"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride

and wants it to be faster and wilder;

she does not want a room of his or her own,

she wants to be in the world, in the world with others

and making the world anew."

-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons

I love debate. Enough to give it 6 years of my life and likely many more. I have made a point to engage in every format and have made pretty good progress in that goal. I love the tech of Policy, NFA-LD, NPDA, but do heavily enjoy rhetorical presentation in forms like BP or PF. I'm currently a college debater and am always learning new things, but I promise to listen closely, judge with as open of a mind as possible, and offer feedback to help you improve.

I view debate as competitive story-telling. Both sides are here to tell me a story about the topic. This effects how I view most questions in debate. As a quick outline toward earning my ballot, however, I care about three things:

1) The Contents of Your Arguments

2) Why they are Important

3) How they Compare and Interact with Your Opponent's Arguments

If you articulate to me these three things better than your opponent, I will very likely vote for you. Other than that, I want to hear your voice in the story that you want to tell. Please run the arguments and have the debate that you are most comfortable with, in the style that you are most comfortable with. I love new ideas and I love clash. If you can promise these two things, I will be entertained.

While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won, here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean on different controversial issues in the community:

Tech -----x-------------- Truth

Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card

Contextualized links --x----------------- Uncontextualized Studies

New ideas -----x----------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times

Public Forum:

While I appreciate the more rhetorical framework that PF is supposed to exist in, I like concrete impacts and a story for why those impacts matter and how they relate to the resolution. I love evidence comparison, impact analysis, and analytical examples.

I'm likely more open to theory or more progressive argumentation than your typical judge, but I love traditional argumentation as well. Tech isn't a tool for bullying or obfuscation. The burden of proof is on you to explain your argument to your opponents. If your opponents don't get your argument, that's your fault.

An argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact for me to consider it. This weird 'tricks' trend where teams sneakily toss in an independent line about voting for them isn't tech or line-by-line debate. It will only lower your speaks and my opinion of you as a debater.

I lift my pen up and stop flowing after the time for your speech runs out(I time independently).

Don't be rude to your opponents during Crossfire and allow the other team roughly equal speaking time(I keep track and it effects speaks).

Also when it comes to framing what's in the resolution/what it looks like, I am far more convinced by probability evidence("The Japanese Prime Minister says Article 9 Revision would be this") then debate theory analysis("this is the most fair ground for a debate"), please still make voter impact comparisons however if this ends up being the clash but I'd prefer to at least start in the lit base for determining what the resolution means.

On the "sticky defense" conversation. I like arguments to be extended in the summary. That being said, I don't need you to repeat word for word every argument made. For instance "extend our 5 points of defense on their first contention" would work well for me especially if you then contextualize those 5 points to the weighing.

On Kritiks, I'm honestly uncertain what that means in context of Public Forum debate. Can you make arguments or entire contentions based in "critical" theories of power? Absolutely!! In fact, when I debate in PF those are my favorite arguments to make. However, in PF you are explicitly given ground to defend which can run you into uniqueness problems. For instance, on the Japan Article 9 resolution, you can absolutely tell me that deterrence is part of a militarist mindset and even if it does technically "work" to solve an individual problem like Chinese aggression in the South China Sea that it creates a type of society or outlook that is very negative. This works because it makes sense to me on face that revising Article 9 would be a dramatic departure toward a militarist mindset/society then the Status quo. However, if you were to tell me that capitalism is bad, I'd agree with you but become confused as to how Capitalism would be any different between the squo and an article 9 revision. In plan-based formats like Policy this is solved by creating a counterplan(called an alternative) that shifts away from Capitalism but I'm unsure how you'd resolve the uniqueness issue in PF. However, if you think your argument makes sense in a PF paradigm, then I'd love to hear it.

Policy

I want clash and comparison, not scripts and uncontextualized framework fights.

Like most judges, I view the Negative as having the burden of rejoinder of a prepared affirmative opponent. What this means in practice:

Conditionality, I lean Aff. 1-2 CPs and 1 Alt plus the squo is very reasonable for fruitful engagement over the Affirmative. Every added Counter-advocacy after that is exponentially more potential negative worlds added and I lean more to depth over breadth when it comes to clash and do believe complaints about time from the Aff can be very valid(Having only 30 seconds in the 2AC per CP for instance is often not a very productive debate). That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more).

I define dispositionality as "if there is offense on the shell, the Neg can't just kick it." it's my default view on disads and I could be persuaded to apply it to CPs if the Aff put in the work. I will not reanimate turned Das though if they're not extended in the 1 and 2ar. You have to make the strategic decision to go for them.

