. You should be clear, and you should flow. Please stop offering or asking for marked docs unless it is absolutely necessary.

4. Please do not abuse tag-team CX in either asking or answering questions.

4a. If you're not debating a new aff/debating as a maverick, and you decide to take CX as prep instead of asking questions, then I will allow the other team to keep reading cards for the remainder of CX.

Sorry if that all came across as grumpy. If you can do all of those things, then I'm happy and I look forward to judging you. I think that policy debate is good and that clash/fairness/etc. are all things which matter. I think debates should not exclude critical perspectives and we should seek to do what best improves the activity overall.

I am a tremendously bad judge for arguments advocating death, human extinction, or nuclear war. I probably just won't vote for them.

Have fun!

Jared Burke

Bakersfield High School class of 2017

Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021

2x NDT Qualifier

NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021

CEDA Semifinalist - 2021

Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present

Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present

Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran

Other people who have influenced the way I have thought about debate: Vontrez White and Jonathan Meza

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: jaredburkey99@gmail.com debatecsuf@gmail.com

HS: jaredburkey99@gmail.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 2023-2024:

Fiscal Redistribution: 11

Nukes : 13

LD Total: 89

NDT Update: I have been more involved in coaching Cal State Fullerton toward the second half of the year, this is not to say that I will know every intricacy of every aff, but from research I have done, I think I have a decent grasp on the topic.
If you are a senior,-and this is your last debate, congrats on an amazing career, but if you don't want to hear the RFD please feel free to leave.

Ramblings:
Gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose. If the 2NR is the fiat K I am not the judge for you.

If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debate matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.

Cliff Notes:

1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.

2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks

3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st

4. on T most times default to reasonability

5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - I think this is most of the debates I have judged and it's probably my favorite type of debates to be in both as a debater and as a judge. I would like to implore policy teams to invest in substantive strategies this is not to say that T is not an option in these debates, but most of these critical affs defend some things that I know there is a disad to and most times 2AC just is flat-footed on the disad. Frame subtraction bad, one PIC good, 2As fail to answer PICs most times. 2ACs overinvestment on T happens a bunch and the 2NR ends up being T when it should have been the disad or the PIC. All of this is to say that T as your first option in the 2NR is probably the right one, but capitalize on 2AC mistakes. Other T things - fairness is an impact and an internal link - role of the negative has been one of the most persuasive framings to me when comparing aff vs neg model of debate - only this debate matters is not a good argument, these debates should be a question about models of debate - carded TVAs are better than non-carded TVAs - TVA are sure-fire ways to win these debates for the negative.

6. No plan no perm is not an argument

7. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.

8. Theory debates are boring --- neg condo probably good --- I've been increasingly suspect of counterplans with conditional planks just because of how egregious they are

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

Specifics

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 rehighlight 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.

T-USFG:I think the stuff that I have said on the clash of civs section applies a lot here - fairness is an impact and is an internal link - role of the negative as a frame for your impacts/TVA etc has been pretty persuasive to me - 2ACs that go for only this debate matters doesn't make sense to me

DA:I think in these debates (also almost every debate) I just come through cards --- which is also why my RFDs take forever because I sift through a bunch of cards --- impact turns good --- absurd internal link chains should be questioned

CP: Process CPs good, judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality, multi-plank conditional counterplans I am somewhat suspect of just because they are sometimes are egregious --- permutations are tests of competition not new advocacies

LD Specific:

I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.

1 - Larp/K

2. K affs

3. Theory

4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil

If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.

Paradigm Last Updated – Summer 2023

Coach @ Shawnee Mission South and the University of Kansas.

Put me on the email chain :) azjabutler@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .5 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing” you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.
• Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

Associate Director of Debate @ Greenhill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

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.

I assess debates based on my deep admiration for the time, energy, and commitment that goes into preparing for debate tournaments. I will strictly rely on evidence and the arguments made during the round, refraining from adding my own opinions to my decision.

I am a policy debater and do not have the most experience judging PF or LD.

Joshua Clark

Montgomery Bell Academy

University of Michigan - Institute Instructor
Email: jreubenclark10@gmail.com

Past Schools:
Juan Diego Catholic
Notre Dame in Sherman Oaks
Damien

Debating:
Jordan (UT) 96-98
College of Eastern Utah 99
Cal St Fullerton 01-04

Website:
HSImpact.com

Speaker Points
Points will generally stay between 27.5 and 29.9. It generally takes a 28.8 average to clear. I assign points with that in mind. Teams that average 28.8 or higher in a debate mean I thought your points were elimination round-level debates. While it's not an exact science, 29-29.1 means you had a good chance of advancing in elimination rounds, and 29.2+ indicates excellence reserved for quarters+. I'm not stingy with these kinds of points; they have nothing to do with past successes. It has everything to do with your performance in THIS debate.


Etiquette
1. Try to treat each other with mutual respect.

2. Cards and tags should have the same clarity
3. Cards MUST be marked during the speech. Please say, "Mark the card," and please have you OR your partner physically mark the cards in the speech. It is not possible to remember where you've marked your cards after the speech. Saying "mark the card" is the only way to let your judge and competitors know that you do not intend to represent that you've read the entirety of the card. Physically marking the card in the speech is necessary to maintain an accurate account of what you did or didn't read.

Overview
My 25 years in the community have led me to formulate opinions about how the activity should be run. I'm not sharing these with you because I think this is the way you have to debate but because you may get some insight about how to win and earn better speaker points in front of me.

1) Conceded claims without warrants - These aren't complete arguments. A 10-second dropped ASPEC is very unlikely to decide a debate for me. Perm, do the CP without a theoretical justification; it also makes zero sense. Perm - do both needs to be followed by an explanation for how it resolves the link to the net benefit, or it is not an argument.

2) Voting issues are reasons to reject the argument. (Other than conditionality)

3) Debate stays in the round -- Debate is a game of testing ideas and their counterparts. Those ideas presented in the debate will be the sole factor used in determining the winning team. Things said or done outside of this debate round will not be considered when determining a winning team.

4) Your argument doesn't improve by calling it a "DA" -- I'm sure your analytical standard to your framework argument on the K is great, but overstating its importance by labeling it a "DA" isn't accurate. It's a reason to prefer your interpretation.

Topicality vs Conventional Affs: I default to competing interpretations on topicality but can be persuaded by reasonability. Topicality is a voting issue.

Topicality vs Critical Affs: I generally think that policy debate is a good thing and that a team should both have a plan and defend it. Given that, I have no problem voting for "no plan" advocacies or "fiat-less" plans. I will be looking for you to win that your impact turns to topicality/framework outweighs the loss of education/fairness that would be given in a "fiated" plan debate. Affirmative teams struggle with answering the argument that they could advocate most of their aff while defending a topical plan. I also think that teams who stress they are a pre-requisite to topical action have a more difficult time with topical version-type arguments than teams who impact turn standards. If you win that the state is irredeemable at every level, you are much more likely to get me to vote against FW. The K aff teams who have had success in front of me have been very good at generating a good list of arguments that opposing teams could run against them to mitigate the fairness impact of the T/FW argument. This makes the impact turns of a stricter limit much more persuasive to me.

I'm also in the fairness camp as a terminal impact, as opposed to an emphasis on portable skills. I think you can win that T comes before substantive issues.

One note to teams that are neg against an aff that lacks stable advocacy: Make sure you adapt your framework arguments to fit the aff. Don't read..." you must have a plan" if they have a plan. If a team has a plan but doesn't defend fiat, base your ground arguments on that violation.


Counterplans and Disads: The more specific to the aff, the better. There are few things better than a well-researched PIC that just blind sites a team. Objectively, I think counterplans that compete on certainty or immediacy are not legitimate. However, I still coach teams to run these arguments, and I can still evaluate a theory debate about these different counterplans as objectively as possible. Again, the more specific the evidence is to the aff, the more legitimate it will appear.


The K: I was a k debater and a philosophy major in college. I prefer criticisms that are specific to the resolution. If your K links don't discuss poverty and redistribution strategies this year, then it's unlikely to be very persuasive to me.

Impact comparisons usually become the most important part of a kritik, and the excessive link list becomes the least of a team’s problems heading into the 2nr. It would be best if you won that either a) you turn the case and have an external impact or b) you solve the case and have an external impact. Root cause arguments are sound but rarely address the timeframe issue of case impacts. If you are going to win your magnitude comparisons, then you better do a lot to mitigate the case impacts. I also find most framework arguments associated with a K nearly pointless. Most of them are impacted by the K proper and depend on you winning the K to win the framework argument. Before devoting any more time to the framework beyond getting your K evaluated, you should ask yourself and clearly state to me what happens if you win your theory argument. You should craft your "role of the ballot" argument based on the answer to that question. I am willing to listen to sequencing arguments that EXPLAIN why discourse, epistemology, ontology, etc., come first.


Conclusion: I love debate...good luck if I'm judging you, and please feel free to ask any clarifying questions.

To promote disclosure at the high school level, any team that practices near-universal "open source" will be awarded .2 extra per debater if you bring that to my attention before the RFD.

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.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

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 who will go on to coach younger 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.

REFUTATION

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.

EVIDENCE USE

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.

ANALYSIS

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.

STANFORD & BERKELEY 24: Very thin working knowledge of the topic. Proceed assuming I know almost nothing, ESPECIALLY in heavy econ debates

my name is kyujin (pronounced Q-jin) – he/him, toc elim debater & il state champion @ northside from 2017-21, coaching @ interlake since 2021. email chain: kyujinderradji@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com.

trying to update this once or twice a year every year that I’m active; debaters spend thousands of hours researching and preparing for tournaments, and the least i can do to maximize the benefits that come from that is to let you know how i will approach evaluating the things you prepared to say.

TLDR: no hard and fast rules except that I will not evaluate death good, and i am heavily biased against strategies that eschew line-by-line debating. if you read a planless aff i would put me lower than “k-friendly” judges but not at the bottom of your pref sheet.

LONGER:

top level –

· i have substantive preferences (of course, everyone does even if they don’t say so) BUT those should not change the way you debate. debates are best when debaters are not just Saying The Words They Were Told To Say, but rather when all the debaters have evidently been thinking about their position and making refined and clear arguments that are not intended to confuse but instead to persuade. while, of course, you will not persuade me that we should kill social security to prevent the Hat Man from haunting your dreams, my role is to evaluate the effectiveness of your communication in attempting to prove that such is true.

· additionally, i will exclude arguments prefaced off events that happened outside of what i have witnessed in the debate, ad homs, or otherwise accusatory statements. i will err towards facilitating the continuation of the debate unless it becomes clear that is no longer possible, in which case i will follow tabroom procedure and maximize opportunities to ensure the well-being of the debaters directly affected by malicious and/or harmful behavior.

· do not attempt to pander to me!! there’s obviously a level of comfortability and camaraderie that i think is good and appropriate in the setting of a debate, but ultimately i am almost out of college. many older people in debate lack boundaries when engaging with high schoolers that honestly makes me very uncomfortable. i appreciate being friendly/relaxed etc, and i encourage that, but please do not act like we are old buddies or make comments that you wouldn’t make to a teacher.

· people who have shaped the way i think about debate: john turner, shree awsare, dml, holland bald, luther snagel, addison kane, wayne tang, all of northside c/o '19

pet peeves –

· clarity. i will not clear you. it's up to you to be as clear as possible even if that means sacrificing speed. having to give an rfd where i tell you that i couldn't understand a third of what you were saying is frustrating annoying for me and embarrassing for you.

· kicking stuff. not kicking out of stuff correctly, even if it doesn’t do you any strategic harm, is a very bad look and your speaks will suffer.

· cx. barring the aff is new or you are mav, you must either do cross ex for all 3 minutes or end early. you cannot use cross ex for prep.

speaker points –

· speaker points will be rewarded by knowing what you are talking about, doing research, clarity, strategic vision, and being funny. speaker points will be docked by rudeness/undue assertiveness, lack of clarity, and lack of strategic vision.

· doing my best to accommodate new trends in speaker points even if i might disagree with them. i understand how frustrating it is to have stingy judges give low speaks and jeopardize seeding/breaking.

decision calc –

· tech over truth. BUT! that requires you extend a claim, warrant, and impact. a 2nr should extend an impact and do impact comparison, not something like “they dropped impact #3 in the 1nr, extinction, don’t make me reinvent the wheel” – bad bad bad. setting yourself up for failure at the hands of a smart 2a.

· i need your arguments to make sense – that’s really really crucial. seems like a truism but unfortunately it is not.

evidence –

· i care a lot about evidence quality – i'd say more than the average judge. research is the largest/most valuable portable skill from debate and i will look for ways to reward teams who have clearly conducted original, innovative, and/or high-quality research and can demonstrate the knowledge that research has imparted them with.

· i do read evidence (not every time, but if I feel so compelled) but i will not include that into my decision unless evidence is a subject of disagreement.

