Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: branchen@penncareylaw.upenn.edu

I'm likely more moderate compared to most judges you'll encounter. Running kritiks beyond the Capitalism Kritik would require more thorough explanation and warranting for me to be swayed. I strongly prefer to see a clear and well-defined alternative.

I consider myself to be 'tabula rasa' aka 'clean slate and will vote for anything if there is reason to vote for it on the flow. Weighing and key voters are very important with me. I was an LDer from 2009-2013 and coached from 2013-2014.

I am not a fan of spreading these days (haven't judged or coached regularly for years); however, I am okay if you choose to spread anyway-- it's 'at your own risk'. If I cannot understand you I will say 'clear' once and if you do not adjust I will stop flowing what you are reading.

Feel free to ask me about anything more specific.

Who I Am:

My name is Sophia. My pronouns are any and all.

I debated on a semi-lay local circuit in high school, at a large policy-oriented program for the first half of my college career, and a small kritik-oriented program for the last half. I've have personally read a wide variety of arguments, from debate-about-debate structural Ks, 7-off policy throwdowns, planless AFFs, the biggest policy AFFs on any given topic, or small marginally-topical AFFs. That's all to say you should read whatever you feel comfortable with without worrying if I'm the best judge for any of these things. I will flow and evaluate the debate technically.

I have a soft spot for debates with specific strategies that discuss the AFF directly no matter what style, number, or type of argument that may be. That requires you to win competition arguments about what aspects of the affirmative that the negative can generate offense from.

My Note-Taking Practices:

I flow on paper. I only flow what I catch you clearly saying, so speak unclearly at your own risk. This applies to all speeches. I require pen time. That means that I need some time between sheets of paper to be able to shuffle between flows and start writing. Blasting through analytics at the top of a block is not your friend, especially on perms at the top of CP flows and K framework. I will verbally yell "CLEAR" if I can't write down what you are saying. If I have to clear you multiple times and you do not slow down or enunciate more often, I will stop clearing you, but that doesn't mean that you are flowable. I do not try to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc.

I do not open documents as the debate is happening. Again, I only flow what I audibly hear, and I will not fill in the gaps for you as you speak. I will then sift through the documents after the debate for cards that you reference by name or by argument in the final speeches. I do not normally ask for a card doc.

I try to flow...

CX, not as a place to read cards or make arguments, but for me to remember how you articulate your arguments or key concessions, statuses, etc.

All "texts", which include plan texts, CP texts, advocacy statements, alternative texts, and perm texts. Insert the perm text in the document at your own risk.

All interpretations for theory and framework arguments.

General:

Be sportsmanlike. Laughing at your opponents, accusing them of being "new" to the activity, or otherwise will get your speaks docked. I understand that the labels of "rude" are often scripted on debaters of certain styles, backgrounds or identities. I actively resist this racist and gendered scripting on performance and kritikal debaters. What I am opposed to is behavior that includes making fun of the other team or directly insulting their skill. All debaters come from different situations, financial backgrounds, and varying levels of program support and should not be shamed for aspects of their situation that are out of their control.

I do not judge kick unless instructed otherwise.

Tech determines truth in all instances.

I am sympathetic to evidence spin. I will not fill in the gaps for you by reading a doc and asserting that that's not what a card's original article is talking about. It is up to the debaters to interpret that evidence for me.

How I Decide Debates:

I tend to decide debates quickly because I evaluate issues as the debate goes on. If I'm taking time after the decision, it's sometimes because I'm an incredibly slow typist. However, it can also be because debaters have failed to communicate to me the nexus issues in the debate or resolve the most important issues on which the debate hinges.

A conceded argument is true only with the implications that you assign it. That means that, if you don't explain to me how a dropped argument implicates the debate, or the scope of its meaning doesn't rise to what is necessary for you to win the debate, it will not be as impactful as you think it is.

To decide debates, I first identify the most important arguments and then resolve them based on how the debaters resolved them in their last speeches. I don't tend to think much about other issues in the debate in my decision time. I will intervene only if there is no decision that prevents me from doing so, but I will prioritize writing ballots that have me avoid intervention altogether.

Presumption flips negative or towards the advocacy that promotes the least change.

Disadvantages:

Please do thorough impact calculus with "DA turns case" claims.

I can be easily persuaded that politics DAs are not intrinsic reasons the plan is undesirable.

I will vote on zero risk of the DA if defense is decisively won.

Counterplans:

I will not judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.

I am neutral on most theory questions. I think AFF teams should challenge the legitimacy of types of counterplans more often. I really like in-depth, good theory debates, but hate when they lack clash and are full of back-and-forth block reading.

Advantage CPs should not be a hot pile of garbage. Stop to consider if the "obvious" take out to their internal link is actually obvious, and if it requires evidence to explain itself.

I will vote on zero risk of the net benefit means the CP is irrelevant if defense is decisively won.

Topicality/Theory:

I am a huge fan of topicality debates. I need each side to characterize what the topic looks like under theirs and their opponents' interpretations with caselists. I especially like T debates where limits arguments are quantifiable, and ground debates are accompanied by listing the ground you lose and how that now shapes the negative's argument set.

That being said, I prefer limits arguments over ground arguments.

Topicality comes before non-resolutional theory questions always.

Theory standards should be intrinsic to the interpretation they're connected with.

Conditionality is the only theory argument not based on the plan or its presentation (vagueness, disclosure, SPEC arguments, etc.) that is "reject the team" automatically in my eyes. All other theory interpretations (CP legitimacy, perm legitimacy, etc.) are reject the argument unless otherwise specified. If you do claim that the argument is reject the team, I would appreciate you explain why I should do so.

Kritiks:

I am fine with Ks that range anywhere from Topic Ks to those that generate their offense based on the AFF's rhetoric, epistemology, or ontology. Kritiks must either have an alternative or a framework that generates some sort of uniqueness.

Framework is a competition argument that determines how the NEG can generate offense against the AFF. I prefer NEG frameworks that are debated in this way rather than ones that tell me what impacts I should prefer.

Planless AFFs:

Planless AFFs must have an advocacy statement.

I can be convinced that there are no perms in a method debate.

I am a fan of specific, well-researched creative strategies that go beyond T-USFG debates. That includes DAs that link to the advocacy or a CX concession, Ks of the AFF's literature or authors, or specific K link debating.

Framework/T-USFG:

I have about a 50/50 record of voting for and against planless AFFs on framework/T-USFG.

I prefer T-USFG as an argument over framework because I think framework's establishment of a role for the judge can easily be proven to be arbitrary.

Fairness can be either an impact or an internal link.