On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; I need direct solvency advocates to buy these as legitimate and I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. If consulting is a ten minute phone call from the President, I don't see why that can't happen while Congress passes the plan. If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.

Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, don't think of them as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP.

2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.

Kritiks:

Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.

I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.

Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.

That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy.

Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial. A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.

For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.

Critical Affirmatives:

I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic, I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.

If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.

However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.

I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!

Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.

For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.

Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.

To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.

Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.

My threshold for dismissing "conservative" arguments is very high. Especially if I'm not sure what a conservative even is anymore. If an argument wouldn't get a professor or teacher fired, I think it's educational to learn how to clash with it.

"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.

I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue, neither is a microaggression that we can resolve informally. Also I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, feel free to interrupt a speech or wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive game getting in the way.

If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). In the 2002 CEDA Finals I would've voted for Michigan State CM over Fort Hays RR. Both were very close debates for good reason, but that's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.

Theory: It's an organized way of explaining that your opponents have somehow violated the rules or desirable norms of debate. I will admit that I have always felt policed by theory so run it at your own risk. That being said, if you win, you win. I have voted in favor of the interp more than the counterinterp despite my own embarrassment at that fact.

Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow in an offense/defense paradigm.

Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." More rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.

"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.

John Fritch

It has been many, many years since I judged debates. That said, my background is in NDT/CEDA debate. I debated, coached for 15 years, then directed the NDT for 12 years. I used to be a pretty good judge (judged finals of NDT and CEDA Nationals) but that was many years ago. What does that mean as I judge a debate today?

1. I will flow the debate. I will pay attention to the arguments made in the debate.

2. Topicality is a voting issue. However, the discussion about the violation and reasons to prefer may implicate the reasons why it is a voting issue. I am seldom, if ever, a fan of reverse voting issues on topicality.

3. As a judge, I tend to default to the question of whether or not the plan should be implemented by the actor specified in the plan. Left to my own devices, I will make some assessment of how the affirmative advantages stack up against the negative disadvantages/case turns.

4. Counter-plans are fine. I think they should be offered in the first negative speech and their status should be specified. CPs need to be competitive and provide a reason to not do the aff.

5. Kritiks. So, this is a place where I have not followed the developments of debate as closely over the past several years. I am not as well versed in the current critique literature nor have I followed the theoretical developments. That means you should be careful if you are using debate lingo or making assumptions about my knowledge of the literature. That said, I am fairly well read in continental philosophy.

6. Be polite. Be smart. Have fun.

Justin Kirk - Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

General philosophy – Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speech drop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate – You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. The easiest way to resolve this is through speech drop. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality – Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis-à-vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks – Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans – Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads – Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate – no more, no less.

Disclosure (12/2/23 update) - I lifted this from Parker Hopkins at his blessing who borrowed from Chris Roberds.

TLDR - disclosure is an essential element to small-school competitiveness, the educational functions of the activity, and should be practiced by all teams.

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

(Justin's final thought on disclosure) - JV and Novice divisions need disclosure the most. There is a reason that CARD and ADA Novice divisions use a packet. There is a reason that the Nothern Tier used a packet when it was still a thing. Disclosure on the wiki serves a similar if not a congruent function for the community. Give those coaches some time to prepare their young debaters to engage their opponents and have a productive debate!

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

Toni Nielson

Co-Director of Debate, Fullerton College (2017 - forever I suspect)

Executive Director - Bay Area Urban Debate League (2013-2017)
Co-Director of Debate at CSU, Fullerton for 7 years (2005-2012)
Debated in College for 5 years
Debated in High School for 3 years
Rounds on the Topic: less than 5

Email Chain: commftownnielson@gmail.com

I just want to see you do what you are good at. I like any debater who convinces me the know what they are talking about.

Here’s what I think helps make a debater successful –

1. Details: evidence and analytics, aff and neg – the threshold for being as specific as humanly possible about your arg and opponent's arg remains the same; details demonstrate knowledge
2. Direct organized refutation: Answer the other team and don’t make me guess about it – I hate guessing because it feels like intervention. I'm trying to let the debaters have the debate.
3. Debating at a reasonable pace: I ain’t the quickest flow in the west, even when I was at my best which was a while ago. I intend on voting for arguments which draw considerable debates and not on voting for arguments that were a 15 seconds of a speech. If one team concedes an argument, it still has to be an important and relevant argument to be a round winner.
4. Framing: tell me how you want me to see the round and why I shouldn’t see it your opponents way
5. Comparison: you aren’t debating in a vacuum – see your weakness & strengths in the debate and compare those to your opponent. I love when debaters know what they are losing and deal with it in a sophisticated way.