· I will read more than the highlighting, but I will only evaluate the un-highlighted portion if I think that you have misrepresented it in a way that makes the evidence read better than it is i.e. you selectively highlight words or ignore paragraphs to make your evidence look more conclusive. I will not include warrants from ev in my decision that you have not read obviously.

· rehighlightings are obvi great, you can insert them, as long as it’s not egregious. You can’t insert cards from other articles that an author has written in order to indict them – you have to read that. the point of inserting recuttings is just to point to the other team’s own evidence and provide direction as to what specifically is at issue with it. introducing other articles obviously requires you read them, because that is not evidence read by the other team.

· caveat to the above – please! make sure you are not mis-recutting evidence. It will look like you didn’t actually read the evidence and assumed it was miscut. Your speaks will suffer.

the rest of this paradigm are my opinions on various positions, but matter much less than what was just said above.

planless affs/framework –

· 70-30 neg. one of the two hardest things for the aff in these debates are when the aff does not have a meaningful reason why debates over the resolution are bad, as opposed to the resolution itself. this usually requires some kind of exclusionary critique of the idea of debating the topic entirely, which is a pretty high bar to clear imo. the other barrier to an aff ballot in my mind is the role of debate. what is the ballot’s function? what does it mean if i vote aff or neg? why is debating the 1ac valuable fro the neg? all of these are questions I think the aff must be able to answer, and often they cannot to a satisfactory degree. given the aff is choosing to forego a traditional defense of the resolution, i think the burden of proof is set significantly higher because the aff must then establish a new set of criteria by which to evaluate the debate – which also often lends to the neg’s predictability offense on framework.

· i heavily prefer impacts pertinent to the process of debate rather than its substance (paraphrased from holland <3). topic education and the like tend to ignore the way that competition/resolutional wording distorts how we approach the topic – and lend themselves to internal link turns absent substantive defense to the 1ac’s thesis claims.

· all good for a da/pic against a planless aff – my favorite debates v k affs senior year were going for tech good against a “zoom bad” aff and heg good against a mao aff.

· NOT good for k v k debates. i will likely be confused and you will likely be unhappy with my decision.

counterplans –

· :thumbs-up:

· fine for intricate competition debates BUT i will need arguments to be warranted – saying “their interp justifies x” is sometimes not immediately intuitive for me, so just err on the side of explaining things more.

· agree with like everyone else that counterplans can’t simply identify an aff internal link and write a plank to the effect of “solve x impact”. it’s like making an alt cause argument that explains no alt causes.

· i won’t automatically judge kick a counterplan.

· i am neg leaning on basically all theory. most theory is better articulated as a competition argument. i am not a good judge for teams who shotgun 1ar extensions of conditionality and make it 5 minutes of the 2ar – obviously can be a legitimate strategy but it feels like it has recently become a safety net for teams who are afraid of debating substance. also, please slow down in heavy theory debates.

disads –

· :thumbs-up:

· comparison and narrative-telling are the most important. telling me why I should care about your thing and using examples/common threads from evidence is very helpful and demonstrates a lot of skill.

t v plans –

· :thumbs-up:

· there should only really be two kinds of t debates to me: one that gets to the core of a topic disagreement (i.e. t-enact on CJR or t-AOS on immigration) and one that points out an egregious instance of a violation. outside of these two instances, i’ll tend to err aff.

· i prefer t debates with lots of evidence, warrants, and little repetition. limits is the best neg impact and (usually) precision or aff ground are the best aff impacts.

k’s vs. plans –

· yes for most. i think these are best executed when they function as an impact turn to core ideological assumptions of the plan. the more the k is [insert theory – no perm because footnote DA] or reps k of [one of your 9 impacts], the less I will be a fan.

· ideally, the function of your framework argument should be to ratchet down the importance of having a coherent alternative.

· i generally quite dislike "you link, you lose", and i have a pretty low threshold for voting aff on framework in these debates. giving the aff some kind of access to their consequences (at least as a defense of their epistemology) will make me much more receptive to a research or epistemology k.

About Me:

Bravo '20, CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

2024 ADA Champ, CEDA Semis, NDT Quarters, #3 Copeland Panelist

Currently coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

People I talk about debate with or have influenced me heavily: Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green, Geordano Liriano, Curtis Ortega, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega, Toya Green, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward, Jonathan Meza, Jared Burke, Elvis Pineda, Irshad Reza Husain, Tatianna Mckenzie, Khamani Griffin

TOC Update

nothing new, if anybody's interested in debating at csulb lemme know

How I Judge

• Judge instruction above all else. Tell me why your argument comes first (framing, recency, more contextualized, etc.) or why winning x part of the flow wins you the rest, and do the opposite to your opponent's framing. A long 2AR/2NR overview that identifies the 2-3 biggest issues to resolve is much more instructive to me than blasting off a pre-written block. I fully believe that the focus of the debate is completely up to the debaters to determine and will decide it only on what the flow says, not what I think it should say.
• When resolving arguments for either side, I tend to view it kind of like debate math. If one side has a full extension of their argument (claim, warrant, ev) and the other side is incomplete (claim, warrant, no ev), then I default to the side that has a more complete explanation of their argument. In scenarios where debating is equal, I listen to judge instruction and read evidence when necessary, but this a rarity. I hate having to insert my own beliefs about debate in order to decide which argument is better, which is why direct argument comparison and judge instruction are the most important things to do when I'm judging you.
• I flow straight down and heavily decide debates based on technical execution, so responding to the arguments in the order that they come in is preferable to me. However, I am completely fine with you going in your own order as long as you clearly state what argument you're responding to and still directly engage your opponent's arguments.
• I don't have the docs open during the debate and only refer to them during cx to read ev or if the debate is really close. I'm comfortable flowing any speed, but will not hesitate to say in the RFD that I could not catch an argument because the analytics were unflowable or the argument did not make sense. Please do not spread your analytics as if they're cards.
• Capable of writing a clear RFD for any style of debate, but my advice for improvement is better if critical literature is introduced. I only read K-oriented arguments in college, but was a flex/policy-leaning debater in high school.
• Following the above ensures that good, technical debating always overrides my personal beliefs (hate capitalism and psychoanalysis but vote on them all the time its concerning)
• No judge kick make your own decisions, inserting rehighlights is fine with me on the condition that you explain what the rehighlight says using quotes from the ev.
• Speaker points start at a 28.5 and move up and down according to execution: Rebuttals > Organization > Strategic pivots/ concessions > Sounding like you want to be here > Winning Cross-ex moments is probably my list of priorities when thinking about it
• boo being a bad person to your opponents booooo. i'm all for debaters standing on business, petty throwdowns, etc., but i am not for full-on disrespecting your opponents simply for the sake of it. every debate is a performance and you should be aware of how you come off.
• Format stuff -- title ur email chains [Tournament Name - Round x - Team A -Aff- v. Team B -Neg-), pls put ev in a doc before sending it out, etc.

Argument Preferences

I appreciate debaters who stick to their convictions and are confident in their ability to win what they're best at regardless if the judge is predetermined to agree with their set of arguments or not. The following is a list my personal beliefs about debate that only matter if there is a complete absence of judge instruction/technical debating by both sides. Anything that is not addressed just means I'm neutral for both sides about the argument and is overwhelmingly determined by the flow.

K Affs - Affs should be clear about the method/epistemological shift from the status quo they defend and why it challenges the impacts/theory of power outlined in the 1AC. I'm better for method-based K Affs than solely epistemological ones because I think the latter is susceptible to presumption arguments since I'm usually unsure about the scale that is required for the epistemological shift to solve the 1AC's impacts and why the aff is uniquely key. Method-based affs should be prepared to debate impact turns.

K Aff v. Framework - I strongly prefer a counter-interpretation than just a impact turn strategy. What it means to be resolutional must be defined in the 2AC through definitions or a different vision for engagement. I also strongly prefer that the counter-interpretation is in reference to models of debate established by scholars in the activity (DSRB’s Three Tier, Elijah Smith’s KFM, Amber Kelsie’s Blackened Debate, etc.). I think there is enough history of debate established for us to have substantive debates over the pros/cons of traditional/non-traditional models of debate.

Framework v. K Affs - Clash/Skills with Fairness as an internal link instead of as an impact on its own. SSD over TVA unless you have a solvency advocate. A combination of limits arguments and no clash turning the case is needed in order to win these debates in front of me. The only "engage the aff's case" I require is defense agains the aff's theory of power and their "ballot key" arguments since those two are usually cross-applied to become offense against framework.

K v. K - The biggest thing to clarify is how competing visions/demands about society structure your offense against each side of the debate. Each form of offense should have a material example of how your theoretical distinctions manifest into real impacts.

PIKs - Affs should always explain that the component that the negative has PIK'd out of is necessary for aff solvency, and that the PIK is a worse version because of it. Offense by the aff is often underdeveloped and I wish neg teams would be less afraid to go for PIKs since its usually cleaner than other flows.

Policy Affs - 2ACs overviews need to explain what the plan does and why it solves the impacts of the 1AC as opposed to just impact calculus at the top. Negative teams should be more willing to go for analytics that call out wonky internal link chains and solvency claims.

Extinction Affs v. K - Affs should defend the representations of their plan beyond "if we win case then reps true + extinction outweighs" by thoroughly explaining why the impact scenario is true as opposed to the 2AR saying "no case defense, flow our stuff through for us". I truly don't understand the new trend for every debater to rattle off "debate doesnt shape subjectivity + fairness is nice" and think that its sufficient to beat the K without addressing the link or the alt. I'd much rather hear a 2AR that substantively defends the case and impact turns the links. I absolutely hate when heg teams say "china evil cus uyghurs" or "russia evil" and refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy in defending the United States (enslavement, genocide, current support of Israel, just history and today in general.). If you want to win heg good in front of me, I need a substantive impact turn to the link and an offensive push for why the alternative on the K is worse than the status quo, not just "fwk - weigh the aff".

Soft-Left Affs v. K - These are my favorite debates to judge. Affs should spend more time explaining why the case is a good form of harm reduction as opposed to trying to beat the ontology of the K with "progress possible + pessimism bad" arguments. I usually think that these arguments do nothing for the aff since none of the cards are about the case, and they'd be better off explaining why the aff is better than the status quo even if the neg's ontology is correct, and that a perm would resolve the links enough.

K v. Policy - K teams should have a "link turns case argument" even if the 2NR is a huge framework push, but I prefer the strategy to extend an alt that solves the case and resolves the link debate. Case defense is appreciated. I'm not the best for K 2NR's that invest most of their time into the ontology debate because I think its better for neg teams to go for specific links that turn the case or have an argument that the impacts of the K should come first before the aff, and winning a link means the alt comes first before the aff. At most, I think the ontology of a Kritik should be used to frame which impacts matter most, and it usually does not make-or-break debates for me. I don't require "specific" link evidence versus the aff, but I appreciate link contextualization in the block and I think K's are best when the 2NC/2NR pulls specific lines from the Affs speeches and explain how their method's underlying assumptions turn itself.

Counterplans - Neutral for each side about theory/competition arguments. Counterplans that only rely on internal net benefits are less likely to win in front of me since I think a combination of aff theory + a permutation can beat it.

Disadvantages - PLEASE INTRODUCE IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2AC/2NC, I hate when the first time I'm hearing it is in the rebuttal speeches from both sides. Direct evidence comparison above all else, i appreciate an overview of the impact scenario at the top of each speech. I'm a lot more concerned by whose impact scenario has more overall risk of occurring than a "turns the case/DA" argument.

LAMDL/UDL Stuff

• ONLY TO LAMDL/OTHER UDL KIDS - Email me with questions, speech redoes, questions about debate, and I will try my best to get back to you with advice/feedback. Not having coaches and learning debate by yourself is hard and I can’t guarantee responses all the time but I try to respond to mostly everybody that reaches out to me.
• WIKI RANT - have a wiki up by your 2nd tournament or I’m capping speaks at 29. Cites of the arguments/evidence you have read are the only thing needed, not open source. Not disclosing on the wiki diminishes the quality of debates LAMDL produces and exacerbates the gaps we have in resources as UDL schools, and it does nothing to help up and coming varsity debaters who don’t know how to start prep against teams that refuse to disclose. Debate is competitive and we’re all here to win, but it sucks when part of the reason nobody’s prepped to be negative is because nobody knows what anybody is reading.

other thoughts

• Highlight Color Rankings - Yellow > Blue > custom light pastel color > any other color is ew
• Water > Coffee > any energy drink like Red Bull or Monster is disgusting
• Tagline quality. They’re either unflowable (too long/wordy) or way too flowable (no warrant/2 word). The way people feel about highlighting trends is how I feel about tags. I hope for the perfect middle ground.
• If you run critical arguments about an identity you don’t belong to, I need you to explain what my/your role as a judge/competitor is to that literature, even if the other side never brings it up. I think it’s valuable to understand how we position ourselves in relation to literature that isn’t about us and see how it affects our decisions to use it as an argument, as well as develop ethical relationships to it.
• I think variations of the Cap K (escalante, racial cap, abolition democracy, etc.) are great and the majority of Affs mishandle them. Defending it as a methods debate as opposed to a "cap root cause + extinction ow + state engagement good" strategy is better in front of me and the affs common responses of "racist party + accountability DA + aff theory is root cause of cap" can be easily beat assuming the negative has actually read the literature behind the cap k. Despite the fearmongering by framework teams, the Cap K is a great generic and more teams should be willing to go for it.

email: eforslund@gmail.com

Copied and Pasted from my judge philosophy wiki page.