I love in-depth framework/T-USFG debating where it is obvious that the AFF has put deep thought into what parts of the NEG's offense they are mitigating and what parts they are turning. I think AFFs should be ready to answer the question of "why not on the neg" with offense that is specific and intrinsically connected to reading their arguments as an AFF.

Speaker Points:

I disagree with the current meta of awarding 29+ speaks to any debater that attempts a speech. My speaks would largely be considered to be below the average.

Don't ask for a specific amount of speaker points. I will not give you what you ask.

Lincoln Douglas:

My opinion on tricks can be foundhere.

Public Forum:

I don't think defense is sticky.

For both policy and facts-based resolutions, presumption always towards the side that creates the least amount of change, which is the negative more often then not. That means either the status quo rather than a policy change or the side of the counterfactual resolution that is most in-line with the status quo.

Shannon Feerick-Hillenbrand

2n/1a

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart'22

Brown University '26

Add me to the chain please - shannon_feerick-hillenbrand@brown.edu

Read whatever you are most comfortable with, I'd rather see a debate where you are confident than one where you read something to impress me.

TLDR - Tech>truth, Clarity>speed, Quality>quantity, Debate is a game, Fairness is an impact, Turns case are amazing, Be nice, Have fun!

T - I like T and think it can often be the best strategic option if the aff makes it very difficult to find a link to your generics. I ran T a lot on both the cjr and water topics but I don't know if there are good arguments for this topic. That being said, I default to competing interpretations - if you can convince me that your interpretation creates better debates and have good enough evidence - I will vote for you.

Counterplans - I don't know anything about specific cp's on the IPR topic but I will read the evidence and defer to the team that explained their evidence better. Process CP and PICs have a place on this topic but you have to defend them against theory. If you tell me to judge kick the cp I will unless the aff tells me not to.

Theory - I will probably reject the argument and not the team except for conditionality. Answer each other's arguments and contextualize them to the debate - please don't just read generic blocks. IF you want to go for condo on the aff it needs to be a large part of the 1ar!

Disads - I love a good DA and CP or DA and case strat. Politics, T, topic DAs and CPs were most of my 2nrs during my career. Turns the case arguments are great but they should be supported by evidence and have logical warrants. In the 1ar please try to make an answer to these otherwise they can come back to bite you. Impact calculus is a must! For the aff, attack the link and internal link starting in 1nc cross x.

Ks - I don't love k v. policy but if you can contextualize your link to the aff and explain how your alt actually solves or why your framework is preferable I will vote for you. That being said I don't think people actually meet this threshold that often. I generally think that the aff should get to weigh their impacts but I will listen if you say they can't. All that being said I am not the best judge for the k.

K affs - I honestly don't really like them and err very neg on T USFG - that being said if you read one and you win the debate I will still vote for you but you have to explain why no other model of debate can resolve your impacts.

Case - engage with the case - framing arguments on BOTH sides should be contextualized to answer the other team's arguments. advantages are usually not awesome point out logical inconsistencies in cross ex and rehighlight evidence if it doesn't support the thesis of the advantage (you must read rehighlightings)

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-2024 - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality)

2024-Present - Lawrence Free State, KS (IP Law)

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

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.

PFD addendum for NSDA 2024

I am incredibly concerned about the quality of the evidence read in debates and the lack of sharing of evidence read.

Teams who send evidence in a single document that they intend to read in their speech and quickly send an addendum document with all evidence selected mid speech will be rewarded greatly.

I will ask each team to send every piece of evidence read by both teams in ALL speeches.

I am easily persuaded that not sending evidence read in a speech with speech prior to the start of the speech is a violation of evidence sharing rules.

I would prefer if all debates used the NSDA file share on tabroom. I am also ok with a speechdrop or email chain (add willkatzemailchain@gmail.com) but NSDA file share is faster, easier, and has all of the benefits of an email chain.

Coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart full time and very part time at the University of Kansas.
I have been actively involved in research for the high school IPR topic and lightly involved in research about college energy topic.

IPR Topic Update

1 semester in, these are my topic-specific opinions:

-I am very bad for a lot of process cp's on this topic. Some of the process cp's being read vs courts affs are so nonsensical they may not require evidence to refute. I am equally good for permutations and theory.

-There are some "pics" on this topic that are arguably more competitive. Think stuff of the treaties/multilat variety. These are probably a step up from remand or consult. However, the evidence I've seen for these cp's so far is all borderline out of context and the perm do both answers are almost non-starters. If you think your cards are better than that, go ahead with these strategies. But so far I've been relatively unconvinced.

-My voting record is good for T so far this year. That is both not surprising (I am often very good for more limiting t definitions) and very surprising (I think most of the t arguments this year are not very good and could lose to a strong reasonability push)

-I am much much better for the "abolish patents/trademarks/copyright" cp than most. I think that there is very good evidence that can make patents/trademarks/copyright bad very viable, especially when paired with an advantage cp.

- I am still not very good for the K. I do recognize many K's have very good link cards on this years topic. That doesn't change most of the issues I have with the way they are often deployed (the impact is larger than the scope of the link, uniqueness issues, unsolvent alternatives, framework arguments that unfairly burden the aff to prove the 1ac is perfect). Teams going for the K would see a lot more success by treating their alt as "ban ip" and going for a linear da combined with robust impact framing.

"If we are neg in front you against a small new aff, how are we supposed to win?"- debate your best. You have to do what you have to do, and execution still matters the most. I have attempted to roughly order (from most persuasive to least persuasive) which generic strategies will do best in front of me if evenly debated. Obviously any version of "case specific strategy" is going to be higher than these, but I'm assuming you are forced into generics.

*Most Persuasive

Topic policy generic (abolish patents, court clog, etc)

Reality-based impact turn (heg bad, democracy bad, ai bad, etc)

Agent-based da (politics, court politics, sua sponte, etc)

Topicality (could be much higher or lower on list depending on aff)

Topic process that competes on topic words (equities, multilat, treaties, etc. See comment on this above though)

Topic k

(tie) Generic K and Science fiction or misanthropic impact turn (spark, wipeout, etc)

Generic Process cp

*Least Persuasive

Short Version

I will flow debates on paper and decide debates from my flow. Evidence quality matters a lot to me, as does execution. Debaters that use their paper flows to deliver speeches often impress me a lot.

I prefer debates with a lot of clash over well-researched issues that are germane to the topic. I often vote for arguments that I don't prefer, but the more your argument is built to avoid disagreement, the less likely I am to vote for you in a close debate.

