Paradigm

I have been judging for about 4 years now, middle school and high school competitions. I value clear organization of thoughts and communication.

Debate

Please email speech docs, especially for Policy.

I am a lay judge and cannot understand spreading, you may speak quickly but so the average person can understand. I am a traditional judge and If I cannot understand an argument because of speed or jargon I will not vote on it, especially if that is used as a tactic to make arguments against opponents who cannot be expected to reasonably understand.

Speech

Follow the rules of the category you are in.

I will dock points for rude behavior. Be yourself, but be nice. Be confident, you are doing great!

Finally- good luck!

e-mail chain: dondraper021@gmail.com

garfield ‘19

i debated locally on the WA circuit and nationally, winning state my senior year. went to RKS and CNDI for debate camps.

general

run whatever you want in front of me. i was a k and k aff leaning debater (including performance debate), but i've had my fair share of running 6 plank adv counterplans and politics disads.

i have zero (formal) knowledge of the topic, so be careful when spreading nato jargon or nuances of the plan.

don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. doing so will result in an L and zero speaks.

if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round!

k aff + fw

absolutely go for it. with fw: impact turns, internal link turns, counter models of debate, f uck debate, whatever just u do u.

for framework, i tend to be more persuaded by arguments about skills and research than procedural fairness.

the k

if you wanna run the weirdest k in the world, go for it.

please don't have long overviews :( if you have to have them, just let me know before you start the speech.

theory

i'm open to any theory argument, just explain why that should result in an L, no CP, etc. if it's in your 2ar/2nr, spend time on it please.

rfd

i usually don't type a full rfd or anything into tab, so let me know after the debate if you have questions or want feedback!

I’ve been involved in debate since 1999, when as a HS sophomore I joined the MVHS team as a policy debater. My first affirmative case was about DADT. The first disad I remember was about the Gore v Bush 2000 election. The first counterplan I ran abolished the military. A few things about my background influence the way I judge:

1) Back in the day my favorite judges were those that said the debate was up to the students — they set most of the rules about the content of the debate. I strive to follow this example and minimize the intervention of my own proclivities in the way I judge, with the exception that I remain convinced that arguments are not mere assertions — “the sky is blue, voting issue” — and thus I believe complete arguments begin the burden of rejoinder/refutation. I don’t have to agree with an argument to vote for it, especially when it’s not countered, but I do reserve the right to dismiss arguments that are not fully explained or which lack essential pieces of the “claim, warrant, evidence” puzzle.

2) As a HS debater, my least favorite judges said their paradigm was “comms” focused: although it claimed to be an orientation towards the forms of presentation — i.e. speed, evidence citation, organization, eye contact — I quickly learned that it was paradigm was typically a euphemism or mask, revealing or concealing other preferences, including about theory and types of arguments (counterplans, kritiks, etc.). As I got older and gained more experience, I realized that these judges nevertheless had a point. Debate *is* a communication activity. The game is not reducible to research and logic alone. Successful arguments — successful debaters — take this into account, and my evaluation/feedback will as well.

3) I’m no longer a policy debate purest (elitist), though its with this format that I’ve spent the most time, first at MVHS and then as a policy debater at Michigan State University and later as a coach at Whitman and the University of Georgia. I’ve also coached and judged: LD, PF, World Schools, American Parli, British Parli, Asian Parli, and World Schools. Although each format has certain unique eccentricities, the truth is that all these styles of debate have far more in common than most participants realize.

4) From 2014-2020, I lived in China and coached mainly PF, World Schools and BP. Once a year I would bring students back to the US to debate at Harvard, Stanford, and Berkley.

5) Readers beat talkers, especially when talkers fail to read.

6) I follow the Chilean antipoet Nicanor Parra’s proposition that real seriousness rests in the comic, which I realize now is sadly lacking in this paradigm. What do I mean? I mean debate hard, take it seriously, but don’t forget that this is a game. It should be fun.

7) As a general rule, specificity >>> generality.

8) Anything worth doing is worth doing well, provided that pursuit of excellence does not become an alibi for treating other people badly. Treat your opponents, partners, judges, coaches and everyone else with respect, including yourself.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC before the round. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation thereof, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and likely indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. If you treat this like Policy Lite, I will take out my frustration on your speaker points, and if it gets bad enough, on the rest of the ballot as well. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread.