Recent Bio:

Director of Debate at Pace Academy

15 years judging and coaching high school debate. First at Damien High School then at Greenhill. Generally only judge a handful of college rounds a year.

Zero rounds on the current college topic in 2020.

Coached at the University of Wyoming 2004-2005.

I have decided to incentivize reading strategies that involve talking about the specifics of the affirmative case. Too many high school teams find a terrible agent or process cp and use politics as a crutch. Too many high school teams pull out their old, generic, k's and read them regardless of the aff. As an incentive to get away from this practice I will give any 2N that goes for a case-only strategy an extra point. If this means someone who would have earned a 29 ends up with a 30, then so be it. I would rather encourage a proliferation of higher speaker points, then a proliferation of bad, generic arguments. If you have to ask what a case strategy involves, then you probably aren't going to read one. I'm not talking about reading some case defense and going for a disad, or a counterplan that solves most of the aff. I'm talking about making a majority of the debate a case debate -- and that case debate continuing into the 2NR.

You'll notice "specificity good" throughout my philosophy. I will give higher points to those teams that engage in more specific strategies, then those that go for more generic ones. This doesnt mean that I hate the k -- on the contrary, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate on a k, but it needs to be ABOUT THE AFF. The genero security k doesnt apply to the South Korean Prostitutes aff, the Cap k doesnt apply to the South Korea Off-Shore Balancing aff - and you arent likely to convince me otherwise. But if you have an argument ABOUT the affirmative --especially a specific k that has yet to be read, then you will be rewarded if I am judging you.

I have judged high-level college and high school debates for the last 14 years. That should answer a few questions that you are thinking about asking: yes, speed is fine, no, lack of clarity is not. Yes, reading the k is ok, no, reading a bunch of junk that doesn't apply to the topic, and failing to explain why it does is not.

The single most important piece of information I can give you about me as a judge is that I cut a lot of cards -- you should ALWAYS appeal to my interest in the literature and to protect the integrity of that literature. Specific is ALWAYS better than generic, and smart strategies that are well researched should ALWAYS win out over generic, lazy arguments. Even if you dont win debates where you execute specifics, you will be rewarded.

Although my tendencies in general are much more to the right than the rest of the community, I have voted on the k many times since I started judging, and am generally willing to listen to whatever argument the debaters want to make. Having said that, there are a few caveats:

1. I don't read a lot of critical literature; so using a lot of terms or references that only someone who reads a lot of critical literature would understand isn’t going to get you very far. If I don’t understand your arguments, chances are pretty good you aren’t going to win the debate, no matter how persuasive you sound. This goes for the aff too explain your argument, don’t assume I know what you are talking about.

2. You are much better off reading critical arguments on the negative then on the affirmative. I tend to believe that the affirmative has to defend a position that is at least somewhat predictable, and relates to the topic in a way that makes sense. If they don’t, I am very sympathetic to topicality and framework-type arguments. This doesn’t mean you can’t win a debate with a non-traditional affirmative in front of me, but it does mean that it is going to be much harder, and that you are going to have to take topicality and framework arguments seriously. To me, predictability and fairness are more important than stretching the boundaries of debate, and the topic. If your affirmative defends a predictable interpretation of the topic, you are welcome to read any critical arguments you want to defend that interpretation, with the above stipulations.

3. I would much rather watch a disad/counterplan/case debate than some other alternative.

In general, I love a good politics debate - but - specific counterplans and case arguments are THE BEST strategies. I like to hear new innovative disads, but I have read enough of the literature on this year’s topic that I would be able to follow any deep debate on any of the big generic disads as well.

As far as theory goes, I probably defer negative a bit more in theory debates than affirmative. That probably has to do with the fact that I like very well thought-out negative strategies that utilize PICS and specific disads and case arguments. As such, I would much rather see an affirmative team impact turn the net benefits to a counterplan then to go for theory (although I realize this is not always possible). I really believe that the boundaries of the topic are formed in T debates at the beginning of the year, therefore I am much less willing to vote on a topicality argument against one of the mainstream affirmatives later on in the year than I am at the first few tournaments. I’m not going to outline all of the affs that I think are mainstream, but chances are pretty good if there are more than a few teams across the country reading the affirmative, I’m probably going to err aff in a close T debate.

One last thing, if you really want to get high points in front of me, a deep warming debate is the way to go. I would be willing to wager that I have dug further into the warming literature than just about anybody in the country, and I love to hear warming debates. I realize by this point most teams have very specific strategies to most of the affirmatives on the topic, but if you are wondering what advantage to read, or whether or not to delve into the warming debate on the negative, it would be very rewarding to do so in front of me -- at the very least you will get some feedback that will help you in future debates.

Ok, I lied, one more thing. Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.

For Lay Debate --

I will try to evaluate arguments as if I had never done debate. Please treat me as a parent judge.

Otherwise:
Jackson Frankwick

Email chain --- jacksonrpv@gmail.com

Please be nice.

Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.

If I judge a fairness bad arguement I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness.

If I can't flow you I will stop paying attention.

I try to make my speaks normally distributed(u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).

Prep ends when email is sent.

Topicality is primarily a question of truth.

Everything is probablistic unless dropped (existential inherency is true).

42fryguy@gmail.com

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

K

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

T

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CP

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

Judging Philosophy

Robert Groven

Chair, Assoc. Professor, Communication Studies, Film & New Media, Augsburg University

Director, Minnesota Urban Debate League

Coaching policy at Eagan High School, Eagan, Minnesota

Email: groven@augsburg.edu (please add me to the email/file exchange)

Background: I started policy debate in the 7th grade, debated all through junior high, high school (Como Park, St. Paul, MN) and college (Concordia College, Moorhead, NDT out rounds, Kentucky Round Robin), and since then I've coached for more than 25 years at the college and high school level, both on the national circuit and locally in the Midwest. I have also directed and taught at multiple camps over the years. I’m one of the original founders and current head of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, and am a tenured faculty at Augsburg College where I teach argumentation, rhetoric, persuasion and various specialized forms of public address.

Debate Paradigm: When left to my own devices I function as an educational games player, which means I believe that competitive academic debate is an activity designed to educate, enlighten and improve its students and society. My primary responsibility is to serve the debaters as students, in my role as an educator, both in and out of rounds. Therefore, unless given a different framework, I resolve procedural issues by evaluating the impact the precedent would set for the educational value of the activity. If the debaters do not specify a substantive decision-making framework, I default to being a pragmatic policy maker. However, I have spent many years studying rhetoric and critical theory and I’m happy to function in non-consequentialist and discursive frameworks if the debaters defend them. I am sensitive to the important, manifold issues of identity and have devoted many years attempting to redress systemic injustices in and out of debate.

I greatly prefer specific links and specific evidence when I can get it, but vote without specific links when I must. Topicality is a default voter, but I’m persuadable and have voted for non-topical and non-policy advocacy statements many times. In general, I do my best not to intervene on any issue, and decide rounds based only on what the debaters do and say in the round.

Style Preferences: Respect, kindness, and fun in rounds are high values for me. I do not enjoy debaters who are rude or domineering and will reduce points accordingly. Debating and debate rounds should be intense, passionate, and enjoyable.

Speed is not a problem for me, but comprehensibility is crucial. As I hope you know, most judges, even experienced, well-regarded judges, pretend to understand most of most rounds. 20 years on, I am past pretending. If I cannot understand you I will ask you to be clearer, but I will only make that request three times per person. After that, I just do my best. But, I will not vote on an issue or argument that I could not understand in constructives. And, suddenly giving clear meaning to incomprehensible gibberish in rebuttals, although occasionally entertaining, is grossly unfair to the opposition.

Tag CX is fine as long as the debaters are all respectful to one another. I’ll time prep and time speeches along with you, but you must keep your own time too.

“Be kind whenever possible.

It is always possible.”

-His Holiness the Dalia Lama XIV

Hi, I'm Tessa -- I use she/they pronouns and will openly laugh if you call me "judge" at any point during the debate.

Got a few First Rounds to the NDT at Wake Forest University, alongside a generally high level of competitive success writ large. My college career was spent reading solely critical arguments, although I spent quite a lot of time as a policy debater in high school as well. Since leaving debate, I have spent time both in the cybersecurity and AI industries as well as the academy discussing AI and critical theory. I am heavily involved in grassroots organizing as well.

Currently coaching for University of Iowa and Head-Royce Highschool.

Yes I want to be on the email chain -- ask for my email if you don't have it (Don't put your emails online in searchable places like this, kids!).

***Spark Notes***

Do what you love. If you have no passion in your heart, then do what you are good at. Debate is about scholarship, rhetoric, and competition, so do one or more of those well and you will probably have my ballot. Care about one of those and you will probably get good speaks too.

I enjoy daring, ambitious, and nuanced strategies and will reward debaters who put in the work to execute them, whether it is a hyperspecific CP/DA strategy or a complex new interpretation of a critical theory.

All of my assumptions and proclivities are endlessly negotiable and if a team makes an argument I will do my best to put that before my own thoughts on the matter.

Judge instruction is the single most important aspect of the debate, especially the final rebuttals and how both teams frame and compare offense will massively influence how I approach my flow. Explicitly comparing and evaluating offense in the 2AR and 2NR will be the surest route to my ballot regardless of the content of the debate. Extending offense without instructing me on how to compare it to the other side will leave me in the unfortunate position of having to think too deeply about the debate, which neither of us want.

I tend to view arguments > evidence. Debate is a communicative activity, and therefore how I evaluate evidence is filtered through what I am told about it, all else being equal. For me, reading evidence after the debate occurs when it is sufficiently flagged by one or both teams as central to a key issue in the debate. Good evidence is not an excuse for a bad articulation, but can be a net benefit to a good one. That said, quoting, rehighlighting, or otherwise engaging with both your own and opponents evidence will greatly influence the weight I assign to arguments and the speaker points I award.

If you do wish me to toss out the flow but please tell me to do so explicitly, early, and give me a clear alternative way to adjudicate the debate. I will likely take notes on the debate even if told to toss out the flow, but that is likely comments to share in the post round.

***Clash debates***

Okay, I know this is the only part of a paradigm anyone ever reads so...

1. I judge *a lot* of these debates. Almost all of my ballots end up being focused on execution and top level framing. Be on top of those two and you'll have a good shot at my ballot regardless of what you read. This applies to form, not just content. I am very happy when explicitly told why I should vote on procedural impacts over content, or vibes/truth over line by line, or prioritize methods over aesthetics, or whatever other form argument you might be implicitly making.
2. "Intrinsic goods" do not exist. Procedural impacts might, but I must be convinced as to why and how they interact with other concerns about how we should use this pace. Make warrants for fairness as an impact and do impact calculus about why it outweighs. Saying "it comes first because debate is a game" will rarely get my ballot if given a similarly tagline aff response. I tend to vote for impacts other than fairness far more often as it seems notably difficult for many debaters to articulate fairness beyond such an internal link or tautological defense of old school debate.
3. Defense is underrated in these debates. Most of my decisions in these debates are heavily influenced by small, smart defensive arguments that break ties between well-crafted pieces of offense on both sides. This is especially true for FW arguments on the aff or neg. I find that most affirmatives lose by underestimating small negative defensive arguments at the level of a FW with both policy and critical affirmatives.

***Can't believe I have to say this but...***

- Anti-blackness, other forms of racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, etc. will be responded to with anything from an autoloss to zero speaks to a 27 depending on the severity of the issue. Impact > Intentions.

- clipping is an autoloss as well and results in the lowest possible speaks.

- I do not believe the other team has the burden to call these things out and will stop the round if I feel it is unsafe or un-educational for anyone involved.

- Disclosure is good for debate and should generally be reciprocated absent safety concerns.