No ad homs/screen shots. Things that happen outside of the debate are not within my jurisdiction. Contact the tournament director or have your coach do it if you aren't comfortable doing so.

I'm a teacher. Speeches must be appropriate. That means avoid things like excessive swearing, threats, insults, or stories that you would be upset if your principal heard.

Slightly longer version

Everyone must treat all participants in the debate with respect. Speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, should be able to enthusiastically show my administration.

I prefer debates with a lot of clash over well-researched issues that are germane to the topic. I would love to see your core topic da vs case throwdown, your topic-specific mechanism counterplan, or (most of all) your case turn strategy. I might even enjoy your core-of-topic k provided you make link arguments about the aff and have an alternative that actually disagrees with the aff.

Case debating: My platonic ideal of a debate involves the affirmative introducing the largest possible topical aff and the negative going for the core topic DA and engaging in a well-evidenced attack against the case. When the 2nr goes for the status quo, I often find the debates very enjoyable. When 2acs and 1ars engage in efficient yet thorough case debating, as opposed to blippily citing 1ac cards, I find myself very impressed.

Excessive plan vagueness is annoying and leads to multiple negative paths to victory. If I am unclear what the plan does, I will basically accept any interpretation the of the plan the neg wants me to. Do they want to define the plan broadly for a pic? Sure. Do they want to define the plan narrowly for a t argument? Also sure.

If you're response to that is "that's unfair, why does the neg get to decide what the aff's plan does?!?!?!" they don't! The aff gets to define what their plan does, and then subsequently forfeited that right. If you want to define your plan, be very clear about what your plan does.

Topicality: I have far fewer pre-dispositions about what is and isn't topical going into the season than usual. I will be interested to see how debates play out over what it means to protect IPR.

Non-topicality procedurals: My default presumption is that the only requirements on the affirmative are to argue in favor of a topical, positive departure from the status quo. If the negative wants to convince me that there should be some additional requirement, they would best be served by having topic-specific evidence or by using resolution language to prove that mandate.

Historically, the non-topicality procedural that has convinced me the most is a vagueness argument with topic specific evidence. I am generally unconvinced by the genre of argument that says affs must read a particular type of evidence, talk about a particular experience, or perform in a certain way.

Counterplans: I am increasingly opposed to process counterplans. I have historically had an okay record for them, but in close debates, I have voted aff far more than neg. I am equally convinced by "permutation: do the counterplan" and permutations that exercise "limited intrinsicness". Often, teams rush to the latter, but the former is almost always a simpler and clearer path to victory.

Conditionality: I am dangerous to negative teams that flagrantly abuse conditionality. CP'ing out of straight turns, multiple conditional planks, and fiated double turns/contradictions that the aff can't exploit make debate bad. I don't have a hard and fast rule about the number that you can read, but if you have more than 2 or 3 conditional arguments, you would be best served having a robust defense of conditionality.

By default, I care more about the quality of debates than "logic" or "arbitrariness." That doesn't mean I will never care about those things, just that it requires you to robustly develop your impact.

Non-conditionality theory: It can definitely be boring when it is just whining, but I do think there are some things that negative teams fiat that are hard to defend when put under scrutiny. I am probably one of the better judges to go for a theory argument in front of, provided that theory argument is developed and warranted. I have been sat out on a few panels that I thought were a crush for the aff on things like 50 state fiat bad, 2nc cp's bad, and international fiat bad.

Kritiks: I am not the best for most kritiks. There are K debates on this topic that I am excited to watch. Those K debates will focus on the link and actually talk about what the affirmative does that is wrong. It will focus a lot less on abstract frameworks, theories of power, or generic structures. A few more notes on kritiks:

1. Links aren't alt causes, they are things that the aff does that are bad

2. K's need alts. Framework CAN function as an alt, but then the affirmative obviously gets to permute it and any other deviation from the status quo that the neg defends. To convince me the aff perm doesn't apply, you would need to defend the status quo.

3. Bring back the ethics impact! I am rarely persuaded by a k with an extinction impact because those are usually very easily solved by a permutation. You need an impact to your link, not an impact to your overall structure.

4. The fiat k is perhaps the least persuasive argument to me. It severely misunderstands what fiat is.

Yes, email chain or speechdrop are fine. brayden.king99@gmail.com. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to email them to me and I will try to respond as promptly as possible.

If there are questions you have before round that aren’t answered in this paradigm, then feel free to ask!

Background information:

Lee’s Summit High School (MO) 2017

Missouri State University 2021 (NDT/CEDA and NFA LD)

I did debate all throughout high school and college with nearly all that experience in policy debate. I competed in NDT/CEDA tournaments for my first two years and NFA LD throughout.

I want to be able to be lazy in judging, so give me clear impact calculus and overviews, and be sure to follow the flows.

General opinions on debate:

truth over/equal to tech

It’s a game, and there are some rules to that, particularly in H.S., but that doesn’t inherently mean you need to follow them. You can make arguments and give reasons as to why some of the rules may be bad and shouldn’t be followed. E.g. Planless affs- there are many reasons why not upholding U.S.F.G. action is bad (and many why it is). These are debates that can be had. Clash and standards are key here, but don't just spout "fairness and education", especially if it's in a rebuttal. I will hold to you explaining why those are good and the impacts to them.

I probably won't have any problems with speed, but if you’re too fast or unclear, then I’ll let you know.

Policy things:

I lean on the side of extinction outweighs on impact magnitude, but good impact calculation can sway me otherwise. Especially if there was significant work done on reducing the link and/or internal links to extinction. I weigh magnitude, time frame, and probability evenly. If one side explains why extinction-level scenarios are impossible or almost impossible and the other side just says, but extinction outweighs, then the ballot will go to the former.

Impact calc is super important, so please do some!

Please explain how your CP/DA/case turns interact with the affirmative’s case and vice versa. Having a clear link and internal link chain is paramount to effectively weighing your arguments in the rebuttals.

CPs don’t necessarily have to solve all of case if the net benefit outweighs, but you should still tell me why that’s important, and make that argument yourself.

PICs are probably good, but can be abusive (especially with multiple) and, in the round, I will try to have a blank slate on the theory debate.

K things:

Clash is key. Link and perm debates are a mess if you don't know what the alternatives are or how they interact with each other.

Impacts matter! Be sure to explain how to view and weigh them.

PIKs can be legit, but there better be great explanation on how and why.

Form and Presentation:

Generally, I evaluate speaker points on how well the arguments were presented, explained, etc and less on just sounding pretty. While sounding good is still important, I would prefer a more in-depth explanation of your arguments - find a balance between speed and eloquence.