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

I was a policy debater all through high school and I competed at Willamette University participating in British Parliamentary for four years.

I have a few preferences. Tag team is okay, as long as it is not abused, this will lead to lower speaker points and bad ethos. Speed is fine, but a noticeable difference between your tags and your evidence would be nice. I would like plans to be read at the speed of your tag lines (a little slower than evidence slower).

As for my paradigm, I like to think that I am a tab judge. I have not judged a lot because I graduated last year, so I am still trying to figure out my judging style. With that said, I ran critical and policy/stock arguments in high school and I would be okay with hearing either in a round. But, with all arguments, I want a strong link. The more specific the better. Also, big stick impacts that are very unprobable are probably not going to persuade me much, unless they have gone uncontested. Both of these style preferences go for any debating style.

Topicality: I like a good technical debate, most of my neg rounds were won on procedurals. RVI's are something I will not listen to though. The most important part of T for me is that it's legitimate to a degree where I don't feel silly signing the ballot for you, but like any arg, if it's cold hard conceded and you flush it out, you'll get my ballot. Good standards will persuade me too. Just give me something to vote for honestly. I will probably default to reasonability.

Framework: It's important. If you only can win one argument for me, choose this one. But don't forget that you have to win your arguments under this framework, too.

Theory: I'm okay with multiple worlds, but you have to choose one in the end. Don't run something unconditionally with something that is conditional, please.

Kritiks: As a debater I ran soft kritiks mostly, with this being said if you want to have a high theory debate with authors like D & G or Baudrillard that's fine, just have good over views in rebuttals and take time to explain the theory you're presenting. If you feel like you run the risk of me not knowing your lit - I really encourage you to read framework - same with any other critical argument. While I am open to any kritikal argument, I'm not fond of people running death good args, and under any circumstances, if you run a k based off on an ontological perspective that you don't identify with, I will doc you major speaks and it will come into play when deciding the round.

Counterplans: PIC's annoy me. I really hate them, I think they're abusive. Unless you have great theory to justify yourself, I will not be pleased. Any other counterplan is fine.

Advocacies: For the K and CP, I like a good perm debate, but you have to go more in depth on the flow- solvency, time frame, just throw some other basic args on the flow. As far as the status of your advocacies go, I'm fine with conditional, unconditional, and dispositional (i guess if you insist, just explain dispo). Unless I am given another definiton, I define dispositional as only getting to kick the advocacy if there's offense on it.

Disads: Don't be scared to go for one disad in the 2NR if you're winning it. With this being said, I want and NEED a good link. if it's case specific, recent, and has great warrants, and you do the rest of the work on other parts of the flow, you're good to go. I also want a good impact debate- and I usually default to probability.

I don't know the arguments on this years topic all that well, so don't expect me to understand arguements just because you have said the name or the acronym.

Lastly, your actions in the round matter. Microagressions will not only be taken into account when calculating speaker points, but also in calculating the outcome of the round. Debate can be a game or a pure learning opportunity, but it is not a place to exclude.

Thanks, and email me at brycehenshaw123@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Too long; didn't read (TLDR):
- Please don't read theory or kritiks (Ks).

Policy:
- I'm a lay judge - go Public Forum (PuFo) slow or slower if you want me to flow the arguments.
- If it's not in my flow it probably won't be evaluated when deciding the round
- Preferably don't read kritiks (Ks) - if you do, it'll be considered a non-unique disadvantage (DA) since I won't understand framework debates.
- Preferably don't go for theory - it still must be answered though.
- Topicality (T) arguments need to be incredibly convincing - I defer affirmative (aff) in general.
- General framing is based off probability * magnitude, specify in round if you want it to be something else - although it's not recommended to change framing because I probably won't understand it.
- Please include as much judge instruction as possible in the last rebuttals (specifically impact calculations).
- Note that my debate argument experience consists of a 20 minute lecture of all the key things to look out for - no high-level jargon.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

General:

Speed: I’m worried about judging online, so please slow down a little bit to avoid any issues. Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

PSA --- My debater Ausha is my favorite fave : ) but I probably shouldn't given her my tabroom info

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of positions that serve no point.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

LD - Skep, permissibility, etc.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, congratulations and welcome to my worst nightmare.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Hello everybody,

First off, please add me to the chain: trentkuykendoll@gmail.com

My name is Trent Kuykendoll. I'm a coach for Bellingham High Debate. I was a speech and debater for 3 years at Boise High School in Idaho. I have competed in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, Policy, POI, HI, and DI during that time, however I was primarily a policy debater.