Some style notes - I like to hear the internals of evidence so either slow down a little or be clear. I flow CX, but I do this for my own edification so if you want an arg you still have to make it in a speech. I often don't get the authors name the first time you read the ev. I figure if the card is an important extension you will say the name again (in the block or rebuttals) so I know what ev you are talking about. I rarely read a bunch of cards at the end of the debate.

Now you are asking,
Can I read an aff without a plan? I lean rather in the direction of a topical plan, instrumentally implemented these days. This is a big change in my previous thoughts and the result of years of working with young, beginning debate. I appreciate policy discussion and believe the ground it provides is a preferable locus for debate. So I am somewhat prone to vote neg on framework must implement a plan.

Can I go for politics/CP or is this a K judge? Yes to both; I don't care for this distinction ideologically anymore. As far as literature, I lean slightly more in the K direction. My history of politics and CP debate are more basic than my history of K debate.

Theory - lean negative in most instances. Topicality - lean affirmative (if they have a plan) in most instances. I lean neg on K framework which strikes me as fair negative ground of a topical plan of action.

Truth v Tech - lean in the direction of tech. Debate, the skill, requires refuting arguments. So my lean in the direction of the tech is not a declaration to abandon reality. I will and do vote on unanswered arguments, particularly ones that are at the core of the debate. Gigantic caveat, I will struggle to vote on an argument just because it is dropped. The concession must be relevant and compelling to the debate. I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Here's what I like: I like what you know things about. And if you don't know anything, but get through rounds cause you say a bunch and then the other team drops stuff - then I don't think you have a great strategy. Upside for you, I truly believe you do know something after working and prepping the debate on the topic. Do us both a favor: If what you know applies in this round, then debate that.

Good luck!.

Hi! I’m Sarah. I use she/they pronouns. I graduated from Penn State in the spring of 2022. I’m now at Cornell Law School. I currently don’t have any program affiliation, but I love the activity and am glad to be involved however I can. If you have questions about this paradigm, any of my decisions, want to talk about law school applications, or just need a friendly ear, feel free to reach out via Facebook or email (ses452@cornell.edu).

General things

• I’m a person first, educator second, and adjudicator third. You do what you enjoy and I’m excited to learn from you. Tell me what to do with the ballot and I’ll listen.

• I’ll do my best to be tabula rasa. I’ll share my biases because I can’t be perfectly neutral as much as I might want to. Everything in this paradigm (except decent human being things) are only defaults, you can change them easily with an argument.

• Tech over truth but it’s way better when your arguments are at least dubiously true.

• I’d like novices to stick broadly to the topic and to reasonably understandable arguments. It helps nobody to hand your novice a Baudrillard file. I’m pretty willing to fill in the gaps for novices making smart arguments who don’t make them in technically correct ways.

• I’m good with speed if and only if everyone in the round is, please slow on tags.

• Don’t do things to make the debate community a worse place. It shows a lot more skill to win elegantly and cleanly by an inch than to bash the other side and win by a mile.

• Please make complete arguments - this means at minimum have internal links, ideally ones with warrants. If your argument isn’t complete, I can’t vote on it even if nobody points out the flaws.

• I get that there are things the community universally accepts even without links (e.g. politics disads) and I’ll probably give those to you if nobody points out the lack of links. I’ll err on the side of granting them for predictability but I want to be up front that since I’m new to judging I don’t know yet where my threshold is.

• It’s fun and makes for less frustrating decisions when you weigh and meta-weigh.

• CX is underutilized and it would be cool if you accomplished something with it.

• Things I reserve the right to stop the round and give you the L for:

• Doing or reading something the other side explicitly asked you not to do for mental health reasons

• Misgendering someone after being corrected

• Explicit bigotry (exception: if everyone in the round agrees beforehand to test arguments like “sexism good for econ,” I think that can be educational. But you can’t spring that on someone)

• Making arguments about sexual violence or suicide without ASKING the other side if it’s okay. Content warnings that do not ask are not okay. If you do this I will stop you and confirm with everyone in the round that it is okay before continuing, and if it’s not and you can’t read a different position, the round will end and you will lose

• Ad hominem arguments - you can attack the argument or the framing, but not the person or intention

Feedback and evaluation

In novice or JV divisions, I’ll type out notes mid-speech. I think it’s more important that you get specific feedback than that my flow is perfect. In open, I’ll prioritize my flow but make a point to be extremely detailed during the RFD. The distinction is mostly that open debaters can benefit a lot more from strategic analysis. I’ll also do everything I can to give you tips on fixing errors instead of just pointing them out. If you feel like you’d learn more from a different kind of feedback than this, just let me know and I’m happy to oblige.