- And, an unclear/unflowable argument is a blank space on my flow -- I will not evaluate arguments I cannot hear and understand. Yes, even if you think you are hot shit.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

Cat Jacob

Northwestern' 23

WY'19

Coaching at Head Royce 2019-Present

I work at a think tank, I'll understand your policy arguments

Put me on the chain - catherinelynnjacob01@gmail.com AND hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Topicality - I have been in a lot of T debates this year - the only thing I want here is good line by line and impacted out standards in the 2nr/2ar (e.g. and aff ground o/ws neg ground -but why?) *** its not a reverse voter issue/its not genocide (dont annoy me)

T-USFG - I hate judging these now but I still have a conscience, I'm just hostile to them - couple things - make the 2ar responses to the 2nr on FW clear, the 1ar is make or break in FW debates for me so beware technical concessions. I don't really have a preference between prioritizing fairness vs education arguments. For the aff in these debates - dont drop SSD, TVA, or a truth testing claim on your scholarship - with minimal mitigation that's an easy neg ballot to write.

Disadvantages - They're lit - do turns case analysis and have a link story (even if its non specific), have an external impact and you're golden. Bad DAs are fine (ANWR, tradeoff etc), if they read a bad DA produce an amusing CX from it to showcase the contrived link chain, it'll up your ethos (and your speaks)

Counterplans - Have a competitive counterplan text with a net benefit. I will vote on a CP flaw/whether or not a CP is feasibly possible, I will not judgekick unless I am told to. Theoretically illegit CPs are fine and the theory debate should be done well if you really want me to reject them. Unorthodox CPs are also cool w me - anarchy for example.

Conditionality - Explain it, go for it if you want - I don't consider myself having a high threshold for judging theory, unless condo is dropped it should be at least 45 seconds of the 1ar (if extended) or else I will be less lenient in a 2ar on theory. In the 1ar, if condo is extended in 10 seconds as an afterthought (e.g. YEAH condo ummm its abusive next) that's annoying and I won't vote on that if the 2nr spends 8 seconds there and is marginally less coherent than you.

Kritiks v Policy Affs - - I have seen any K you're going to run in front of me and have a reasonable threshold for voting on K tricks. That being said - Reps are shaped by context - In round links/impacts are fine .

--------things that will annoy me in these debates

- Claiming that I should give you leeway because they read a "K trick" a. no BL for a K trick, b. unless you're going for condo with an impact of in round abuse/some other theory arg stop whining to me.

- unresponsive answers to FW that lead to an interventionist decision

- an incoherent link story/alt solvency

- not being able to explain your K in CX

-not Cross applying FW if they read more than one K and instead spending twenty seconds reading the same FW again

-Claiming the role of the aff in debates is to "stfu" - I don't like voting for this model of debate because it is one sided and in debate as a competitive activity engagement is critical - but I can't make that argument for you.

That being said - go read Khirn's reasoning for why he votes for Kritiks most of the time, and what his RFDs look like. I agree with him.

Ks I have written files on/answering/into the lit for - spanos, psycho, cap, communist horizon, security, fem, mao, death cult, berlant, scranton, queerness, set col, *the thing you'll really need to do in high theory debates is be responsive to 2ac answers and break your prewritten block dependency, show me you know what you're doing and I won't use my background knowledge to help you.

Kritiks v K affs - Usually interesting. the RFD will most like be they did/didnt win the perm (that's usually how it goes).

Death Good - I'll vote on it but I'll have a high threshold.

Ethics Violations - Dont clip. Ethics Violations as pertaining to evidence quality/evidence flaws are not usually a voter (these types of debates will also annoy me)- it is not your role to persuade me that it was particularly abusive - if you introduce one of these into the round a. it is make or break - if i determine you're wrong, you lose and that is a decision I will make myself without consideration from either team by reading the ev, b. these are usually accidents and stupid to waste time doing, c. the appropriate thing is to tell the team to correct it and not weaponize it for a strategy - that's a bad model of debate for several reasons and doing so makes you a living representation of a moral hazard.

Impact Turns - They're funny and usually have questionable evidence quality, I think that good impact turn debates are underused and very threatening to a stupid team that reads both an ineq and hard impact adv.

Misc -

- don't shake my hand, don't try it's weird and i don't like it

- I'll vote on a floating PIK

- There's a brightline between being argumentative and being rude, everyone loses that line sometimes but it's important to be attentive and paying attention to the responses of your opponents.

- Ill be on the email chain but I usually won't be flowing off of it

- You get two clears - then I stop flowing

- Time your own prep

- do untopical policy things against K teams it is their fault they can't go for T

-counter-fiction/poetry is acceptable

Feel free to message me w questions about my RFDs/comments - take notes during the RFD

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Updated pre-woodward 2024

Yes email chain-- willkatzemailchain@gmail.com

I am currently a coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I debated in high school at Washburn Rural and in college at the University of Kansas.

I have a large amount of topic knowledge for the hs fiscal redistribution topic. I am actively involved in research and have judged at a lot of tournaments.

As a judge, these are the things that I care about (in order of importance):

1. That you treat all participants in the debate with respect and that your speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, could enthusiastically show my administration

2. That you flow the debate and use that flow to make and respond to arguments. I find that debaters are almost universally better at flowing if they try to flow and line arguments up on paper, not their computer.

3. That you are advancing logical, well-evidenced, warranted claims that demonstrate topic knowledge and research. I am not a good judge for you if your arguments are generally 1 sentence assertions, uncarded, or wholly irrelevant to the topic.

4. That you make good, bold strategic choices. I will give absurdly high speaker points to students that take good risks to collapse the debate to a small number of arguments that create favorable win conditions for them.

5. That you make comparisons between your arguments/evidence and your opponents. If your final rebuttals consist of more comparisons than summary and description, I am a great judge for you.

Note that "subject" isn't really on this list outside of it being relevant to the topic. I don't care if you read a soft left aff, go for topic-relevant critiques, read 90 plank advantage counterplans, or go for politics.

Everything below offers clarification on how this set of arguments plays out in practice

_________________________________________________

I love debate. I really, really like seeing students demonstrate that they are having fun, working hard, thinking about debate, researching the topic, and engaging in debates that reflect the topic's literature base. In many ways, debate is better now than it has ever been.

I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. If I am told about or personally observe behavior that I would consider in need of an intervention, I am going to approach the tournament administration about it rather than use my ballot as a punishment/reward system. If your speech explains how you are discriminated against, oppressed, bullied, or otherwise unsafe in debate, I am going to talk to the tournament administration instead of letting that be a matter of debate. Ad hom attacks against the other team are a sua sponte reverse voting issue. If you launch one against the other team, I will vote against you (whether your opponents tell me to or not). If your debate strategy relies on ad hom attacks against your opponents, I am not the judge for you. If your opponent is so horrendous of a person that you must levy ad hom attacks, please direct your complaints to the tabroom

Debaters should flow and use that flow to make arguments in a line-by-line fashion that responds directly to what the other team said. Debaters should not just read into a speech document for the entire speech.

Have fun! I more often vote for and give higher points to teams that have fun and are nice. If you are mean or look like you are here against your will, voting for you will be a challenge.

I am trying to adjust to modern speaker points. I still find it hard to believe that if you got a 29 in every debate, you would not have been particularly close to a top 25 speaker at Greenhill or St. Marks. That is the reality we live in, but it is a difficult pill to swallow.

Here are my biases.

-I prefer debates about the topic. That means aff with a plan and negative strategies that use arguments germane to the topic to say the plan is bad. That also means that I do not prefer super generic impact turns like spark/wipeout or arguments like "x author is bad so they should lose for introducing that author"

- I prefer specificity over vagueness. That's true with plans, cp's, da links, alternatives, etc. With me as a judge, vagueness is not as strategic as specificity.

-I care about cards. I want you to read good cards and a lot of cards. Good is more important than a lot, but if you end the debate and your card doc is 4 cards long, something has gone wrong.

- Plans have texts and functions. Unless the debating is very lopsided, I will probably not view the plan's text "in a vacuum" because I will also care about the action that the plan does. If that changes in every speech or multiple times a speech, I will be grumpy (see my point about vagueness)

-Bring theory back! Not in an annoying way where you always go for conditionality when you're losing. But in a way that punishes negative teams for relying on strategies that aren't germane to the aff.

-I feel reasonably strongly that "Social Security" refers to Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance and I think that affirmative teams that read an ssi/medicare/tanf/etc aff probably need to treat topicality as a very threatening 2nr choice. I haven't really seen debates over any other t argument yet.

-I think if evenly debated, I would agree with an aff team that said "cp's must have published solvency advocates." While others interpret this standard as necessarily arbitrary (what is a solvency advocate? Why can't the debaters be solvency advocates?), it seems like it would create a massive increase in the quality of debates for a relatively low amount of arbitrariness.

Sean Kennedy - Debated at: University of Kansas

Director of Debate at USC

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 for debate. 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.

julian kuffour (any)

julianjudging@gmail.com

slower = better. won't flow until the 1nc on the case (reading the cards), won't clear you or say i understood what you said if you're unclear or i do not follow your argument.

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

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.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

Elizabeth Li

Woodward Academy 22'

Tufts University 26'

Debated with Harvard as Harvard/Tufts KL and Tufts LS 2022-2023

Last Updated: 01/07/2024

Pronouns: she/her

Please add me to the email chain: elizabethsyli805@gmail.com

Top Level

Have fun, be respectful, and make the most of your debates.

Be clear, have clash, and compare and contextualize your arguments.

Feel free to email or ask me directly if you have any questions!

Online Debate

It's especially important that you focus on clarity for online debates. Speak a bit slower and have organized line by line.

Please also send out a speech document and analytics.

General

Ultimately, you do you, but explain your arguments clearly and why they mean that you should win the debate. This requires clear line by line, warranted claims, comparison with your opponent's arguments, and judge instruction.

Contextualizing links and doing impact calc goes a long way.

Evidence quality is important. If you point out specific evidence and explain why it is better than your opponent's, I will read it.

Conduct your own cross-ex as much as possible and try to minimize speaking over each other. Also, try to use cross-ex strategically to bolster your position.

Please do not hide ASPEC.

Please do not read positions like "death good" in front of me.

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

Updated for 2023-2024 topic
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should judge the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.


Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Email:

andresmdebate@gmail.com

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. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my evaluation 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.

LD: I don't really know much about tricks, Phil,and other stuff

Have fun and do what you do best! :)

Samuel Maurer
Part time coach @ Head-Royce

Yes I want to be on the speech doc. samuel.maurer@gmail.com

TOC 2024 update

I haven't judged a debate in a year so you're going to have to fill me in on topic nuance if you want me to vote on it. Since I also haven't been flowing for awhile, focusing on transmission of the important stuff is probably a very valuable use of your time.

ALSO...I clarify below that CXing and getting CXed are speeches to me. If you waive your CX to prep, the floor for speaker points falls well below a 27, just as if you had 'opted-out' of a rebuttal. Not being able to come-up with any useful attempts at CX questions screams "I don't understand strategy" to me so I don't have reservations about wrecking points. You've been warned.

old stuff

A note on speech docs: I read them during the debate to enhance my knowledge of your arguments. I do not read them to fill-in the blank for a speech that is incomprehensible. I judge the debate speeches, I don't referee emails. So assuming that the written existence of an argument in the document is a sufficient means of introducing it into the debate is dangerous in front of me. If that key comparison was buried in the middle of a wall of text you read like a bored robot, I'm not going to evaluate it. Conversely, if you are deliberately unpacking evidence that I can re-read to verify your interpretations and arguments, your doc can help add depth to your argument. I read the doc as a speech supplement, not a substitute.

I’ll talk about some more specific proclivities that may be useful for your strike-sheet since, if you are reading this, you’re probably filling it out.

Speaker points/CX: I believe that debaters give 4 “speeches” in a debate: C, R, CX, and Being CXed. My speaker points are based on all 4. If you don’t answer/ask a CX question, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. If you’re an jerk or don’t answer simple questions or are simply obstructionist, speaker points suffer. Don’t neglect CX. I will diligently flow cross-examination but if you take prep to ask questions, I consider it to not be part of the debate. Don't be offended if I leave while you go into overtime.

Know when its better to slow down

-- if I’ve never judged you before, give me time at the beginning of a constructive to get used to your voice.

-- complex/tricky CP texts – please slow down during these. I’m not going to look at the speech doc and CX won’t always clear it up. Clearly emphasize the differences (supreme court, different language pic, etc.)

-- Judge instruction helps me -- big picture moments in rebuttals -- "if we win this, we win the debate", etc. Crucial moments of impacts/evidence comparison.

Evidence: Quality over Quantity – I know this is almost a cliché in judging philosophies but I don’t just mean lots of bad cards are worse than 1 good card. That is obvious. I also mean that you should consider focusing on fewer cards in front of me than you might otherwise.

-- Indexing – judging debates where last rebuttals (more often 2NR’s) mention every name of every card and say how it interacts with an argument concept (“McCoy means we turn the link”, “Smith is the impact to that”) is very frustrating for me. I thrive on the big picture. I don’t view your evidence as that or even an argument unto itself – I view your evidence as a tool. You have to explain how it works and why.