For all teams: I'm fine with speed. However, if the speech becomes muddled, I'll give each team 1 speed/clear check per round to give you a threshold. Past that, if I miss an argument because of speed or lack of articulation, that's on you. Be respectful in the round and do your best to face forward during cross-examination. I'm a tabula rasa judge to the best of my abilities. Let your arguments steer the round and if you disagree with something your opponent is doing, make it an argument in round. If it's not brought up on-time, it won't be factored into the decision. This being said, there are some abuses that should be resolved out of round (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ablism, etc.) If these do come up or you no longer feel safe or comfortable to debate, let me know, and the round will be stopped, temporarily or permanently. I have a high threshold for DTD and potential abuse arguments. I'm far more likely to drop arguments than vote teams down. This being said, if you are going for DTD, you will be more successful if you go for that alone in the rebuttals.

For policy: My love for policy debate stems from the freedom each team is given in the debate space. I believe that everything is up for debate in the round and I'll hear any argument. This being said, make GOOD arguments. This especially applies to theory arguments (including Topicality). If you're using T/theory blocks, make sure you can articulate the voters in the rebuttals without just re-reading your blocks. I am also well versed in K/Performative arguments but again, make good arguments and understand what you're talking about. Too many times, I have seen teams that misrepresent Ks, which will not necessarily lose the round, but will be reflected in speaker points. If you can effectively shape the debate space and articulate why it is important that you do, I have no limits on what I'll accept in the round. Above all, have fun and engage in the round, however that looks for you.

Since I have been increasingly judging LD as well as continuing to judge Policy, I thought I should briefly discuss my LD paradigm. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

MY LD PARADIGM:

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! OK, but, really, please do read the Policy paradigm below as well as this LD paradigm. Since all LD topics have some policy aspect to them, I remain interested in that, but I also enjoy a good V/C debate, which is essential to LD - if you don't want to have that discussion, you might as well do a Policy debate performance case, since Policy doesn't use values/criteria either.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention, especially if you relate everything in your case/your opponent's case/V/C back to it. In that sense, LD requires far more mental and organizational aerobics and acrobatics than Policy does. You need to deal with your case, your opponent's case, ensure your V/C are upheld and demonstrate either that they are superior to your opponent's V/C or that your case meets both your and your opponent's V/C. I am fine with plans and with counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than dealing with the theory of debate.

MY POLICY PARADIGM:

I like Policy debate because there's a structure of sorts and because I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the three primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy; inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems, and, presumption, which is a default policy-maker position and to which few people today appeal. I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” That’s simply abusive and I will cheerfully agree w/the Aff that calls foul on this. Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I also like cases that are at least minimally topical. For example, if the topic calls for the USFG to substantially increase security cooperation with NATO in the areas of cyber security, AI or biotechnology, the case should be at least dimly related to finding some way to do so. I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible.

I am also a policy judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making. Sadly, some Negs don't do this. If only they realized how easy it would be to get my ballot by doing so!

But, after having said that, I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say. I like CPs, but, as an elderly person who has been doing this since 1968, I think they should be untopical. If not, then, we have two affirmatives arguing for the resolution and presumption shifts to the Aff. Also, having a net benefit that is more than just avoiding some stock DA is a plus. That's because if you lose the DA, then, whoosh! Your NB is gone, too. Feel free to run a NB w/in the CP and a DA outside of it.

If you want to run a K, feel free to do so, but, since most of them are non-unique, have no link to the Aff, no threshold and don't provide, in most instances, a viable policy option to the Aff, it's pretty easy for the Aff to beat a K. I have voted for Ks before, but, generally, only when the Aff failed to win the argument. The more you link the K directly to the case and the more explanatory your alt is, the more persuasive your K will be. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND AN L3 BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated. Poor refutation organization - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself.