Be respectful! Debates that get excessively aggressive towards a team or specific individuals in round are not fun and are not things I want to see. Win the round by out-debating the other team, not by trying to make them look bad. I WILL dock your speaks if you act indecently and will not tolerate disrespectfulness.

Background: Currently debating policy at Indiana University and was recognized as the third-best novice team in the 2022-2023 Spring Season.

Add me to the email chain: iuvishnudebate@gmail.com

If I'm judging you here are a few things to know:

1) I'm not a big fan of people using cross-ex time for prep, or ending their speeches early - it can hurt your speaker points. Personally, I think there's always more to be said or asked about an argument, even if you're way ahead in the game.

2) I place a lot of value on the quality and quantity of evidence presented in a debate. I tend to read through a lot of evidence during the debate because it helps me make better-informed decisions. BUT this DOES NOT mean reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR will automatically get you back in the game instead explain how those 5 cards interact with other evidence in the round.

3) Tech > Truth

4) No Judge Kick unless a team tells me to

5) I can handle speed but if it's online try to go 80% so I can catch everything you say.

6) SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST. This can help me flow better and ensure I won't miss any arguments made during a speech.

7) DO NOT READ PRE-MADE BLOCKS. It is very easy to know when a team is reading blocks made before a round and doing this will only hurt your speaker points. Listen and be attentive to whats going on in round because I believe creating your own args is way better for education than reading blocks. (This is specific to teams having the majority of their speeches be blocks, using blocks here and there are totally okay.)

8) Please send a card doc at the end of the round

9) Have the email chain set up before the round starts. It saves a lot of time and give me more time to be able to give the right decision.

Some Specifics:

T: Love good T debates. Don't just read pre-made blocks, interact with what's happening in the round.

K: I myself am not really deep in K lit but aware of the most prevalent ones in debate. Judge direction is important regarding FW. Explain the Alt and how it works in the context of the round since the same alt can be used in different ways depending on the scenario. Think of me as having no idea what it means and explain how it can at least partially solve some of the cases. Also having a good case defense makes it easier for me to vote for the K.

CP: I really need to understand how the cp solves. So, in the 2NCs/2NRs, I really appreciate it when they kick off with a brief overview of what the counterplan is all about and get into HOW the cp solves better than the aff not just saying it solves better.

DA: In my view, framing is absolutely crucial in a debate. It includes impact calculus, uniqueness, and all that jazz. I believe that a well-crafted argument with a coherent narrative is more important than a bunch of evidence thrown together haphazardly.

Affs: I really like when the affirmative arguments in a debate are about a topical plan. But if they're not, I find that framework arguments about fairness and limits can be pretty convincing. And if you're not going to defend a plan, you need to at least talk about fairness and limits to make your educational points really stick.

Final Thoughts:Debating is such a valuable educational activity. In my opinion, it's even better than most things I've experienced in school when it comes to learning about various topics. So, let's have a blast, and don't worry about making mistakes. Remember, we're all human beings here, not debate robots. If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask me anything. It doesn't have to be solely about debate. And hey, if you prefer, shoot me an email if you feel more comfortable or if you realize you forgot something important during the round. I'm here to help!

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

and

https://debate.msu.edu/contact/

----

blaine montford---they/she

blaine, not judge

Kickapoo HS '23, Missouri Revival '23 (ROLL MO), Michigan State '27

email 2 add:

bmntdb8@gmail.com

----

TLDR:

give me pen time.

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

tech + truth > tech > truth

no topic knowledge. explain acronyms.

----

debate nihilist [caveats below]--do whatever makes you happy, comfortable, or what you think would help you win. Debate is a communicative activity, probably, and thus if you can communicate your argument well, there should never be a world in which you need to adapt to me.

currently unhappy about the rise of blatant fascism in the community--if this upsets you or you think it is not an issue strike me. i likely won't be good for you anyway.

i read a lot of critical literature [Debord, Baudrillard, Foucault, King, Wilderson, Tuck & Yang, D&G, Edelman, Preciado, Halberstam, Bataille, Spinoza, Hegel [I do not like how LD tends to read Hegel], Virillio, Fisher, Hardt, Negri, Negarestani, Genet, Nietzsche, Joy James, Mbembe, Fanon, Bell, West, Sharpe, Wynters, Spillers]

even if i am well versed in your theory,

1---that only means I will likely hold you to higher standard of explanation thenwhat you would get from someone who doesn't know

2---I will not inject my personal understandings into your explanations to fill the gaps you leave me.

i am not an ideologue for k debate. i will vote for whoever presented the better arguments.

irrespective of how you choose to approach the round argumentatively i will always default to well-explained and warranted arguments over anything else.

bonus points if you make me laugh, have a clear and correct understanding of your theory of power, internal links and mechanisms, and surrounding context for those questions

i am usually emotive. don't read into it too much.

i really don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, I prefer if both teams engage with their opponents' arguments. I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash.

i dislike having to read your evidence to figure out what your arg is trying to say.

i do not open docs unless your debate was very close and i need to adjudicate something about your ev or something went incredibly wrong and nothing either side said made sense.

----

Policy debate

Case debate is dying, if it is not already dead. This has no better been identified than by Bill Batterman in 2014;

"I see a lot of debates that follow this format -1AC- says some stuff,1NC- reads around 5 off including politics, reads like 50 million impact defense arguments,2AC- bleh,Block- kicks everything but politics and case defense,Judge- Neg

This shouldn’t happen. Like, ever. At all. Lets first talk about impact defense.Impact defense is stupid, and if you read more than 20 seconds of it in any given speech you should lose. Please re-read that sentence. Again.

“No way bra- everyone who’s good reads impact defense”

They are wrong. Here is why impact defense became so common- its easy. You don’t have to think or cut updates or even flow the 1AC. Whats that? Hegemony? Pull the impact defense frontline. Nevermind that the internal link is building an OTEC demonstration project- surely you are aware that the only reason American foreign policy has failed in the last 20 years is the lack of an OTEC demonstration project. So our number 1 reason impact defense is stupid:

1. The impact is, 99.9 percent of times, the least stupid part of an advantage. Why dedicate your whole strategy to arguing with the best part of the case? Take this years “economy” advantages- in order to focus on “global total economic decline does not result in warfare” you have to ignore

-The US economy is doing poorly

-the plan solves the US economy

-the US economy solves the global economy

At any of those 3 points with analytics or evidence you could utterly destroy the economy advantage. And yet isn’t it much easier to just dust of some Nordstrom cards from 14 years ago to say no diversionary wars? Of course its easier- you can read the same 1NC cards in every debate, read the same terrible extension “block” in all your debates. No thinking required.