-- highlighting – I find myself increasingly choosing to ignore or assign very little weight to evidence because scant highlighting leaves a lot to the imagination. In front of me, it might be wise to select a few important cards in the debate that you would read a longer version of (crucial internal link card for elections, link to the PIC’s net benefits, alt cards, etc.).

-- I read evidence after debates to confirm its function in your speeches, not so that it can “make an argument” to me in some disembodied fashion 15 minutes after the round ends.

I prefer narrower, deeper debates: Not going to lie, when debates get horizontally big and stay that way through rebuttals, I’m less comfortable making a decision. I think this has to do with how I read evidence (above) in that often times debates that stay horizontally big require the judge to do a lot of inference into conclusions made in cards they read as opposed to speeches they evaluate. I’m okay with debates on several sheets of paper but just make sure you are identifying what you think are the strategic bottlenecks of the debate and how you are winning them. “they can’t win X if we win Y because the following impact comparison wasn’t answered…”

Links/UQ: I think debaters too often think of link direction in purely binary terms. In addition to winning links, debaters need to explicitly create mechanisms for evaluating link direction. don’t just put “this thing key” cards in my hands and expect me to ref an ev fight. Tell me why this internal controls the other or vice versa.

Framework: I’ve voted for either side of this debate plenty of times. If it’s a choice between an engaging strategy against a critical aff and T, the former is a preferable strategy in front of me. I will vote on impact turns to topicality even if the negative doesn’t go for it (provided, of course, the affirmative makes a valid argument for why I should). I find myself often frustrated in debates that lack concrete nouns and instead choose arguments/strategies where abstractions are posited in relationship to one another, concretizing through examples helps a lot. I think 'fairness' is an internal link that, when well-developed with method for debate that is academically engaging and balanced, can have a large impact on my decision. By itself, a fair game is just stable, could be good or bad. I think negs running framework are best when talking about dynamics of the debate, not just complaining about how much/many affs there are. I'm not one who believes in the "procedural fairness or education" dilemma, good framework execution involves both I think. TVA's and SSD's are defense/counterplan type arguments that I think both sides are wise to not just address but frame in my decision.

Theory: Seems dead. Seemingly fewer and fewer affirmatives even make a meaningful press on theoretical objections to the CP. I still appreciate theory on the aff and not just as an “independent voter” but rather a good way to strategically dictate the landscape of the debate. This by no means implies that I’m a hack for any affirmative theory argument. But it does mean aff’s that hear a 3 cp’s in the 1NC and don’t make more than a 10 second conditionality block and don’t mention that there were 3 counterplans are giving up on some production. I think it goes without saying that very blippy theory debates are terrible. Slowing down and being more thematic and explanatory is almost always a better approach the theory execution in front of me. In the end, I'm pretty old school and think theory needs to make a comeback (mostly so aff's can not give their cases away to disposable 15-plank hydras every debate) but it seems perfunctory in execution anymore.
Finally, please make sure to mark evidence as you read it.

Debated @ UNT 2009-2014

Coach @ St Marks since 2017

Coach @ UTDallas since 2018

If you have questions, feel free to email me at mccullough.hunter@gmail.com

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.

T-Theory

-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.

CPs

- 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.

Disads

- 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".

Ks

- 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.

Case

-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.

Paperless debate

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.

Clipping

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.

Other notes

- 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

matt mcfadden
matt.mcfadden.99@gmail.com - email chain - please put me on it

IF YOU ARE NOT TAKING PREP FOR THE 1NR, THE SPEECH SHOULD BE SENT BEFORE THE 2N SITS DOWN

YOU CANNOT EMAIL PERM TEXTS. THE 2AC MUST READ THEM.

---update - 2023 ---

if you want to read a k on the aff, i'm not the judge for you

if you want to read a k on the neg - and do it well - i am the judge for you

you cannot insert re-highlightings. you must read them.

---update - 12/5/2021 ---

Acceptable:

- All impact turns

- Specific, well-researched K's

- Tag team for asking questions

- Condo

Unacceptable:

- AFFs without a plan text

- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort

- Untopical AFFs

- Generic, unapplied arguments

- GBX-style process CPs

- Quantum Physics-based impacts

- Tag team for answering questions

---end of update---

---update - 11/7/2020 ---

reasons to strike me:

-you read a 1ac without a plan text

"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."

-you talk about your identity in debates

-you read baudrillard

-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews

-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics

---end of update---

---update---

vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate

the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan

the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate

pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good

condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good

go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t

k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff

---end of update---

predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.

there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –

1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier

things that bother me -

prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.

topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.


theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.

must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.


kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.


cp – wonderful.

counterplans with long texts – my favorite.

pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.

process cp's – you're probably cheating.

states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.


da – yes, please.

well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.

if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.


impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier


neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.

presumption – make this argument.

framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.

the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.


k affs – good luck.


aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.

affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.


execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.

zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.

cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.

"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang

judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.

bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.

Debate Experience:

4 years at Greenhill

1 year at USC

Please put me on the email chain. My email is gracekuang3@gmail.com.

I went for' policy' arguments in high school. In terms of categories of negative arguments (i.e. k,cp,da,etc.), I have no overlying ideologies or overt preference to what categories of negative arguments you must make.

However, there are debates that i've noticed that i personally enjoy judging and are interesting to me, and debates that i've noticed i do not enjoy judging and are not interesting to me. so if you are at all interested in my enjoyment:

examples of debates i have enjoyed judging: counterplans and disads, occasionally security, psychoanalysis one time

examples of debates i did not enjoy judging: baudrillard, death good, identity arguments, no fiat/fiat bad

if you plan to do anything from the latter category, please spend more time explaining your arguments because im not as smart as you!

The rest of this paradigm is mostly biases I've noticed about myself when I judge.

Condo - its good. Unless condo is dropped, not really worth going for if I'm judging you. Generally I err neg on theory - states cps, process cps, international fiat and pics/word pics are all okay with me. Private actor fiat, floating piks and multi-actor fiat are the exceptions where I err aff on theory.

judge kick - i won't kick the counterplan for you if you don't tell me to in the 2nr. if you tell me to kick it and/or read it conditionally i will. if you are aff and want me to not kick the counterplan, you should start that debate in the 1ar at the very least. ***if the aff reads and does not extend condo after the block, or at least a reason why conditionality being good does not necessitate that judge kick is also good, i will not be persuaded by judge kick bad in the 2ar.

Offense/defense - I think you can mitigate the risk of something to the point where it is inconsequential in my decision.

Framework/Topicality - I generally think of fairness as an internal link not a terminal impact but could be persuaded otherwise.

tag teaming in cx - its annoying to me but you do you

k affs – you shouldn't pref me. i don't like and don't often vote for these types of affirmatives.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round or email.

Updated Sept 5, 2022 

Tracy McFarland

Jesuit College Prep - for a long while; back in the day undergrad debate - Baylor U 

Please use jcpdebate@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.
However, I don't check that email a lot while not at tournaments - so if you need to reach me not at a tournament, feel free to email me at tmcfarland@jesuitcp.org

Reason for update - I have updated my judging paradigm not because my fundamental views of debate have changed, really.  BUT , as one of my labbies put it this summer, apparently the detail of my previous paradigm was "scary".  So, I have tried to distill down some of the most important ways I evaluate debate.  

Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches.  LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good.  Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.

Dates and "real world" matter - with WMD after 9/11 and immigration during Trump as close rivals, this topic seems one of the most current event influenced debate topics I've experienced.  Obviously I mean this in terms of Russia invasion on Feb 24, 2022 - but I also mean in the sense of Madrid Summitt and new Strategic Concept as it relates to the areas; new president in the US as of 2021 with very different policies about NATO and IR; etc.  You do not need evidence to integrate current events into your argument - you do need an explanation about why dates matter - ie what's happened that the other team's arguments don't assume.  But these arguments can go far in my mind to reduce risk of a DA or an advantage - so you should make these arguments and use as indicts of the other team's evidence as appropriate. . I am persuaded by teams that call out other teams based on their evidence quality, author quals, lack of highlighting (meaning they read little of the evidence

Process CPs and other neg trickeration - it's such a good topic that I would definitely prefer to see topic specific arguments.  This means that there are some process CPs or other debates grounded in the lit that are really good debates; there are some that are not.  Particularly as the season progresses, I would expect a discussion of what normal means is - both on the aff and the neg to justify process-y cps.  

DAs - it's possible to win zero risk that the DA is an opportunity cost to the aff.  

Ks - specific links are good.  You should have a sense on the aff and the neg what FW is going to get you in a debate. 

K affs - should be tied to the topic in some way.  If they aren't, then neg args with topical versions or ways to access the education the K aff offers through the resolution are usually persuasive to me.  If the aff has a K of the topic, that's great offense that negs need to have an answer.  I don't think that debate is just a game.  Its a competitive activity that does shape our political subjectivity.  

T - if you have a good violation and reasons why an aff should be excluded, by all means read it.  If you are just reading it as a "time suck" then, meh, read more substance.  And, an argument that ends in -spec is usually an uphill battle unless it's clever [this cleverness standard does preclude generally a- and o-] 

Impact turns - topic specific one = good; generic ones - more meh 

New affs are good - and don't need to be disclosed before a debate if it's truly the very first time that someone at your school has read the argument.  But new affs may justify theoretically sketchy args by the neg - you can integrate that into the theory debate, you don't need a new affs bad 1nc arg to do that. 

Be nice to each other - it's possible to be competitive without being overly sassy.  

Modality matters - when you are debating in person, remember that people can hear you talk to your partner and you should have a line of sight with the judge.  If you are online, make sure that your camera is on when possible to create some engagement with the judge.  

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Michigan and Glenbrook North

3. Please add me to the email chain: dustml[at]umich[dot]edu. College debaters only: please also add debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're going above and beyond to wow me. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7. You will time your own speeches and prep time. I will be so grumpy if I have to keep track of time for you.

8. Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

9. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

10. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

11. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

TOC notes:

I cannot express just how bad I am at economics. It is my kryptonite. I am an extremely unreliable judge for any debate that involves treating anything more complicated than the supply-and-demand graph as a given. What's a bond? No idea. Keynes? Never heard of him. Gini coefficient? Sounds like a bad coffee shop. I will be lost in any debate that is more complicated than your freshman year econ class (I'm talking pre-AP) without a lot of explanation. Conversely, it will be much easier to impress me by walking me through your arguments and breaking them down as simply as you possibly can, telling me what it means when your evidence references basically any economic concept, etc. More explanation can only help. This also means you can probably convince me of just about anything if you make it simple enough and line it up with what your evidence says.

Good judge for:

• Process counterplans that are topic-specific, especially versus new affs.
• Presumption arguments against affs without a plan. I prefer depth over breadth--I'm more likely to vote for one well-developed presumption argument that sets up a clear burden for the aff than I am three or four "vote neg on presumption" one-liners scattered across the flow without a warrant.
• K affs that explicitly redefine what being "topical" means, especially when paired with reasonability arguments about what I should choose to understand as a "reasonable" affirmation of the topic. I think affs should be topical, but I'm open to arguments about why being "topical" doesn'tneed to be based in definitions.
• Ks with developed alternatives that you're willing to defend the details of. I'm an easier sell on Ks that let the aff weigh the plan and give the neg some leeway on what they get to defend with regards to the alt than "you link you lose"-adjacent framework pushes.

Not a fantastic judge for:

• Complicated econ DAs. I'm very sorry. While you were studying the markets, I studied the blade (by which I mean Deleuze).
• 1ACs/1NCs that are largely opaque or obfuscatory, especially when the team in question is unwilling to clarify in cross-x. If you aren't willing to answer basic clarification questions about your argument from an opponent who isn't following, strike me.
• Neg framework blocks that don't change based on the aff. I think framework is best deployed as an internal link turn to the aff's method and appreciate when neg teams use the aff's language/phrasing to explain that. When that's not happening, I think it's a lot easier for the aff to characterize the neg's arguments as exclusive.
• Arguments about anything other than the things that both teams say during the span of the round that I'm judging. If you can connect some external thing to an argument that your opponent is making, that's fair game. If you want to win (or your opponents to lose) based purely on that external thing in a vacuum, you may want to focus on the other judges on the panel.
• Fiat Ks.

Top-level:

When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

1. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

2. What is necessary to address those impacts?

3. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

4. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

I flow on my computer and I flow straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points.

Consider going a little bit slower. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative.

I am "truth over tech." I will not vote for something if I cannot explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team. Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths.

I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of its function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

I appreciate when teams read rehighlightings and not insert them, unless you’re rehighlighting a couple words. You will lose speaker points for inserting a bunch of rehighlightings, and I’ll happily ignore them if instructed to by the other team.

I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will not be happy.