In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. COVID wrecked my hearing – I have tinnitus, so the louder you speak (especially if it’s an online tournament) the better.

I did policy some number of years ago and am generally chill with whatever. It has been a while since I last judged, so honestly do whatever you want during the debate. Just make sure the 2NR/2AR articulate why I am supposed to judge a certain way.

Bonus speaker points for going hard on inaccurate science, as long as it fits the argument / position being taken.

Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

TL:DR - I'm one of the lesser coaches at Interlake, which has qualified multiple teams to the TOC the last several years and had a team in the octas this year. I take little credit for their success, but it means I judge lots of top-flight rounds at TOC qualifiers to cover their judging requirements.

Answers to the questions I get most often at NSDA:

• Yes, really, run whatever you want. Control-F below for specific opinions but I'm more open than 90% of judges you will have at this tournament.
• Yes, speed is fine, as is spreading and conditionality. So is going for condo in the 2AR.
• Yes, open CX is fine.
• I don't know what "binding CX" means but I think saying one thing in CX and then saying the opposite in your speech is a very bad idea.

Your pre-round prep at this tournament is pretty limited.

I therefore do not suggest wasting time reading the rest of my paradigm. Just control-F for my opinions on things that might come up.

__________________

Top level:

• I am older (35) and this definitely influences how I judge debate.
• Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
• Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
• I've judged almost 200 debates and cut thousands of pages of evidence over the last 3 topics. I feel like I'm somewhat in tune with what is going on in policy debate in 2023, but there are plenty of holes in my knowledge base.
• I sometimes feel like I can't flow or follow modern debate very well. I am unsure if that is because I'm bad at flowing, slow at processing stuff, or simply less ashamed to admit it when I am a bit lost compared to other judges. The more I sit on panels in elims of TOC qualifiers, the more I'm convinced it's the last thing. Younger judges are surprisingly scared to be honest about their inability to flow or process really dense argumentation.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I'm less likely to vote on incoherence mediated by ethos. Feel free to read your word salad Franken K or your bewildering process CP. But know that I will vote on the "this isn't a coherent argument" 2AR. Blustering will only get you so far.
• Properly prepared and argued, vagueness args of one sort of another should defeat most modern nat circuit affs because this is getting ridiculous. "Do the rez in [area]" is not a plan text.
• Advantage CPs should have cards to support planks.
• Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2ar that beautifully marries the theory and perm debates into a cohesive question of competing models of debate is usually persuasive to me.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

• Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
• Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
• Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
• "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
• Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
• Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
• Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

Basic bio -

I debated in high school and college in the early 2000s (Auburn, UNLV). I was not a great debater.

My Knowledge:

• I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
• I mostly "get" the topic at this point. Basic example - I know that NATO governs by consensus and the aff can't fiat 'say yes.'
• I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
• I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past.
• I've debated, judged, and coached a fairly wide variety of debate topics, so you are unlikely to read something I know literally nothing about.

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates, but I vote for K affs that reject the topic about 50% of the time. If that's your thing, go for it.

As for negative responses to these affs, boring approaches like T, cap K, and ballot PIC are all fine.

But unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches.

I'm a great judge for impact turning NATO bad imperialism affs. Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them. Or, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

• "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument, nor does it tend to provide enough value to outweigh the benefits of topicality as a norm. Show me a method, and show me how it would be actualized to solve the problems your aff identifies.
• Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
• I think fairness matters, but its possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess.
• "No perms in a method debate" and "if you don't have a plan, the neg can PIK out of anything in the 1ac" make sense to me as reasonable responses to the aff abandoning the topic, but obviously, you can debate that out.

Topicality against policy affs

My general philosophy about T is that good topics look like this:

• There should be dozens of viable affs, both in terms of plan texts and advantage selection.
• The neg should have access to generic negative positions that are viable, but only strong with careful, case-specific research to back it up. E.g., I liked that the water topic gave the neg access to the States CP, but also required that the neg buckle down and cut case-specific states CP solvency cards.
• If its new aff vs. unprepared neg, the aff should have the advantage. If the neg takes the time to write a real case neg and a specific strategy against the aff, the neg should have the advantage.