I should say a good reason people read impact defense is that vs bad teams it works. Lots of bad teams aren’t prepared with 2AC blocks to defend their impacts. They are bad. You can beat bad teams on lots of things- ASPEC, Normativity, E-Prime. Yet you don’t read those in every debate- why? Well part of the impact defense industrial complex problem is that judges reward debaters for doing stupid things like this. Bad Judges. They reward them by giving them good speaker points for terrible speeches that read terrible evidence and they should not. However, that they do does not make impact defense a “good strategy”- it just means you have been allowed to slip by with the lowest common denominator.....But more than that observation these cards are just terrible. “Don’t worry about disease, ,Christopher Wills is confident they won’t kill billions” great. In order to solve global disease outbreaks the affirmative would have to

-cure every disease

-find vaccines for every potential mutation/genetic modification

-distribute them globally for free

Attacking these parts of the case are way better than attacking the disease impact- and way better without evidence. Want to improve your speaker points? Start making smart analytics instead of reading old impact defense. Want to be top speaker? Also use cross-x to set up these analytics instead of uselessly posturing.

Lets move on to the next reason

2. Impact defense arguments often rely on implicit minimization of other internal links. These arguments are undermined when you ONLY read impact defense because you aren’t minimizing the internal link. The environment is probably the easiest way to understand that. Most debates I see go something like this

-X will destroy some sort of environment (ocean forest whatever)

-Impact defense- environment resilient/ 1 species not key

The problem with this defense is that you have conceded the magnitude of the affirmatives internal link. Resilience isn’t the argument that nature is immortal/incapable of being affected by human activity, instead it points out there there is a certain amount of damage that can be absorbed naturally. Reading this against arguments like ocean acidification makes no sense because the affirmative is saying they literally stop the global composition of the ocean from changing in a way that would make it inhospitable to life. In very rare instances the aff is talking about the destruction of some small part of the environment and reading defense like this can be more acceptable- but this is the exception not the rule.

A similar premise applies to most impact defense- the affirmative will make an internal link claim that is massive,and rapid. The negative will read defense that assumes a less fast, smaller internal link. This defense is just not persuasive at all because it misunderstands the claims being made by the case. Common examples include

-reading “we can adapt” to affirmatives that say “runaway warming”

-reading “Middle east war doesn’t escalate” vs impacts like Iran strikes

-Reading generic “no root cause” cards vs K impact laundry list cards one of which is root cause"

you will get significantly higher speaks if you legitimately engage the premises of the 1AC as presented rather than the slop of the impact defense slam of modern debate. The vast majority of 1AC's are illogical leaps of faith in the solvent potential of small mechanisms one or two people have ever academically considered, or, more often, that have been bastardized to construct some arbitrary means of resolving a tangentially related impact with the actual factors of said impact ignored for the sake of "argumentation" by affs. Same logic applies to DA's and INB's.

not the biggest fan of teams who proliferate counterplans to minimize engagement from the aff. Katsulas' ideology is something i can easily get behind, but i won't vote you down if you "break the rules" per se.

i subscribe to the cult of negative flexibility, so condo requires a higher level of judge instruction to win my ballot.

persuaded by well-explained meta-debate args about win rates/functional limits/generic ground as a filter for how I understand impacts to theory, especially topicality. I do not know the ins of highschool debate.

I generally tend to approach these debates very similar to a few people:

1---Kevin McCaffery;

"Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory."

and

" Value proof higher than rejoinder:I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted."

2---Bill Batterman;

"Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge; clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates.My promise: I will pay close attention to every debate, carefully and completely scrutinize every argument, and provide honest feedback so that students are continuously challenged to improve as debaters."

and

"1. I care most about clarity, clash, and argument comparison.
I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm still not bored by strong fundamental skills and execution of basic, core-of-the-topic arguments.To impress me, invite clash and show off what you have learned this season. I will want to vote for the team that (a) is more prepared and more knowledgeable about the assigned topic and that (b) better invites clash and provides their opponents with a productive opportunity for an in-depth debate.Aff cases that lack solvency advocates and claim multiple contrived advantages do not invite a productive debate. Neither do whipsaw/scattershot 1NCs chock-full of incomplete, contradictory, and contrived off-case positions. Debates are best when the aff reads a plan with a high-quality solvency advocate and one or two well-supported advantages and the neg responds with a limited number of complete, consistent, and well-supported positions (including, usually, thorough case answers).I would unapologetically prefer not to judge debates between students that do not want to invite a productive, clash-heavy debate.

2. I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate.
My most important "judge preference" is that I value debating: "a direct and sustained confrontation of rival positions through the dialectic of assertion, critique, response and counter-critique" (Gutting 2013). I make decisions based on "the essential quality of debate: upon the strength of arguments" (Balthrop 1989).Philosophically, I value "debate as argument-judgment" more than "debate as information production" (Cram 2012). That means that I want to hear debates between students that are invested in debating scholarly arguments based on rigorous preparation, expert evidence, deep content knowledge, and strategic thinking. While I will do my best to maintain fidelity to the debate that has taken place when forming my decision, I am more comfortable than most judges with evaluating and scrutinizing students' arguments. I care much more about evidence and argument quality and am far less tolerant of trickery and obfuscation than the median judge.

This has two primary implications for students seeking to adapt to my judging:
a. What a card "says" is not as important as what a card proves. When deciding debates, I spend more time on questions like "what argument does this expert make and is the argument right?" than on questions like "what words has this debate team highlighted in this card and have these words been dropped by the other team?." As a critic of argument, I place "greater emphasis upon evaluating quality of argument" and assume "an active role in the debate process on the basis of [my] expertise, or knowledge of practices and standards within the community." Because I emphasize "the giving of reasons as the essential quality of argument, evidence which provides those reasons in support of claims will inevitably receive greater credibility than a number of pieces of evidence, each presenting only the conclusion of someone's reasoning process. It is, in crudest terms, a preference for quality of evidence over quantity" (Balthrop 1989).
b. The burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder. As presented, the risk of many advantages and disadvantages is zero because of missing internal links or a lack of grounding for important claims. "I know this argument doesn't make sense, but they dropped it!" will not convince me; reasons will.
When I disagree with other judges about the outcome of a debate, my most common criticism of their decision is that it gives too much credit to bad arguments or arguments that don't make sense. Their most common criticism of my decision is that it is "too interventionist" and that while they agree with my assessment of the arguments/evidence, they think that something else that happened in the debate (often a "technical concession") should be more determinative. I respect many judges that disagree with me in these situations; I'm glad there are both "tech-leaning" and "truth-leaning" judges in our activity. In the vast majority of debates, we come to the same conclusion. But at the margins, this is the major point of disagreement between us — it's much more important than any particular argument or theory preference."