Speaker points are silly, arbitrary, and biased. My hope is if enough people simply refuse to take them seriously, it will disavow people of the notion that they have any value as a metric and we can get rid of them. As such, you’re all getting 30s unless you do something worth getting 0.

Ballot comments on Tabroom go to you and your coach (and anyone else with access to your team's Tabroom page). Nine times out of ten this is good for education. If for some reason (and I won't ask the reason), you do not want your coach to see your feedback, just let me know privately and I'm happy to give feedback orally or share it via PDF in the Speechdrop instead of putting it on the ballot.

Counterplans

• Dispo > condo (dispo means a CP is like a disad where you can extend defense but can’t kick out of offense)

• Two condo fine if it’s a CP and an alt, more than that probably bad

• Perms are probably advocacies

Theory

• I-meets are terminal defense on theory

• Competing interps > reasonability. I’ve been told I think of theory in the NPDA sense more than the LD sense if that helps anyone

• I don't need proven abuse. I honestly don't know what proven abuse is. If your practice is bad, it probably had some impact on strategy. You don't need to execute a bad strategy to prove that it's bad.

• I’m probably more amenable to resource disparity arguments than a lot of people as a product of debating for a student-run team in college

• Disclosure theory is elitist and bad. Aff disclosure is probably good, but 9/10 times people don’t do it because they don’t know how (especially with these new confusing caselist updates). Educate, don’t punish

Kritiks

• Alts should either have some evidence indicating solvency in the traditional sense (of fixing the problem you present) or subvert traditional notions of solvency. Alts that do neither probably do nothing and the other side should point this out

• Alts that operate in a different paradigm than the aff (e.g. discourse alts compared to policy affs) need a ROB to be cohesive. Otherwise you’re just talking past each other because the government could do the aff and you could do the alt and there’s no contradiction. Perms are really strong here and at best with these alts and no FW you win on K turns case

• Fiat is illusory, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, and it would be better if you had more than “the plan isn’t real”

Performance

• Nontopical affs should have neg ground and you should be able to tell us what it is during CX.

• If the neg ground is theory and you then make IVIs to theory I’m going be really persuaded by arguments that there is no neg ground

• It’s much preferable imo if the neg ground is topic generics (e.g. a movements case where the effect is change to election laws, a topical plan text with narrative evidence, or a critique of NFA elections in the direction of the topic)

• In novice divisions you have to be topical or at least have topical neg ground - predictability reasons are overwhelming when it comes to making newbies want to stay in debate

Miscellaneous thoughts

• I won't enforce the rules simply because they're the rules. Appeals to the rules are fine though if you warrant why following the rules is good.

• One piece of unethically cut or cited ev → drop the arg + ballot comments to your coach. If it happens again, auto-loss. Unless you’re a novice, in which case still fix it but you get more leeway

• New NR and 2AR arguments don’t get flowed

• Zoom lets you do cool things and if you need to screen-share to do them that should be allowed. We ought to get something out of this virtual debate thing

• Baum-Barret is a garbage card written by people who need to at minimum SKIM Rawls before incorrectly citing him. I’m pretty sure most people under the veil of ignorance would care a lot more about the threat of crushing poverty than a 1% risk of nuclear war

• Evidence comparison > tons of cards that all say the same thing

I’m sure I’m missing something. I’ll try to edit as I notice things. Feel free to ask any questions before round!

Hi! I'm Mary. Thanks for reading my paradigm :)

Who are you?

I am an attorney practicing business and employment law in Oregon. (If you are interested in law I'd love to chat!) From 2020-2023 while I went to law school, I was co NFA-LD coach for Lewis & Clark College. I graduated from L&C undergrad in May 2020 and did parli (NPDA) debate there. I also competed in high school for four years, mainly in LD. For the sake of ultimate transparency, I want to make my debate opinions as explicit as possible. I promise to try my best!

What is the tl;dr?