This topic fails all of these tests. There are only like 8 truly viable affs, because the rest lack credible solvency advocates, fall to obvious neg generics, or both. At the same time, all of the generic neg positions against those affs are pretty terrible, and cutting case-specific DA link cards and CP solvency cards really doesn't help make them more viable.

That dynamic has meant that I've yet to vote neg on T against a policy aff all season. Ultimately, the neg has struggled to convince me to put further limits on a topic where there are so few viable affs to begin with.

If the other team reads something particularly ridiculous (which may well happen at NSDA), T is perfectly fine and I'm happy to vote on it.

But if they read a super standard aff, the nature of this topic just makes it an uphill battle for me because viable aff ground is already so limited.

T-article 5 is one of the worst T arguments I've ever seen.

I think T-subsets basically amounts to a procedural that demands the aff be whole rez. I think you are better off convincing me of the benefits of that model of debate compared to inventing new grammar rules to justify why the aff can't run a case example of the resolution.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

Include me on an email chain! hir811@yahoo.com

I competed in policy debate in high school from 2014-2018. Since then, I have judged a few tournaments but don’t expect me to be up to date on the current topic.

A few preferences: tag team is okay, as long as it is not abused. Continually talking over your partner will lead to lower speaker points. Speed is fine, but a noticeable difference between your tags and your evidence would be nice. I would like plans to be read at the speed of your tag lines, if not slower.

As for my paradigm, I like to think that I am a tab judge. With that said, I ran critical and policy/stock arguments in high school and I would be okay with hearing either in a round. But, with all arguments, I want a strong link. The more specific the better. Also, big stick impacts that are very unlikely are probably not going to persuade me much, unless they have gone uncontested. Both of these style preferences go for any debating style. I will also add that since I haven’t been heavily involved in the debate world in the last few years, any Ks or more complex critical arguments you may need to slow down a little bit for my own understanding.

Topicality: I like a good technical debate, most of my neg rounds were won on procedurals. RVI's are something I will not listen to though. Engage with the T flow instead of just letting me decide whether or not something is reasonable.

Theory: I'm okay with multiple worlds, but you have to choose one in the end. Don't run something unconditionally with something that is conditional, please.

Kritiks: As a debater I ran soft kritiks mostly, with this being said if you want to have a high theory debate that's fine, just have good overviews in rebuttals and take time to explain the theory you're presenting. If you feel like you run the risk of me not knowing your lit - I really encourage you to read framework - same with any other critical argument. While I am open to any kritikal argument, I'm not fond of people running death good args, and please don’t run a k based off on an ontological perspective that you don't identify with.

Counterplans: PIC's annoy me. I really hate them, I think they're abusive. Unless you have great theory to justify yourself, I will not be pleased. Any other counterplan is fine. A clear counterplan text is also necessary.

Advocacies: For the K and CP, I like a good perm debate, but you have to go more in-depth on the flow- solvency, time frame, etc. As far as the status of your advocacies go, I'm fine with conditional, unconditional, and dispositional (I guess if you insist, just explain dispo). Unless I am given another definition, I define dispositional as only getting to kick the advocacy if there's offense on it.

Disads: Don't be scared to go for one disad in the 2NR if you're winning it. With this being said, I want and NEED a good link. if it's case specific, recent, and has great warrants, and you do the rest of the work on other parts of the flow, you're good to go. I also want a good impact debate- and I usually default to probability.

I don't know the arguments on this year's topic so don't expect me to understand arguments just because you have said the name or the acronym.

Lastly, your actions in the round matter. Microagressions will not only be taken into account when calculating speaker points, but also in calculating the outcome of the round. Debate can be a game or a pure learning opportunity, but it is not a place to exclude.

Please add me to the email chain! enderrowe@hotmail.com. Or I guess we use speechdrop now, I'd like to be included on that.

I debated policy for Interlake HS in Washington State for four years and made it to quarters of state twice. I haven't judged since the arms topic, or debated since the education topic, so I have very little topic specific knowledge, but I'm very familiar with the styles of arguments, so run wahtever.