3---Will Repko;

" True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising."

and

"Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season."

4---Brett Bricker;

"I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points."

----

K debate

Please interrogate your subject position before making ontology claims about an identity you are not. As a queer person, I will not listen to non-queer people going for ontological claims about the state of queer overkill, death, or un-life [Edelman/Stanley types]. The same goes for another identity-based arg reliant on ontological states of violence.

i prefer k debates that either:

1---contain robust explanations of each team's model and pedagogies in debate and why that is good/preferable to the other or

2---center around questions of which side's praxis is best to resolve certain impacts. what that entails is up to you.

reading an un-contextualized link wall straight down in the block is not good link debating.

making a theory of power claim about the world and then saying "The 1AC is complicit in it!" is not good link debating.

links of omission can be good if you have a persuasive reason that matters.

the cap k link into the k-aff that "the 1AC didn't talk abt capitalism so vote neg" is usually not persuasive, a link, or worth anyone's time to debate.

if you read a k please know the literature around it. very tired of hearing people butcher people's work.

I judge k debates like 2004 Jason Regnier.

For those unfamiliar, that is here for reference:

"I don't "flow" in the sense that it is understood by most, but instead do take (extensive) notes in a noncolumned and non-ink-oriented way; and I avoid the urge to call for evidence after the round as it tastes better to hear the arguments themselves debated; and I tend to get more the slower you go; and I feel that the distinction between "policy" and "critique" debate is arbitrary, capricious, and curt but, unfortunately, typical; and just as I dislike stale bread, I also dislike stale debate-spice it up, do the forbidden, DANCE WITH A CHAIR IF THATS WHAT THE MUSE TELLS YOU TO DO; and each of us has a poet within us; and to the contrary of what people will say, "Gotta Have a Plan" is *not* a good argument; and Perms are the trick of a children's magician-if you watch with a little bit of care, you will see the sleight of hand"

I also ascribe to the takes that Dr. SRB left us in 2012;

"Now here is the fear. If that was the only answer, the debate community would do research, but it would be just to cut cards and nothing really would change. So it can’t stop at research, but that is literally step one: go do some reading. That would really help you have a language and a vocabulary for talking when you are engaging these teams that will produce very good debates. So when people say that they don’t think that what performance/movement teams are doing is intellectual, it’s because they have already decided that they are anti-intellectual. Whereas they are very much so intellectuals, as a matter of fact they are few of the debaters in our community producing scholarship rather than regurgitating it. Our very frame of reference on how to engage in debate is about the regurgitation of information, rather than the production of it. That is where I think we have gone wrong..."

as well as Hester's treatise in 2013;

"To whom it may concern...Debate is a hot mess right now...the foundation we no longer have one, and haven't for more than two decades. Fewer and fewer debate coaches are communication scholars, which is fine because Communication Departments don't consider us anything more than the bastard cousins who show up at the family reunion piss-drunk and demanding more potato salad. Our activity long ago (40 years?) lost any resemblance to a public speaking event attracting outside audiences. The problem is we vacated that academic space without being able to find a home anywhere else. Despite the pious assumptions of some with "policy" in mind, we are not a legitimate "research" community of scholars. The "portable skills" we currently engrain in our students via practice are: all sources are equivalent, no need for qualifications; "quoting" a source simply means underlining ANY words found ANYWHERE in the document, context and intent are irrelevant; and we are the only group outside of Faux News that believes one's argument is improved by taking every point of logic to its most absurd extreme. Simply put, 99.9% of the speech docs produced in debates would receive no better than a C (more likely F) in any upper division undergraduate research-based class. Comically, we are the public speaking research activity that is atrocious at oral persuasion and woefully in violation of any standard research practices. But this letter is not intended to bury Debate, even though it's hard to praise it in its current state. Before any peace treaty ending the Paradigm Wars can be signed and ratified, an honest appraisal of where Debate fits in the Academy is necessary. "

----

you should disclose.

teams saying silly voting issues is frustrating and i have a low bar for the other team answering them unless you can explain why it isn't.

don't be racist, a bigot, ableist, or violent to another person in the room. infringing on the safety of your opponents is bad and i will likely have to step in and make it your coaches and tabs problem.

clipping needs proof and you have to stake the round on it.

don't steal prep.

prep ends when the email is sent.

please flow.

unhappy with people who ask "can i get a marked doc/can you list the cards you didn't read?" when the other team clearly marks cards/a low number of cards are marked.

Put ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com on the email chain.

In accordance with this article - https://debate-decoded.ghost.io/judges-should-disclose-if-they-are-flowing-the-doc/

• I flow on excel.
• I try to flow everything in traditional line-by-line, but if you give up on it, I may too and just flow your speech straight down. I will not be happy about this.
• I will have the speech doc open. I will look at it. I will use it to error-correct my flow if I can't keep up with you, but I try really really really hard to only use it as a last resort.
• I usually flow the 1AC and 1NC positions, and I try to flow CP and perm texts well enough that I can know what is going on without looking at a doc

• I highly advise not stripping analytics out of the doc, unless you are in the top 1% of most clear debaters.

_____________________________________________________

Policy paradigm

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

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

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

• I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
• 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 have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
• Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
• 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 marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

• Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
• Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
• I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

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

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 do not "get" the topic (IPR) yet. I did not go to camp.
• 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..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, 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. You should have a solvency mechanism.
• 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 obviously 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, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

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.

gwrevaredebate@gmail.com

Put me on the chain.

He/them.

KU debate.

My job is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. Optimal debate involves organization, impact calc, judge instruction, line-by-line, and evidence comparison. Few things that I've listed below are immutable, and my attitude towards most positions can be reversed by persuasive debating. Do your thing.

Sparknotes:

---Please label offcase in the 1NC. If you do not do this I will immediately know you haven't glanced at my paradigm.

---Send me a card doc. I care about evidence quality and will assign much more weight to cards highlighted to form sentences.

---I am a clarity hawk and will verbally clear you if your words turn into mush. Unclear delivery is functional clipping and it is unclear to me why judges tolerate it.

---Generally, neg-ish on theory.

---I don't think inserting rehighlightings is legitimate, but I'll evaluate them if no one says anything about it.

---I flow CX. "What cards did you read?" is a CX question. "Where did you mark this card?" is not.

---Don't cut undergrads or high schoolers. I'll evaluate these cards as analytics.