I will listen to any argument that you make and will weigh it how you tell me to. K's are my favorite and topicality is not (though I am down for the silly stuff!) Please make clear extensions. Don't be a jerk. I will absolutely not tolerate discriminatory behavior or post-rounding.

Note for High School:

You do you! I have done or am familiar with every high school event. All of the below would apply in a technical/circuit style debate round. If you are unfamiliar with any of that, don't worry! I will evaluate the round how you tell me to. Feel free to ask me questions. Be kind to each other. Have fun with it!

How do you allocate speaker points?

I really struggled with coming up with a consistent way to give speaks. They are usually arbitrary and reflective of personal biases... SO I usually give high speaks (30 + 29.9). That being said if I don't give you the speaks you wanted, don't read into it, I have no idea how to give speaks in a fair or consistent way. I'm open to any args you want to make about speaks and just let me know if you have any questions.

How do you feel about Speed?

I have not kept up with debate ever since starting my career and need you to go somewhere between your mid and top speed. If it's really important PLEASE slow down. If there is a doc, I can keep up better with faster spreading so please share it with me! I'll slow and/or clear you if I need to.

What about the K?

I love love love performative affs and GOOD k debates. I've almost always read non-topical Ks with some fun (loosely) topical debates mixed in every once in a while. I’m familiar with almost all K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about (especially when it comes to D n G bc i simply do not get it.) I am most familiar with futurism arguments and performance affs. Cap is fun! Generic links are so frustrating and so are unclear alts. I love a good explanation of the world post the alt. I'd honestly rather vote for an uncarded link that is specific to the aff and contextualized to the debate than to vote on a generic carded link.

How do you feel about perms?

Love it. Fun stuff. Perms are probably advocacies because everyone treats them like they are.

What if I want to read theory/topicality?

If you read theory or topicality, read a smart interp with a clear violation and standards/voters that make sense. Voters that do not make sense to me include: fairness without a warrant, education without a warrant, and “NFA rules say it’s a voter.”

I prefer proven abuse. I don't think potential abuse has an impact.

I also think the competing interps vs. reasonability debate is SO dumb. "prefer CI bc reasonability leads to judge intervention" and "prefer reasonability bc CI leads to a race to the bottom” are not warrants. If you really want to know how I evaluate theory, it is likely that I will "reasonably" vote for whichever "competing interpretation" is doing the best.

We meets are terminal defense on T.

I wanna read some topical stuff! How does that sound?

Great! Read tons of topical stuff. I do like me a good topical debate! Clearly articulated link chains and impacts will go a long way.

Condo?

Be condo if you want plus I prefer a hard collapse anyway.

Anything else?

Collapse, slow down for important things you really want me to remember, don't forget to do impact calc, and have fun ;)

Please feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at marytalamantez@lclark.edu or send me a message on facebook. Otherwise you can ask before a round!

TL;DR I have some experience and am a progressive judge, so you can do whatever as long as you make sure you explain things and have warrants. The best way to get my ballot is generating lots of offense and doing good weighing / impact comparison. If you're looking at this right before a round trying to decide on your strategy, run whatever you want.

Experience:

-3 years Parli at Ashland HS (Oregon); broke at TOC my senior year

-4 years NFA LD (basically solo policy) at Lewis & Clark; 2022 National Champion

-3 years as head coach at Catlin Gabel HS

-Current law student, if that matters

-Well over 100 rounds judged; 37-5 on the winning side when judging on elim panels.

Main Judging Philosophy:

Progressive/Flow judge. I vote on the flow and will vote for you if you win. Do that however you want; just make sure you sufficiently explain your arguments so they are actual arguments rather than claims with no warrants.

Please collapse in your final speeches! It makes things so much cleaner, and if you give me a clear path to the ballot instead of trying to messily go for everything, it will only help you. Same for weighing: if you weigh your impacts things will be so much cleaner and easier for me to vote for you.

Ks are fine on the aff or neg. Framework is fine. T is fine. Theory is fine. DAs and CPs are fine. Tricks are fine. It's all fine just make the arguments you want to make.

Speed is fine. I'd like to be on the email chain or file sharing if applicable. For Parli, please slow down on tags and important texts (e.g., plan texts, topicality interps, etc.)

Misc:

Disclaimer: if you say anything blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic or generally bigoted I will give you zero speaker points and you will lose. Just be nice please.

Note that I do not always flow author names, so when extending cards, please give me the tagline or reference what the card actually says rather than just saying "extend Smith 21." I don't want to have to look for it in the doc.

Happy to answer detailed questions before the round! Just trying to keep this short.