When I debated, I ran arguments across the board from very technical topicality debates (which I love - fx and extra T are not run often enough!) to disad/cp to cap and reps/epistemology Ks. I am less familiar with identity or pomo Ks, but am willing to listen if that's what you prefer.

With kritiks, I tend to evaluate them pretty technically. It is the neg's job to tell me why the aff is a bad idea, so please be more specific on the link and impact side of the debate. The alt should also be grounded and actionable, instead of just a statement of an alternative epistemological orientation. K teams - contextualize your position instead of just reading blocks.

For topicality, if the aff is going to run reasonability, you need to have standards on it. I default that I should compare the two interpretations presented based on their standards, you have to tell me why I should do something other than that, and you need reasons why other than the standard fare of saying the word 'reasonability' as many times as you can. I have not seen a team do this, and have yet to find a convincing reasonability argument, should it exist.
You would also have to do a lot of work to get me to vote for an RVI. There is hardly ever a reason that the neg's reading of T is an independent reason for me to ignore the rest of the round and vote aff.

I tend to think affs should be topical or at least germane to the topic. Topicality is a voting issue unless you tell me otherwise. You still need to win impacts to your T flow, but I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

In your final speeches, please tell me what arguments I should be looking to evaluate, how I should be evaluating them, and why I should be evaluating those arguments. Tell a story as well as answer the line by line.

I will reward you for pointing out flaws in their evidence. It is a strategic way to gain leverage. That said, I will not look at evidence unless you tell me to do so.

Stolen from another paradigm because I'm lazy but like the phrasing: "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."

If you have any more specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Last updated 11/4/2022:

I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.

Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org

CX / Policy Philosophy:

TL;DR:

Michigan will be my first tournament on the NATO topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have an IR background, but please explain things.

If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.

First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.

Style

I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.

I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.

Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.

My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.

Theory
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.

I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.

Topicality

I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.

Kritikal Affs

It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.

Case/Disads/CPs

This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.

Kritiks

I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.

I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.

Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.

I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.

Rebuttals

I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.

Misc.

If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.

Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.

Background

I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.

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

Public Forum Judging Philosophy:

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

I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.

The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.

A few points that might matter to you:

1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.

2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.

3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.

4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.

speech and debate should be a safe space for students to express themselves.

db8 experience:

North Central High School, Spokane, WA – debated 2018-21 (Circuit LD)

University of Washington, Seattle, WA – 1N/2A (NDT/CEDA Policy)

please start an email chain before the 1ac and include me: cfushi@uw.edu

all evidence read must be included in the email chain w/properly formatted cites (update 5/2021: excluding re-highlightings) preferably (but not required) in a Verbatim-enabled Microsoft word document and also preferably (but not required) working, accessible hyperlinks - applies to online and in-person unless you don't have access to a laptop or the internet. analytics not being on is ok - I'm not the best at typing them all out either - but don't speed through full steam if they're not in the doc.

pronouns: he/him/his

*note: I'm fine with most args except death good or death neutral, please don't read it in front of me for personal reasons if you can avoid it - especially arguments advocating suicide. Anything else, please give a content warning when reasonable (graphic violence, sexual assault, slurs, et cetera) and accommodate your opponents.

if I'm judging speech for some reason: I did impromptu and program oral interp, for both of which I went to WA State championships. I also did DI, which I sucked at but enjoyed, and extemporaneous, which I extra sucked at and loathed.

pref me in this order (top/1 = you want me in your round, bottom/4 = literally strike me )

k (structural + identity positions) - 1

soft left aff - 2

larp/policy - 2

k (pomo etc) - 3

phil - 3

trix: strike me. seriously, it's worth using one of your strikes.

pet peeves:

saying "they don't do enough work on the flow" -- sounds like something a coach would say -- expand on this a bit or use the word "ink" ig

telling me that x speech/cross-x was ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING THEY HAVE CONCEDED THAt... (jk)

saying your opponent dropped something when they didn't

being overly aggressive - be confident! but there's a clear line where you're being unkind to people.

paraphrasing instead of reading a properly formatted card (i.e. Author, year: [text of cut card])

yay:

a s m r of keyboards typing during prep

but srsly:

process cps bad ------x--- process cps cheating a bit

condo good -----x---- condo bad

standards, rotb, literally anything else framingwise x---------- v/vc (eew)

k affs in the direction of the topic good ---x------ fascistic fw hack

debate is an advocacy space x--------- debate is a game

ld specific stuff:

I hate nebel-t and plans bad theory with a passion. Disclosure and generics probably solve and unless you can prove specific abuse, a few mediocre analytic responses from the aff are sufficient defense for me to not vote on it.