I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. There's a new trend of Ks about debt, debt imperialism, etc. I may not be the best judge for these arguments, simply because of my difficulty with understanding economics on its own terms, let alone in the context of a K. It's not for lack of trying to understand or familiarize myself, I just have tremendous difficulty understanding even basic economic concepts at a fundamental level, and this is seriously amplified when those concepts are being analyzed by relatively complex critical theory. This isn't to say these arguments are unwinnable in front of me (I've voted for them this year and in past years), but you may want to consider something else and/or investing a really large amount of time in explaining the fundamentals of your arguments to me.

3. I also don't really get all these new Ks about quantum physics in IR and stuff. Again, it's me, not you. I was an English major; every time I try to read these articles I get a headache. I'm interested, I promise, and if you can explain it to me I'll be very appreciative! But for transparency's sake, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to both explain the argument to me in a way that I can comprehend AND invest the time necessary to win the debate in your 36 collective minutes of speaking time.

4. I'm quite interested in emerging genres of critical legal theory. I think I would be a good judge for Ks that defend concrete changes to jurisprudence and are willing to debate out the implications of that.

5. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

6. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #5; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

7. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

8. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research in the preseason.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done exclusively K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. Here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

--“…large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.” -Kevin "Kevin 'Paul Blart Mall Cop' James" James Hirn

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Online Annoyance

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when one card was marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take CX time for it.

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate? 5) 2nr needs to make consistent choices re: FW + Link/Alt combinations. Find myself voting aff frequently, because the 2nr goes for two different strats/too much.

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) Prefer smart indicts of evidence as opposed to walls of cards (especially on ptx/agenda da's). Neg teams get away with murder re: "dropped ev" that says very little/creatively highlighted. 2) I'm probably more lenient with aff responses (solvency deficits/aff solves impact/intrinsic perm) to Process Cp's/Internal NB's that don't have solvency ev/any relation to aff.

Case - I miss in depth case debates. Re-highlightings don't have to be read. The worse your re-highlighting the lower the threshold for aff to ignore it.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing and that's a problem.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

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

Affiliations and History

Director of Debate at Westminster. Debated in college between 2008 and 2012. Actively coaching high school debate since 2008.

Debate Views

I am not the kind of judge who will read every card at the end of the debate. Claims that are highly contested, evidence that is flagged, and other important considerations will of course get my attention. Debaters should do the debating. Quality evidence is still important though. If the opposing team's cards are garbage, it is your responsibility to let that be known. Before reading my preferences about certain arguments, keep in mind that it is in your best interest to do what you do best. My thoughts on arguments are general predispositions and not necessarily absolute.

T – Topicality is important. The affirmative should have a relationship to the topic. How one goes about defending the topic is somewhat open to interpretation. However, my predisposition still leans towards the thought that engaging the topic is a good and productive end. I find myself in Framework debates being persuaded by the team that best articulates why their limit on the topic allows for a season's worth of debate with competitively equitable outcomes for both the aff and the neg.

Disads/Case Debate – While offense is necessary, defense is frequently undervalued. I am willing to assign 0% risk to something if a sufficient defensive argument is made.

Counterplans – Conditionality is generally fine. Functional competition seems more relevant than textual competition. If the affirmative is asked about the specific agent of their plan, they should answer the question. I increasingly think the affirmative allows the negative to get away with questionable uses of negative fiat. Actual solvency advocates and counterplan mechanisms that pass the rational policy option assumption matter to me.

Kritiks – I teach history and economics and I studied public policy and political economy during my doctoral education. This background inherently influences my filter for evaluating K debates. Nonetheless, I do think these are strategic arguments. I evaluate framework in these debates as a sequencing question regarding my resolution of impact claims. Effective permutation debating by the aff is an undervalued strategy.

Theory – A quality theory argument should have a developed warrant/impact. “Reject the argument, not the team” resolves most theory arguments except for conditionality. Clarity benefits both teams when engaging in the substance of theory debates.

Speaker Points

(Scale - Adjective - Description)

29.6-30 - The Best - Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. (Top 5 speaker award)

29-29.5 - Very, Very good - Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well. (Top 10 speaker award)

28.6-28.9 - Very Good - Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.

28.3-28.5 - Good - Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors.

28-28.2 - OK - Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others.

Below 28 - OK, but major errors - Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention.

Please put me on the email chain: eriodd@d219.org.

Experience:

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

darinparkdebate@gmail.com

please call me darin and not judge!

i really don't care what you do. mostly everything is grounds for debate barring blatantly problematic positions. the more your strategy rejoins the 1ac, the higher your speaks will be.

if the top of your final rebuttal does not tell me what i should repeat back to you in my rfd, do not pref me. offense-defense shapes how i render most decisions.

convincing me you should not have to read a plan will be an uphill battle and will require significant concessions from the negative team.

i vote on the k for the neg somewhat frequently. i prefer when things are said about the plan.

conditionality is nearly always good, but there is an alarming trend with how poorly 2n's handle aff extensions of theory.

limited functional intrinsicness is probably good. i can be persuaded otherwise.

if you say the phrase "fiat double bind" in your speech, your speaks are capped at 27.0.

you can't insert re-highlights.

do not talk about things that happened outside the round.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

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.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You 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. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Email chain: rrn.debate [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: Mamaroneck High School, University of Southern California – Policy Debate

Tech over truth.

Be clear, don’t be surprised when an argument I can’t flow doesn’t make it into my decision. I am slow at typing and on average get down 60% of your speech down on my flow.

Don't clip, be rude, or lie.

I agree with Ken Karas on most everything.

Coach for Head-Royce HS, undergrad at UChicago

Did flex stuff in HS, tend to get preffed into clash or KvK debates but have voted pretty close to even in FW debates, good for T vs policy affs, fine for sketch impact turns, not great for CP competition debates

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

Note: Once my timer goes off, I am no longer flowing what you say.

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

I want to be on the email chain: kamorav10@gmail.com

I debate College Policy for 4 years at NYU. Earlier in college I read more soft left Affs with performative elements, but I've been getting progressively more performative and more kritical as my college career progresses. That means I'm open to hearing whatever arguments you want to read as long as you're able to defend it. In terms of policy, I've never read a strictly "policy" AFF, but I've coached teams reading them and am familiar with that style. With this in mind, you should read whatever makes you most comfortable and confident and I'll vibe with you.

Flow - I will flow what I hear. If you're fast, I can keep up as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you I will say "clear." I flow performative elements (music, poetry, dance), but if you think I might not flow something, flag it for me. It's your job to tell me what is most important, I won't do that work for you.

Flashing/email chain - Be organized. I don't want to wait 5 minutes for you to reply to the email chain or flash files. If I feel like you're taking too long prep time will start again. Don't waste my, your opponent's, or your partner's time. Stealing prep is disrespectful and if I see it, your speaker points will be docked. That applies to Novices too (although my threshold is a bit higher) because it's important to get into good habits from the beginning.

Speaking/CX - Be respectful. I love sass and attitude in CX and in speeches, but be aware of where the line is between sass and disrespect. This includes being disrespectful to your own partner (don't talk over them during CX). Debate should be a community and space where we all feel safe, if you jeopardize that and the other team problematizes and impacts this out, I am willing to vote on that outweighing all of your hypothetical policy impacts. If you make me laugh your speaks are going up.

FW/T - I will vote on T and FW, so feel free to read it in front of me. For both AFFs and NEGs, you need to have a clear abuse story and explain to me why your interpretation creates a better model of debate. Don't just say "our model of debate is better for fairness and education," you must also prove to me why those things are necessary and good and why the counter-interp is insufficient.

K - I mostly read them in college and they are my favorite arguments in debate. THERE SHOULD BE CLASH WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE. You need to link specifically to something in the AFF, not the squo. Even though I am familiar with K lit, I'm not going to do work for you. Explain clearly and have a compelling story. You need to show me the world of the Kritik. If at the end of the debate I don't understand what your alt is (how it functions, what it looks like, how it resolves the links, how/if it solves the AFF) I probably won't vote for it. You should be giving explanations that compare the world of the AFF and the world of the K.

NOTE: Be careful if you read anthro against anti-blackness teams. I find it is often argued in very problematic ways and I typically hate hearing anthro in those rounds. I have, however, voted for anthro many times (unfortunately), so it can be done successfully, just TREAD CAREFULLY.

DA - Here, it's all about the link and impact debate. Have specific links to the plan and have a cohesive impact story. If you're going for the DA, I want to hear in depth impact comparisons. If everyone is claiming the same impacts or everything leads to extinction, you will need a more robust story to get me to prioritize the DA. My preference is that you read a CP that solves for the DA. If you're not reading a CP that can overcome the DA, make it clear to me why this is worse than the squo.

CP - It's all about solvency and competition. That means you need to have a net benefit.

Email - reesethomasj@gmail.com - include on all chains

Affiliation - USC

General:

Read what you want. I don't understand the separation between teams calling themselves "policy debaters" or "K debaters." Debate is a process that is performed through close readings.

I think that dropped arguments are mostly true and conceded arguments are 100% true.

Word salad highlighting and "the aff causes extinction" = lower speaks.

• 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 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 dropping all the impact turns and rambling about how big a library is chances are you are going to L on the impact turn. AFFs if you think but policing + the topic is racist is sufficient to answer a TVA rethink.

• 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. Also not a fan of mentioning other teams, I can't name a single high schooler and the college debaters that made an impact didn't do so by citing other debaters, their arguments stood on their own merits.
• 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. That thing must at least be related to the subject of the year's resolution, I really really don't want to listen to a personhood aff on the nukes topic or a water aff on fiscal topic.
• 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.
• Please give some case lists/neg ground examples.

Ks - I love Ks. That being said it is hard for me to imagine a world in which I don't consider the imaginative action of the 1AC against the K - FW to me is nothing more than a competition framing argument for how I understand the "fiated" thing against the links the negative goes for. You can go for a K without an alt, you can say research of the 1AC shapes implementation, that in-round things matter, or that performance comes first BUT all of those things if won will only reflect the way that I think about the 1AC - TLDR neg must meet the burden of rejoinder by implicating their arguments to the aff, if I can't start my RFD with "the aff is bad because" or "the aff is good because" you will not win. I am inclined to believe that weighing the aff is equal to fiating the aff, unless the negative has explicit judge instruction otherwise

CPs - I default to judge kick unless instructed otherwise b/ it maintains the burden of proof, equally applies to C/I on FW (so long as there is an alternative means of resolving FW offense) if you don't want me to adjudicate that way tell me.

DAs - UQ, Links, I/Ls, Impacts - do some impact calc

T - See DAs

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 - also not a fan of this "topic is so x side biased", don't care get good.

Other:

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 - otherwise I am the Tabula Rosa.

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 norm violations are bad and I will vote on the substance of the argument.

Speech time ends, I stop flowing - not getting paid enough to listen to all that.

Peninsula 22, UCLA 26 (not debating)

Email chain: lukasrhoades11@gmail.com

No rounds on topic, don't immediately jump into 3rd and 4th levels in cross-ex because I will need complete context to follow.

Tech>truth for arguments (claim, warrant, impact) that I flow. I won't look at the documents during your speech. I will only vote on arguments I've flowed in the final speeches that were extended in each previous speech since their introduction.

You can insert rehighlights for the portions that they read, but must read everything else. I won't vote on things that happened outside the round. If neither side says anything, I'll judgekick.

Peninsula '22 | USC '26

Add me to the chain:

chrislrsims@gmail.com

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!

Policy:

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.

Theory:

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.

Kritiks:

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!

Philosophy:

Not comfortable with evaluating these debates.

Don't run any calc indicts, frivolous theory, and random independent voting issues.

Email: kevinsun127@gmail.com

Debate is a research game. Demonstrate topic knowledge, and you'll earn high speaker points. Isolate one or two questions to hinge the debate on, and you'll have an easier path to victory.

You don't have to read a plan. Just impact turn framework. Don't need an elaborate explanation of your vision of debate.

Fairness is an impact.

Evidence quality matters a little more than in-round strategy. That being said, dropped arguments are true (though it'll be hard to convince me that a 1NC DA shell with 50 words highlighted is a "complete" argument).

Conditionality is good. Unlikely to vote on cheap-shot theory arguments unless dropped.

Topicality usually comes down to evidence quality. If you're decidedly right about the meaning of a word, then you'll probably win. If there's some ambiguity in this, then case-lists help your case better than a generic under/over-limiting block.

Critiques should dispute the reasons to vote affirmative. In other words, not a fan of negative strategies that consist entirely of frivolous pre-requisite questions and framework interpretations. The K should make sense in a world where the plan happens.

Counterplans that compete off of certainty/immediacy are not ideal.

Feel free to post-round.

Send out the 1AC before the speech.