---Lenient with new 1AR arguments if and only if the 1NC is big or a position changes substantially in the block.

---I don't want to hear my name in speeches.

---I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate.

---Do not re-read constructive blocks in rebuttals. This does not count as an extension. This is an important part of my judging philosophy: I will assign very little weight to portions of your speech spent reciting things you’ve already read verbatim.

---Speaker points are earned, not demanded.

---Try-or-die is: extinction inevitable in squo OR plan makes extinction inevitable. It’s an extremely useful framing device and should be invoked when it favors you.

Longer version:

Here are my general leanings:

1---Tech over truth. Impartiality is a virtue. My role is to adjudicate the debate with minimal intervention. I am flow-centric and will vote for arguments I think are bad.

2---DAs: The more they clash with the affirmative, the better. I am more partial to a single well-developed impact than a laundry list of internal links. The latter doesn’t really count as an impact until it’s made complete with a terminal.

You don't NEED to read a uniqueness card in the 1NC, but the 2A can simply observe that your DA has no uniqueness claim and card dump in the 1AR after you read the cards needed to form a complete argument.

3---Kritiks.

I am good for technical K debaters, especially ones who innovate and conduct their own research.

My fondness for evidence quality applies equally to these debates. If you’re asserting your link turns the case, or that the aff’s assumptions culminate in “serial policy failure,” your cards should say that.

You are most likely to be successful if you develop 2-4 diverse links.

Please do not use rhetoric in your tags or blocks that isn't in your literature base.

I am least experienced with method debates. My only requirement is that you negate the desirability of something in the 1AC---I am extremely skeptical of negative strategies that generate offense off of omission.

4---Topicality

---A little more aff-leaning than most. T is not like any other argument because it crowds out substance.

---I probably value ground over limits. Bounded topics are only good if they give the neg something to say (it is very possible to have a tightly limited topic that impoverishes the neg of meaningful offense). Strong generics also help functionally narrow the scope of viable affirmatives.

---Reasonability is often misconstrued as "vote aff if the judge personally determines our plan is reasonable" (to be clear, I do this on purpose when I'm neg). Reasonability is: "vote aff if our interp allows a year of sustainable debates" (Soper 24).

It requires you have a C/I that you meet.

5---Counterplans:

Comparative solvency advocates are the gold standard.

Your process counterplan should compete off at least one thing that isn't certainty, immediacy, or "normal means."

I am highly inclined to judge competition by mandate. Spill-up or spillover arguments do not render a CP non-competitive.

PICing out of something in the plantext is good.

6---Case: Please invest some time here. No aff solves and nothing ever happens.

Soft-left affs: Framing debates are frequently superficial. Good framing debates (oxymoron) involve comparison of your model of ethics---the advantages and disadvantages to each.

7---Planless or kritikal affirmatives:

I'll vote for you. Your best angle against topicality involves a C/I, a defense of a clearly-articulated model of debate, and one to three central points of well-impacted offense.

K affs that defend impact-turnable positions/topic DAs are more persuasive on T. Is this arbitrary? Maybe.

Topicality is not a "reverse-voting issue,” ever.

8---Framework: I’m good for you. My thoughts on this are strongly shaped by my conviction that debate is a technical game whose competitive nature overdetermines its pedagogical outcomes.

Partial to fairness.

9---CX: I flow it on a separate sheet. Debaters should pay more attention to CX - it is a vital strategic asset. Weaponize CX to lower the threshold for CP solvency, stick the aff to debating impact turns, etc.

10---I will reward speaker points for evidence and warrant comparison, ethos, not lying, and being funny.

11---Clipping, claiming to have read cards you didn't, etc---will guarantee a loss. I'm not a stickler about certain things; accidentally skipping a word or two happens sometimes. That is distinct from bypassing entire lines or passages.

Have fun. Judging is a privilege.

Brenda Reyes (she/her)

Please put me on the email chain: brendajenreyes@gmail.com

Policy debater at George Mason University

I straight up do not know anything about the HS topic. So please just explain any acronyms and what is going down. --- I judged the GMU patriot games. I am familiar with reduction of the military support of Taiwan.

I get it we are all learning but please don't just card dump, no clash, or read straight down your laptop on blocks cause that's not fun. If I look confused, I probably am. Slow down on the analytics if you want them on my flow. Don’t forget about line by line it’s valuable just as much as textual evidence. Construct your rebuttals speeches to be digestible so do not just rant and hope it makes it onto my flow. My ballot literally can be anything so, don't focus on what I want do what you want :) I will try to keep time but hey I am only human so both teams keep track of each other. Don’t steal prep no one likes that person.

I should not have to say this but don’t be Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, and Anti-semetic I will vote you down and end the round. Just be nice.

Cross ex: I am cool with your partner jumping just not them taking over cause its your time to prove that you know what you are talking about. Remember to be respectful to your partner and opposing team and straight up do not be a jerk. I am also listening so, use your time wisely.

Speed: If you can spread spread just be clear as possible. Please do not make me yell clear more than once cause I do not want knock you down when you are in the zone.

Theory: 3+ condo is just no. Ya want to go for theory just explain why it matters and really develop those args. Don’t make it a blip and regret it.

DAs: Are nice and simple. Don't undervalue silly little DAs with a good link, a good ole impact, and a viable internal link story, it has a shot. Do some impact calc and solid work on case your good to go.

CPs: Love a good counterplan with internal net benefits! Make sure your plan text isn't a c&p mistake (been there done that, lol). I do not want to do the work for y'all so, if you want a judge kick or something be aware. 2 cp sure why not more than that is risky for condo. Really do the work on what they solve for, different from AFF, and that fun stuff.

Ks: FUN. I am not that knowledgeable to judge the hardcore stuff. I have debated set col and cap k so I understand the lit behind them. Iwould enjoy watching some clash clash. I will flow to the best of my abilities and understand as much as I can. Don't forget pieces like role of the ballot, what the alt is/explaining, and etc. Let's try to keep the flow clean for everyone.

Topicality: Yay! I’ll vote on it but both sides don't forget about the pieces within it. Make sure your evidence is actually decent and 2NR get into the line by line just not rereading stuff.

LD Folks: Do what you want/have to do. BE CONFIDENT.

HAVE FUN!!! Sometimes the dawg mentality pulls through. We are all learning the dubs are nice except it’s not everything the education is and the street cred are ;)

My partner loves to drop "slay" mid speeches so, I just might boost your speaks if you manage to incorporate and make relatable, "slay" or music quotes, in your speeches, extra points if its a good one :D)

Meg Rodak

current policy debater at GMU

i would like to be on the email chain: megan.rodak3204@gmail.com

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top level: Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. I will evaluate any args and am willing to vote on almost any args (as long as they are impacted out to a degree).