I won't vote on most tricks prima facie - a clever strategy =/= a trick, but something disingenuously spread through to exclude large swaths of offense that everyday people would find categorically absurd and that adding 10 more seconds to your opponent's rebuttal would neutralize - that's probably a trick, and you'll know it on my face (providing I'm looking up from flowing and don't have my head in my hands).

affs - I'll count an overview and brief underview extension (if you have one) as sufficient to extend; obviously extensions need a warrant but the 1ac presumably already has one so I don't expect you to spend a lot of time here esp. since time skew is a huge thing

condo is probably good if the aff can reasonably answer the 1nc in 4 minutes; if it's purposefully designed to take advantage of time skew I'll be more convinced by the aff on condo debates

slow down on your underview! I'm not the fastest flower yet also underviews still need warrants

default to nibs ok, condo good and yes rvi's unless you successfully argue otherwise

trad ld ppl - don't focus on the v/vc debate if it's not necessary - it's a waste of time (e.g. util vs. "cost-benefit analysis"). you don't have to have a dedicated voter section at the end of the 2nr/2ar! affs, collapsing in the 2ar or even 1ar can be strategic if you have multiple contentions. Trad ld can and should be more phil-based otherwise the v/vc debate is kinda pointless. Also, for the 1nc, contentions can probably just be rephrased as disads, counterplans, etc. to keep flows tidier - the 1nc should still differentiate between different off-case and on-case arguments even if it is a trad round - doing so will help your speaks. Going one off phil nc is a really good trad strat that will boost your speaks; contact me if you need help understanding - I underwent the transition from understanding only trad to circuit-style as well so I know how it feels.

"this is ld" isn't a warrant. If you're reading t or theory, read a properly formatted shell (interpretation, violation, standards, voters, drop the debater or drop the arg). p.s. topicality is negative ground because it only concerns whether the affirmative plan falls under the ground that the resolution assigns to the affirmative - I've heard 1ar's calling the negative "untopical" too many times in trad.

more experienced debaters should try to accommodate less-experienced ones, but I won't disadvantage a student based on their stylistic choice to be more "progressive" just because their opponent is not. Especially in ToC-bid and/or varsity divisions, students should be expected to engage non-"traditional" positions.

that being said, do not read arguments whose format and/or warrants you clearly do not understand. your speaks will thank you.

cx specific stuff:

I'll judge kick in the 2n only if you tell me to, don't assume I will - although to be honest, most aff arguments against judge kick are more persuasive to me. I don't think judge kick belongs in ld because the negative gets more structural advantages than in policy imho, but if you win it you win it

idc who speaks (ins and outs, 1a/2a etc, idc) BUT each person must give at least two speeches and one cross examination unless extenuating circumstances arise.

let's not hide aspec or other voters clearly tangential to the flow you're on in those pages? it's academically dishonest and unaccommodating to people with processing difficulties - incl. me.

everyone:

sit or stand, (online: camera on or off), wear whatever you want, it's not my role to police you nor is it appropriate for judges to do so.

please time yourselves and each other.

stock issues are antiquated but still matter, even if we don't specifically call some of them by their names, keep them in mind - if you give a 2nr on "significance" and it's really good, I'll think it's really funny and give you (and your partner if it's in policy or pf) a 30.

not up for debate: speech times, things that happened out of round that aren't disclosure-related, having only one winner (I literally can't award two ballots), speaker points, people's identities, authenticity testing (unless you have solid proof), other people's experiences, comparing minorities' oppression relative to one another, whether you can: say a slur belonging to, read pess args about, or blatantly misrepresent yourself as an identity group you are not (you can't and if your opponent makes even the weakest argument about this I will award them the ballot).

case debate

disclose on the wiki!!! open source, round reports, cites, do it!

mental health comes first. I personally struggle(d) a lot with this in debate; if you need some time to regroup as long as you're not prepping and we can finish the debate before the tabroom timer ends please take it. I trust that people won't abuse this - just know that taking care of yourself is a pre-req to good debating and winning a round shouldn't come at the expense of your health.