On Evidence Ethics

I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

add me to the email chain - maloneurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame high school - 2018

Micro: The burden of the affirmative is to interpret the resolutional question and the burden of the negative is to act as the rejoinder of the aff. This can be whatever you want it to be if it is both flowable and making a clear argument that I can evaluate.

Macro: Clear, both argumentatively and speaking wise, debates are good. Unclear and not ideologically consistent arguments are not as good. Teams that tell good stories, see how arguments interact with each other, and contextualize warrants to the round are winning more debates. Debaters that are having fun are also probably happier and gaining more from the activity.

There is an inherent risk in presenting arguments, that is a good thing. Taking these types of intellectual risks helps you grow both in what you know and how you have come to know it. Leaving your argumentative comfort zone is the only way to improve these skills, wether you are reading the new argument or a new argument is presented to you in round.

Debate is fun and also silly! Everyone is doing silly things. It is good to laugh about it.

I added this section below because as much as I think saying, 'if you think you can win on it go for it' is sufficient. I am sympathetic to the idea that it maybe unclear what that means and does nothing to explain why I see things the way I do. So here are some thoughts and examples of what informs me in the present, what has gotten me here, and my position on what makes things convincing.

Extended thoughts:

I have no ideological disposition against any argument. Debate is a free for all. If you think you can win on it, you should go for it. Particularly fond of impact turns and any arguments that challenge an assumption of the argument it is in response to. My version of the truth of an argument has little bearing on my decision, but evidence quality has a high bearing on how the argument is evaluated. Arbitrary line drawing of what I 'will or will not' vote on seems silly, but not in the good way. If had the inverse of this paragraph that said, 'the fifty states counterplan is a non starter for me' I would not be in the back of your round and you would not be reading this.

So,I do not tend to believe that arguments should be dismissed on the grounds of not being 'real', 'practical', or 'worth talking about.' I do not think that a jobs guarantee solving a wage spiral has anymore truth to it than china war good. I do not think that any argument that is not directly personally violent to another debater is a non starter. Autodrop L + ratio for offensive conduct. Judged more than one debate this year where the response to a word pic was to double down on that word. Not a winning strategy. I believe in a good faith apology as defense and some form of offense is a sufficient response. Good faith apology sounds subjective, I think there is a bright line that can demonstrate wether or not an act was intentional and malicious or a result of ignorance and a opportunity to learn. This should be established in the link debating. I would prefer the ballot not be a referendum on someones character. I believe an accusation of a clipping or evidence ethics auto ends the round and supersedes the content of the debate.

I find arguments that exist on polar ends of a bellcurve are more convincing to me because the larger the gap between what my ballot is endorsing and/or resolving the easier it is to think about i.e. heg good vs decol is easier to resolve to me then the perm of a soft left aff about the BIA's failings. I've probably voted for Wilderson and X country first strike about the same amount of times. Both many more than any 'soft left' aff vs a disad or a k. It is not as I don't find these arguments 'real', but that it is rarely debated out to the be the 'best' option to resolve the harms or framing of harms they have presented. I think these fail to capitalize on the benefits of either a critical or policy aff, but they have strategic value in theory. I think soft left aff's sweep non specific links or alts that don't access the impact. But that seems to be reflective of a skill issue on the negatives construction of the link debate more so than endorsement of middle ground strategies. Inversely, meeting on the bottom between poles makes a lot of sense to me and is under represented in negative strategies against arguments on either ideological end.

In the vein of critical affs I believe debate is a game. I find k affs interesting, strategic, engaging, and fun to think about. When the timer goes off it is still a game to me. I give my rfd, I talk to my debaters about what happened in the round, what we can learn from it, and I move on. Maybe I download some PDF's, cut responses, or pull backfiles if it is particularly compelling. It can be a good game with a code that can be modified round by round, but it is insulated to the 8 speeches. I think tying a personal endorsement to the ballot can be parasitic and result in a negative experience with the game. This can be debated and changed of course, but when I walk into the round I am under the assumption I am adjudicating a game with four players. The way to play that game is up to you. Some rules are non negotiable. Some aren't. I think the negative is best serve disproving case in the 2nr when they are going for education/clash impacts. I find it unconvincing that a critical aff is 'unfair and impossible to debate', most of them are not very good. Most of them can be dismantled by reading the book or grad thesis their solvency card comes from. Invest the time do that once and it will change your relationship to the argument. Ballot can solve fairness. Reflecting on past RFD's I have given, to win the fairness impact you need to win that stasis is good and/or their overarching impact turn to fairness is wrong. Usually when I vote against fairness it is because the negative team has not articulated what that means. If your args on case in the 2nr are consequence focus good and pragmatism good, you need to prove why the aff doesn't access these framing arguments. Also why do you? Whats the internal link between consequences and fairness? Why is fairness something that is pragmatic? Why do games nessitate equal starting points? You get to chose where you jump off the battle bus. What is the impact I am evaluating the consequence of when you are going for fairness? Where are analogies and examples that demonstrate how it would materializes in or out of debate?

Where is the global south?

I enjoy reading cards. I enjoy cutting cards. That being said you do not need more than 5 cards to win a debate. If you send me a card doc and I did not hear those author names in the 2nr/2ar something has gone wrong in your construction of that card document. Technically conceded warrantless claims unrelated to the content of the debate do not earn ballots, but this does not mean an argument should not be answered because you think it's 'stupid'. If you cannot beat bad arguments you should not win.

Wether you chose to go for a strategy that centers around material action, epistemological framing, or theoretical illegitimacy, you need to resolve the arguments you are going for. The speech you give should be responsive to the speech before you, not just what you have written on your blocks.

I value technical debate, but I think the energy of a round is inescapable. That energy, moments on the flow, is something lost with eyes locked on the screen. Instead of a folder on my computer theres a crate in my closet of every round I've been in and judged. Hundreds and hundreds of individual memories scribed onto long paper. Worlds. Moments. Captured. Even if I never look at them again. There is a reason I wrote it down and I think that is valuable. I'll believe anything. Inverse relationship between how much eye contact I make with the person giving the speech and how good my flow is. Directly correlated is eye contact to my chances of resonating with the argument and voting for it.

Is it more truly more efficient to get your 27th condo subpoint out? Maybe it is. But I do not find that style of debate as convincing as taking up the opponent on their position on any level and having it out with them over the course of the round.

/end

this was my extended section pre TOC:

judge kick -- seems scared when people ask me to judge kick.

multiplank counterplans -- each plank is conditional unless in a set. These probably also need solvency advocates if they are more than 'ban x'

I remember the rounds I have judged, rooting for you all to get smarter, stronger, and faster when I am in the back of your rounds again !

Personal notes if you want to understand my world view better:

I went to school for aesthetics and semiotics. I love the assurance disad. I wrote my college thesis on hyperstition and death. Outside of debate I work writing for gallery openings and literary critiques in LA. I love animals. Reading I enjoy that has informed my academic thoughts: CCRU 1997-2003, Glas (Clang) by Derrida, dead french guys, auto/spec fiction anon bloggers, and everyone I have ever debated, coached, coached against, been coached by, and talked to in the hallway of a tournament.

Put me on the email chain jackwalsh01@g.ucla.edu

THE IMPORTANT PART: I try to be totally agnostic when reaching decisions, but in terms of my experience I will probably be the most effective judge for clash of civs and kritik debates. I mostly answered framework and kritiks as a 1A and my neg debates were almost exclusively 1-off settler colonialism. Still, I will absolutely vote on framework against a k aff, and my experience in technical framework debates can probably help you because I can understand how your arguments interact. Trying to win framework versus a k aff in front of me means that a switch side claim or a TVA (the TVA probably being more persuasive) is very important, as aff teams tend to win some amount of "our critique/scholarship is valuable" in front of me, and I need a response to that.

And a bit about me, and how I judge:

I'm Jack, I was a 1A/2N. I judged all last year, planning on judging quite a bit this year too. I debated for three years for Davis Senior High in CX, I attended the TOC my senior year. Did NPDA for two years for UCSD with no major accomplishments, I graduated UCLA this year. I currently coach for the Sac Urban Debate League doing policy coaching and some non-policy stuff as well. If you have questions about debating and growing at a team without debate infrastructure I have a LOT of experience with that, having had to do that in both high school and college. I read queerness arguments on the aff and settler colonialism on the neg.

I'll be able to understand pretty much any rate of speed but I can only write so fast, so slow down a little bit on your very technical and in-depth analytic shells. The average number of times I call clear per tournament is zero, it really probably won't come up. I just don't want you to go top speed through your analytical framework shell so I can get everything down.

I have not yet voted for a kritik that did not win either the efficacy of their alt or their framework interpretation, I could see voting for such a kritik only if your link card is particular spicy and turns case-y (and even then it's still helpful to have framework).

I don't like having to reread speech docs. I will default to the contextualization that I hear in the round of cards, interpretations, linear disadvantages, and advocacies. This means that you have substantial latitude to spin your arguments, but also that I will hold you to a high standard for explanation and cross-application. The way that different arguments implicitly interact will very rarely come into my decision.

When I reach a decision, the first place I look is the 2NR and 2AR. The role of these last two speeches is to explain how I write my ballot for each side. The 2NR should tell me where to look on my flow when crafting a negative decision, and the inverse for the affirmative. I will probably first try to evaluate the relative impacts of the affirmative and negative, based off of the framework/impact debate. Additionally, when reaching my decision I will try to look at the round through both the viewpoint of the affirmative and negative as they portray it in their final rebuttal.

In the last year or so, I have given speaks in the range of 28.4-29.4 about 80% of the time. Above that ~10% of the time, below that ~10% of the time.

I'll probably inflate your speaker points, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Peninsula '21, Cal '25

Email chain: nathan2web@gmail.com

For online debate: if I'm not in frame of the camera, don't start your speech.

Top level, debate is a competitive research activity where two teams compete to win. So, I will strive to be agnostic as to what strategy you choose to read, whether that's 10 off, 1 off, or hiding ASPEC (though your speaks will probably suffer for the last one). Tech > truth, although you'll have a hard time convincing me that our oceans are yellow.

Even so, these preferences are a set of ideologies that I've loosely maintained as I've judged--

T: I find that evidence quality is quintessential - I will lean towards a legally precise definition that reflects consensus.

DA: Actually debate the DA if you read a soft left aff. Riders are probably not legitimate.

CP: Solvency advocates aren't necessary, but coherent explanations of solvency are. I will default to kicking the CP for the neg if equally debated.

K: Good if they disprove why I should vote affirmative. I tend to dislike Ks that have a focus on 20 subpoints of framework (but if you win you win).

Non-traditional affs: Fairness is an impact, you can also go for others. Probably not the best judge for the aff teams. A lot of the time, I find it difficult to see how the ballot resolves aff impacts.

Theory: Condo is generally good. Most CP theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Other things--

My ideologies have been influenced significantly by these people: Dhruv Sudesh, Kevin Sun, and Scott Wheeler. If any part of this philosophy is confusing, you should look at theirs.

Card quality matters, I will always value smart analytics over terrible evidence—although a claim has much more significance/credibility when tied to an academic work.

If I can't understand you, I won't flow.

Don't egregiously re-highlight then "re-insert" an entire card, read it.

I don't about things that happened outside the round.

Be nice.

From Kevin Sun's Evidence Ethics:

"I have judged a handful of high stakes debates this year that were decided on evidence ethics. I’ve found that these decisions are inevitably unsatisfying as they will rely on my own subjective assessment of the argument in question.

I can safely say that I am completely unqualified to judge these debates. I am not on Twitter or Facebook, and I do not interact with debate people regularly outside of tournaments. I do not know what the community consensus is on certain authors, and I will feel uncomfortable rendering a personal judgement an author’s character after hearing 10 minutes of spreading on the subject.

In hopes of giving debaters some foresight, I would like to clarify my perspective on this genre of theory argument. High stakes evidence ethics challenges (e.g. “reject the team because they included the wrong author qualifications”, “reject the team because [author] is problematic”) will require a high burden of proof and an egregious violation. I have a strong predisposition against positioning these ethics challenges as reasons to fully disregard the rest of your opponents arguments, and I would prefer to just reject the argument in question rather than to hinge my decision on it.

In these circumstances, I would suggest clearly explaining which of your opponents arguments I should throw out if I resolve this challenge in your favor.

Would rejecting this author evaporate your opponent’s framework argument? Should the negative even be allowed to substitute this author with another that makes a similar argument? You’re likely to get further with me by detailing the implications of this ethics challenge in terms of the rest of the debate rather than relying on me to assume that I should automatically make it a gateway issue.

I would suggest finding other ways outside of a competitive debate argument to navigate this ethical challenge rather than placing it in my hands as a judge."

Overall:
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."

Counterplans:
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.

Disads:
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.

Kritiks:
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.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

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.

LD section:
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.

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

Email: womboughsam36@gmail.com

UGA Law '27

Georgia Tech '23 (History and Sociology)

Woodward Academy ’20

Topic Knowledge: I have judged a lot of debates and worked at ENDI this past summer.