Tech>Truth

T/Theory: i default to competing interps on T and will probably look at the ev. i prefer limits to ground but will vote on either. condo is good for the most part. any other theory is generally a reason to reject the arg not the team.

CPs: are cool and should have a net benefit. i feel like i'm fairly neg leaning on cp theory BUT i am super open to teams winning that its bad (bc theres a lot of cheating cps). on the aff you should prove why the cp cant solve the aff and/or why i should just vote on the perm. i'll judge kick if you tell me to.

DAs: love em. i do prefer a few really good cards to a lot of really short (and probably bad) ones

Ks: should probably have a link to the plan and the neg should explain how the alt overcomes the links. a strong link means that you probably win without the alt.

Case: i love the case debate so so much. i also love a good impact turn

Pronouns He/Him/His

Boling High School 06/ West Texas A&M 10

LD debate

I am more traditional and believe in a strong Value and Criterion debate. I am not a fan of CP in LD but will use it as a voting issue if the AFF doesn't answer it strongly. Speed is not an issue but if I can't understand you then there is an issue. I love philosophy debate and appreciate a strong philosophy based case.

CX Debate

I have been judging CX debate since 2008. I am a policy maker judge. I believe that the affirmative has the burned of proof and the Neg has burden of clash. I do not like time suck arguments. If you are running topicality please make sure that it is warranted. I have no issues with speed but if your diction suffers because of speed i will not flow your speech and your arguments will not matter. I am ok with K, CP and DA. Make your impacts realistic.

I would really appreciate clear, loud speeches.

I coached Public Forum starting from its beginning in 2002 until I retired from teaching in 2011. I have continued on as an active judge: judging at the local, state, and national levels. Nearly all of my judging in recent years has been Policy but with Lincoln Douglas and some Public Forum in the mix.

PF:

In the traditional spirit of Public Forum, the debate is best presented in a clear, understandable manner.

PF is a relatively short, quick-paced form of debate. Complexity is fine but be judicious. Stay focused and relatively succinct. Communicate well. I judge Policy, but spreading has no place in PF - at least for me. If I can’t follow what you are saying, well…

Base your contentions on reliable evidence. Draw conclusions using sound reasoning. Clash (of ideas) is great. Obnoxious, aggressive behavior, if it gets ugly, may cost a round.

Limited tag-teaming during crossfire is OK.

A strong final focus can often win a close round.

LD:

Questions worth considering are: What is good (or at least the greater good), and what form should it take in the real world? Philosophers have had a lot to say about this. But so does common sense. Consider me the man on the street who sometimes digs philosophers when they also have their feet on the ground. Using a good strategy can be a winner. Getting beyond philosophy and reason, within limits, emotional appeals can be persuasive.

Moral, ethical and philosophical considerations should be a foundation for your case.

Policy:

I characterize myself as a "Policy Maker Judge." I can handle a modest amount of spreading but don't overdo it. It's more effective to rely on the quality of arguments and evidence than on quantity. Substance counts and so does style. Limited tag-teaming is OK. It is a real art to be confrontational while also being genuinely respectful of your opponent.

While Kritiks are a worthy part of Policy debate, I have never found them to be a decisive, or sometimes even a relevant, factor in my decisions. For some judges they are significant so when there is a panel, feel free to use them. Just be sure to present a strong arguments that support or negate the Affirmative case.

Learn from your experience.

Do what you do best.

Enjoy the competition!

Affiliations: St. Mark's 2024

paradigm from Maxwell Chuang

Email Chain: harrywangdebate@gmail.com. and smdebatedocs@gmail.com. Please make the subject of the chain relevant. ie. include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

TLDR:

-Tech>Truth

-If i cannot explain what I am voting for by the end of the round I will not vote on it.

-Won't vote on out of round issues

-I will read evidence if a team if asked to after the round, but in round explanation of the evidence >

-Ask if you have questions about something not on my paradigm

Online:

-Camera on = good

-Don't start your speech if my camera is off

Topicality:

-T debates are good

-Evidence quality matters

Counterplans:

-Biased for the negative on most counterplan theory, but the affirmative can definitely convince me otherwise

-The affirmative should be certain and immediate

-Tell me to judge-kick the counterplan

-Will vote for any counterplan given better technical execution by the negative

-PICs are good

-Word PICs also good

-Process counterplans great

-Advantage counterplans good

Ks:

-Not well-versed in high theory literature

-Well-versed in cap, good for security, etc.

-Long overviews make me sad

Disadvantages:

-Taking a generic disadvantage and contextualizing it to the 1AC is strategic

-Turns case is awesome and is even better with spin

-However, that only matters if you win a substantial risk of the disadvantage

-Link uniqueness is important

K Affs/T USFG:

-If your strategy is not to defend the resolution traditionally, you should go for a counter-interp that provides the negative a benefit from negating the 1AC

-I personally think procedural fairness is an impact, but I can be convinced otherwise

Theory:

-Neg biased on most theory

-Aff theory: usually hailmary and bad

-condo is good, same with 50 state

Speaks:

-Will unmute to clear 3 times in one speech before going to play league

-being funny/making jokes = higher speaks

-mentioning league = +.1 speaks

-cx: you do you

Random:

-Yes, you can insert rehighlightings

-I will protect the 2NR

-No risk exists

-Good formatting gets bonus speaks, not making the email chain correctly gets less speaks

-Clipping = L

-Open Source = +.1 speaks if you let me know

do what you want!

however, I tend to like arguments that are not silly or flippant (e.g. spark, most theory debating, contrived CPs) because I understand debate as a space for education. that does not mean those argument are unwinnable in front of me, it just means I will be slightly grumpy.

the caveat to this is that I like team or arg-specific hits, like for example if you know going in that their 2AC on the DA is going to say something that totally proves they violate a normally terrible T interp, then i'm so down to hear you go for T (but in the case of T debates specifically, make sure you're walking me through stuff because I have always read either extremely topical affs or K affs)

debate is a communicative activity, and the art of rhetoric is disappearing from high level college/HS debates. i'm not lamenting about spreading, i'm talking about an overreliance on techne and efficiency at the expense of attempts to be persuasive. BE TECHNICAL, but rhetorically powerful (an important part of this is that the grey highlighting "insert thing we said in previous speech here" is perhaps my biggest pet peeve).

Yes, I want to be on the chain: zinobzach@gmail.com

[redacted]