I'm more sympathetic to small schools when it comes to t and theory including disclosure

I try to be generous but not Weimar Republic inflationary with speaks. If you get below a 27 then you really need to work on your skills, but I do give out 30s as well. Middle of the road should be 28.5, before adjusting up or down based on tournament norms (e.g., an east circuit tournament like Harvard vs. a west coast local district would expect different speaker point scales, and I’ll try to fit them as best as I can).

please, no aggressive post-rounding. I hate confrontations.

Garfield 21 University of Washington 24

Add me on the email chain notchriswen@gmail.com

Debated 4 years for Garfield High School, one year as a 2N, 3 as a 2A. Primarily read policy arguments on the aff and kritikal arguments on the neg. Currently studying accounting and finance, if you are interested in pursuing those fields at UW feel free to ask me about that.

I would love to say that I am a tabula rasa judge, but my experiences through life and debate have shaped my views which I hope to outline. 99% of these thoughts can be easily flipped with good debating and judge instruction. Just don't read arguments like racism good.

Tech > truth

I wish I could say that I have a perfect flow, but I don't. I'm still a bit rusty, and my ears have gotten worse. Give me just a bit to adjust to your voice and speed. And if you can, either speak a bit louder than normal or speak closer to me.

NEW NOTE: please don't make every little thing a voter, and then give me no reasons why it should be a voter.

General:

Read what arguments you can articulate the best. I will do my best to judge the round in a method that requires the least amount of intervention. I'm not the most familiar with the NATO topic, explain nuances of the plan or jargon.

I love to see new creative arguments, especially on the negative side. Specific negative research against the case will be rewarded.

Please tell me the implications of you winning arguments, how does winning this argument on a flow impact the other arguments, how should I prioritize weighing?

Theory

I love a good theory debate. Most theory violations I default on reject the argument besides condo. Of course if you provide me a good reason with why rejecting the team should be done instead, I am happy to listen to it. I want to hear about the world of debate under your interpretation and why rejection of a team/argument would be better for your model of debate. Please don't make random small things voters. If you are going for a theory argument I need standards.

Topicality

If you have done the research and have strong carded evidence with intent to define, I will be a good T judge. The more specific the evidence, the better. Use case lists and explain what your model of debate looks like. I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability for me is about how much of the negative's offense is resolved by the aff's counter interpretation.

CPs

The more specific the CP, the better it will be. From what I've heard about the topic, there's a lack of strong disads so I will probably be more lenient about counterplans in terms of theory.

DAs

Love good disads. I want to hear a story, tell me the internal link scenarios that lead to your impact, and why each of those internal links makes your scenario likely in the world of the aff. Turns case analysis and comparing warrants will make it very easy to vote neg on a DA. I want to know why your DA scenario leads to a more likely war, a faster war, just tell me how your evidence's warrants are a unique scenario that the aff's defense won't apply to. I believe in terminal defense and zero risk can exist, an extremely low risk to me is most likely noise that will always exist. However, give me a reason to change that opinion and I will be happy to adjudicate differently based on guidance.

K

I am fine for Ks. I am slightly familiar with most common Ks, but please explain your arguments well. I especially want to hear about how the alternative solves the links, and what the alternative looks like. The more structured the alternative is, the more likely I am to vote on the alt. Be organized, do the analysis on the line by line, I would prefer to not have a long overview. If you do go for framework, go hard, do the weighing and explain to me how exactly you want me to weigh the aff vs the K or even weigh the aff at all. Otherwise, I'll default to some middle ground.

K Affs/FW

Honestly, not the best for K affs. I think that the topic of the K aff should be at the very least be related to the topic in some way. Secondly, I think presumption and SSD are both strong pushes against K affs. To win my ballot as a K aff, you have to win both those arguments, and not lose some impact on FW. As the neg, have a clear strategy for FW in terms of what terminal impact you go for, have a good TVA, etc.

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.