Last Substantively Updated: 1/7/24

ㅤ

Short Version + Novices (est. 45 sec. to read)

"Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge, clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates." — Bill Batterman

Flow.

Be nice.

Be clear.

Have fun!

Time yourselves.

It’s probably not a voting issue.

If you read a plan, defend and clarify it.

Do not request a marked copy in lieu of flowing.

Be an evidenced, well-reasoned critic, not a cynic.

If you stop prep and then re-start prep, take off 10 seconds of prep.

If you don't have your video on in online debate, I will struggle to stay engaged.

An argument must be complete and comprehensible before there is a burden to answer it.

Focus on depth in argument. It's more engaging and is the only reliable way to beat good teams.

Write my ballot for me at the top of your late rebuttals, without using any debate jargon or hyperbole.

"Marking a card" means actually clearly marking that card on your computer (e.g. multiple Enter key pushes).

If you advocate something, at some point in the debate, you need to explain the tangible results of your advocacy without relying on any debate or philosophy jargon.

There has been a significant decline in the quality of speaking since online debate started because debaters became less familiar with speaking directly to the judge and because judges gave more leeway to the absence of clarity due to the computer instrument. Judges should never have to rely on reading along with the speech document in order to flow tags/analytics. If you have no intonation nor emphasis during tags/analytics/rebuttals, you are a bad speaker.

ㅤ

ㅤ

More Stuff (est. 1:30 min. to read)

ㅤ

Debate

I really enjoy debate. Debate is the most rewarding activity I have ever done. But debate didn't always feel rewarding while I was doing it. Accordingly, I hope that everybody prioritizes having fun, and then learning and improving.

From Johnnie Stupek's paradigm: "I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that make the debate easier for me to flow including: structured line-by-line, clarity when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing important lines in the body of your evidence, and descriptively labelling off-case positions in the 1NC."

Purging your speech documents of analytics and then rocking through them will be just as likely to "trick" me into not flowing an argument as it will be your opponents.

ㅤ

Case

I will vote on absolute defense.

ㅤ

Critiques

Explain; don’t confuse.

It is anti-black for debaters that are not black (team) to present afropessimist arguments. This practice exists because of the anti-blackness or cowardice of some non-black educators in debate. Frank Wilderson III claims that he "grieves over" debate's appropriation of his work (“Staying Ready for Black Study: A Conversation”).

Postmodernism— Debaters often mischaracterize ornamental absolutism in philosophical writings as almost-theological dogmatisms about how the world operates. This is anti-modern, not postmodern. <— I don't know if that paragraph makes any sense.

I've seen a few debates exclusively about personal identity that were extremely distressful for both sides. I think it's really weird when a high school student prompts a rejoinder from their peers to a pure affirmation of their identity. Please don't make me adjudicate it.

ㅤ

Non-Topical Debates

"No" to aff conditionality. Defend your aff and comparatively weigh offense.

Please stop referencing college debate rounds that you only know about thirdhand.

ㅤ

Theory

The more conditional advocacies there are in the 1NC, the worse the debate usually is.

I am sympathetic to affirmative complaints about process counterplans and agent counterplans that do nearly all of the affirmative. These counterplans, with the States-multi-plank CP in mind, tend to stagnate negative topic innovation and have single-handedly ruined some topics (Education).

ㅤ

Extra

I almost always defer to technical debating, but in close debates:

I am a degrowth hack. T: Substantial against a quantifiably small aff is fun.

I am easily convinced that Bostrom-esque "extinction first" is incoherent and can justify repulsive ideologies.

I strongly believe that China is not militarily revisionist. I think Sinophobic scholarship is festering in debate.

With respect to "Catastrophe Good" arguments, "we must die to destroy a particle accelerator that will consume the universe" is less convincing to me than a nihilism or misanthropy argument. I value accurate science.

Lastly, don't purposefully try to fluster the judge if you want quality post-round answers.

ㅤ

Cheating

In the instance that a team accuses the other of clipping, I will follow the NDCA clipping guidelines (2).

Strawmanning is an ethics violation as per the NSDA guidelines.

(1) https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

(2) https://static.squarespace.com/static/53416a18e4b0aa2aaadf85e4/t/53665f81e4b03af4b79e088f/1399218049326/clipping.pdf

ㅤ

More References

https://the3nr.com/2009/11/03/judging-methodologies-how-do-judges-reach-their-decisions/

https://the3nr.com/2016/04/15/an-updated-speaker-point-scale-based-on-2015-2016-results/ (I inflate this).

https://new.debateus.org/to-consult-or-not-to-consult-on-the-theoretical-legitimacy-of-the-consultation-counterplan/

Email: djzhaistore@gmail.com

Was an average pf/policy k debater, non policy scroll to bottom

2023-24 season note: assume little to no topic knowledge especially regarding the meta/common args. Might change as season goes on. Have mercy… I spend very little time thinking about debate now…

Update: I think this topic is making me into a policy hack… I think k on this topic is not very strategic unless you cook up something insane… sry

You can probably ignore the stuff below, just keeping it for potential reference. I shouldn’t need to do mental gymnastics to judge rounds well. Good luck have fun ride the wave!

TLDR: do what you do, make my life judging easy and I will boost speaks/affect the ballot. I like to see good preround strategy and understanding of what arguments will win you the round. Flexibility is a double-edged sword, and I like to see debaters who fully commit to their strongest arguments. Open to some level of postrounding, but is intended to be productive for growth. I won't pretend to be a blank slate, but I doubt any reservations I strongly hold will affect my ballot. I am not good at sugarcoating rfds and I’m not a fan of inflation, sorry…

Everything below is how I perceive policy debate, take the implications for your round in particular with a grain of salt, I have a bad habit of being very fluid in my judging and it's hard to extrapolate judging intuition I’ve developed to concrete overarching views. I tend to shy away from debate jargon as much as possible, I think policy has evolved lots of metas that I hold my nose voting on. I think there's more interesting ways to debate beyond prewritten "fairness, clash, education" blocks. I think about interesting arguments beyond a single round etc. I dislike the trend of judges going out of their way to be neutral/the perfect judge, a lot of what I find annoying in debate now seems to have evolved from this trend.

Obligatory evidence ethics blip here. I may judgekick args dependent on egregiously read cards. It shouldn't be a burden of the other team to call out bad ev, but I will reward teams that do so. It really shouldn't be my responsibility either, if you haven't read your own cards beyond highlights, it's on you.

CPs:

I tend to think condo good. the winning aff on condo sufficiently points out to how neg limits the ability of aff to have any offense anywhere. This is a pretty high threshold to meet and usually aff teams seem to put out a 2ac that just responds anyways? Perms test competition, group redundant ones, it makes my life easier. I think the role of aff teams is distinct from neg teams, probably lean towards judge kicking 90% of the time. 1NC cardless cps annoy me.

K/fw:

I find the idea of judging k rounds less and less appealing now… I think aff and neg should actually be differentiable in some way and not just speech orders…

Link debate goes on top of K and if I don't see links in the 2ar/2nr something has probably gone quite wrong. Framework tends to be more boring to judge than link debate. “Make the K do the work, not fw.” The K should directly indict and answer questions typically debated on fw. Role of judge and role of ballot mostly go over my head tbh… I think I rarely hear one that does not come off as redundant/self serving because debate is inherently competitive…

I get irritated by affs that are wishy washy with the ballot. "Debate space" "model" args have gotten quite meta but I constantly get the feeling that debaters would rather debate about that than debate in said debate space. Ok! you want me to vote for you so you can debate this way? debate it then…

I don't judge performance affs that much, that said, I have no implicit reasons against voting for one. I don’t know if I would say the ones I’ve judged were particularly good, so impress me!

Don't give me a subpar 1000wpm philosophy lecture posing to be relevant to the ballot please. Keep it classy

T/theory:

My views towards T and theory are probably idealistic but bite me ig.

Run T like a DA, I like good T debate as much as the next guy. TVAs are fun, call out lazy K affs. That said when it comes to definition/contextual comparison please put in legwork to contextualize why I should take a certain card at face value. I personally spend too much time thinking about Wittgenstein/philosophy of language so I have strong notions on T. If you plan on reading theory ideally I should be able to just write my rfd then and there; I like efficient responses to trivial theory (E.g. running disclosure against a generic aff). I haven't yet dropped anyone on condo or disclosure absent it being completely dropped so if that's your "strats" maybe strike me. Sorry if I miss blippy theory args in later speeches…

Misc:

Jargon is the bane of persuasive debate. I’m not caught up on a lot of jargon and it is my belief that it shouldn’t matter. make the purpose of your argument clear, and anything else should be irrelevant. More and more I get the feeling that policy debaters are some of the least persuasive people…

I think spreading to some extent has become a necessary evil to lots of debaters. prewritten blocks/theory/T etc a lot of the time will feel like it misses the spirit of whatever type of argument. it seems to me a crutch to avoid adaptation to any round, although the better teams I’ve judged seem to have a good grasp on both. TLDR technical debate should not be treated as a crutch for understanding how to be persuasive. It is substantially easier to debate something that is true/you feel is true. I will usually not intervene on the ballot for truth level claims, but I will think about them.

Go fast if you must, but I may lose things time to time especially if things get tacked on during speeches out of order. Emphasize card transitions and which off well and I will be happy. Quality>Quantity of args. I like to feel like my flowing is productive, I love seeing debaters make strategic decisions early and decisively.

Not timing anything unless it’s an issue and any other questions you can just ask me. CX is very flexible, partners feel free to chime in. do whatever during your prep time and if everyone is ok with it, I have no issues.

I’m not a super finicky person about particulars like sending docs on time, missing x seconds of prep, etc. I find it hard to believe that teams doing this gain real advantages, and I’ve yet to judge a round where stealing time or trying to penny pinch small advantages really changes the debate in a substantial way. that said call out ridiculous violations and I’ll be all ears.

3 cards or less sent in body are fine unless super long, probably don't need a marked copy for <2 cards. I take evidence ethics seriously, arguments that depend on questionably cut cards will probably end up dropped unless you can justify it post round. I will rely on my potential circumstantial knowledge of current events if I hear something that sounds blatantly outdated and intervene if it is critical enough. Regarding kritikal args/theory/philosophy based arguments I am leaning more and more towards just evaluating arguments/logical flow. I see too many miscut cards and misunderstood theory so just putting it out there that my threshold for what counts as an adequate response has been getting lower and lower.

I'm not a speaks goblin, but I think they are arbitrary. >29 and I probably really liked how you debated in round. Anything less is probably just a placeholder/vaguely relevant to presentation/execution outside of the ballot. Differences of 0.1 are arbitrary and mostly bc I can’t input ties. 0.5 probably matters more. Usually winning team will also have higher speaks unless there was a tragic mistake somewhere.

Remember to have fun and be nice

OTHER EVENTS:

Assume no topic knowledge, well informed overall so probably will have some biases, very few relevant hard stances so persuade me otherwise. If something sounds contradictory to what I know about current affairs, I will probably go snoop in the cards or discard relevant analysis unless I am shown otherwise.

Will probably disclose out of habit unless tab tells me not to.

Make it clear what you think wins you the round and it’s probably an easy ballot, tech is for ceremony but understand that winning an argument technically may have 0 relevance to my ballot if there isn't legwork to explode it./missed point. some stuff in Misc: may apply.

LD:

I have no idea what order and times LD speeches go, feel free to remind me where you're at, especially if there's a timeskew/related voter floating around. Simplify jargon for me, if it doesn't make sense to me I won't vote on it. LD now gives me the impression of partnerless policy with weird speech times, theory isn't run as much in policy so make it simpler for me to understand. I also don’t judge theory much in Policy and also usually never vote on it so for your sake please make my life easy and convince me to vote on it…

PF:

I used to be a pf debater. Treat it half as a speech focused event. Presentation should matter, convince me of something. In the spirit of the event, I value technical aspects of debate much less than being consistent, credible, and reasonable. Be a little creative with world-building and rhetoric and keep it traditional. Make my ballot easy and I will be happy. If you run disclosure I will probably drop you and your speaks. I know prog when I see prog. Condense for me, FF is 2 minutes, wrap everything up. Easiest way to condense is to not bring along baggage.

I probably cannot judge PF the same way a parent/layperson would, but I think that is the core of what judging in PF should look like, do not take me as some “technical judge” that you can progwalk on or have a “tech round.” I'm personally calloused to presentation/rhetoric, but I will try my best.

Card/evidence sharing in PF is a nightmare, I don't care to look at cards unless someone points it out in specific. If a card is written in bad faith enough I may just kick it straight up or drop the violating team. I think you can get by a lot with general topic knowledge/analytics>delusions about current events or outdated cards.

Skip the "order is our case their case weighing" (and variations) roadmaps.