Email Chain:tjbdebate@gmail.com

Assistant Coach at College Prep. Debated at Damien High School (2016-2020).

There are very view things content-wise that I actually have major predispositions about in debate. I do have some biases about some arguments but those are mitigated by clear judge instruction and impact comparison. I mostly desire to judge rounds with explicit ballot writing, line-by-line argument comparison, and impact calculus at the top of each part of the round. I know this sounds obvious, but I believe that the current state of debate is too centered around cloud clash and proliferating warrantless claims and hoping that the judge can resolve it themselves without explicit instruction.

My philosophy is simply that I will flow and listen to every part of the debate and evaluate it given the instructions of the 2NR and 2AR. Absent those instructions, I will try to reconstruct the debate as I saw it and make a decision based on how I view arguments which in many ways can frustrate and upset teams who fail to meet that minimum standard of argumentation. I do not mean this to be a warning but rather a reminder that debate is a communicative activity and that just because it sounds good in your head doesn't mean that is how it was conveyed to me.

Good line-by-line debating means extending not only a central claim and its supporting warrants but also giving some type of comparison between arguments that extends beyond publishing date and author qualifications. There must always be a focus on isolating good warrants and extrapolating how those should be impacted out compared to the opposing arguments. Without this very fundamental concept, debate turns into a comparison of monologues without genuine and effective clash, thus removing value from the activity. If in doubt, the "they say, we say" model is the best and most effective way to attack the line-by-line.

I reward teams that flow, signpost, and clearly segment the debate into identifiable arguments. Speeding through blocks all the way through the 2AR does nothing to influence my ballot and makes me rather upset since it just seems like a reading contest instead of contextual and reactive debating. I try to flow on paper without looking at my computer so the burden of communication is on the debaters. If you are not clear or are spreading to blocks at unchecked speed, you may be upset at my decision since I can only evaluate what I have on my flow. I am human and will make mistakes but I usually do not miss anything of great consequence on my flow but that still requires you to be clear and concise.

Below are some argument choices that I have specific thoughts about:

K-Affs vs. Framework -

I have voted for both sides in these debates. I really couldn't care less about what the 1AC is about. I prefer there to be some link to the topic but if you can a reason why there shouldn't be one then my feelings are irrelevant. Fairness is not a terminal impact to me. In most rounds, the negative just says that is an intrinsic good and that is about it. I think there procedural fairness is good because it can lead to discussions of the topic or solution based dialogue, but on its own there have been no compelling reasons why it is independently good. I am much more persuaded by framework arguments like topic education good, state engagement good, consequence-based clash good, clash and agonism good, and skills good since those have the capacity to effect real world decision making more. I have voted for fairness but I think that it more just seems like whining instead of a genuine call for resolution of cheating, given that there has probably never been a perfectly fair debate ever. I've voted on it because the aff has been technically behind but in closely contested rounds, I think I have a more aff leaning record against fairness. Honestly, if you want to go for this argument I don't mind because if you can win it on the flow then none of my thoughts matter, but if the aff is doing their job well, I won't just check out on it.

Microaggressions -

I would prefer that this argument be reserved for when there have been in-round incidents of interpersonal violence on the basis of identity instead of calling an argument serves as offense against you this. I have plenty of reasons why but the main two are this: 1. If a microaggression has occurred I will probably know that it has and my role has shifted to being the only adult in the room with young students and I will prioritize everyone's safety over the result of the round. I do not think that real instances of violence or aggression can or should be litigated with the power of the ballot. If this happens in a round, I will not hesitate to tell tab and the coaches of both teams what has happened since you all are students first and foremost and competitors second. I think the tab solves argument should resolve any other questions. 2. I think that calling procedural arguments microagressions trivializes true forms of violence in an attempt to win a ballot. This should not be the A strategy because it utilizes real forms of violence and creates what I believe to be a false equivalence with arguments that set a limit to discussion. I think that framework can be criticized for bracketing out content but those arguments are distinct from microaggressions.

Email Chain: cburnsdebate@gmail.com

I debate for Missouri State and am earning a bachelors of science in Geology. I've qualified to the NDT twice now.

I have very minimal topic knowledge for the high school topic; I won’t know the majority of your acronyms.

Apart from the non-negotiables, everything, and I truly do mean everything, is up for debate.

Last substantive Change: February 2cd, 2025 - Judge Kick thoughts.

Should I pref this guy? If you want. I'll vote for anything and only have a slight preference for policy arguments. I debate in D3; I've had to get familiar with most K literature.

Pref relevant info:

1---I'm fine for whatever arguments you read. I'm pretty dead inside. I'll flow the arguments you make and come to a decision based off that flow.

2---I think framework in its current state is becoming boring on both sides of the debate. I have no bias towards either side of the argument.

3---I prefer line by line. This isn't to say don't read an overview, just don't expect my flow of that overview to be great.

Non-Negotiables

1---Arguments consist of claim, warrant, and impact. Anything less than these and I am woe to consider it.

2---What happened to clarity? I will not ever have speech docs open; I will have my computer open to write comments/rfd things. I flow on paper and appreciate pen time. I've been flowing with bic crystal ballpoint pens lately if that matters. I stopped flowing on my computer because I was spending too much time looking at the screen and also found myself doing things not related to the debate during rounds.

3---I would like to be on the email chain. I will read cards during prep time, but I will not have the doc open during the speech.

4---Ethics violations (including clipping) and anything that is racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will all result in the immediate ceasing of the round and tab getting involved.

5---No analytics in a card doc lest they be plan, counterplan, or permutation texts.

6---Ad Homs are fallacious arguments that do not belong in the space of debate. I have not, and will not, ever vote on one of these; it is not my spot as a 20 year old to determine the character of someone. Ad Homs include, but are not limited too, twitter screenshots, wiki screenshots, hearsay, "you struck x person, so you are the lowest scum on earth", etc. This, and the aforementioned #4, are the only things that transcend my thoughts on tech over truth.

7---Cards must be highlighted to include complete sentences. If I go to read a card and cannot as a result of poor highlighting it will not influence my decision. In fact, it will probably make me much grumpier as a result of wasting already minimal decision time.

Top Level:

1---I will flow the debate and come to a decision off of the flow. I will read evidence if there are questions that I have about the flow. Please send a doc after the 2XR of the cards you extended in the speech. Do not send an 80 card doc. I will not read any because I don’t want to sift through so many cards that I take the debating out of your hands. Ideally, I read no cards. Realistically, I might read 4 or 5 per side.

2---I find that I am better for policy arguments than K arguments. If you’re going to read a K, I prefer kritiks rooted in epistemology over ontology. I find that when I do vote for the K, it's because the aff drops something like a sequencing claim or mishandles framework. I'd vote for the K more if there was more clash and less "go to the link" or "go to the perms." LINE BY LINE IS THE WAY FOR EVERY DEBATE.

3---I am super tech over truth. Judges that create carve outs for arguments that they dislike are actively bad for the activity. If an argument is so bad that I shouldn't vote on it, then it shouldn't be that hard to beat it. The things below are my thoughts about debate and will often not implicate the way I decide the round. It is my job as a judge to decide based off of what is discussed in the round. The exception is an ethics violation which is a separate issue and will be decided based off of what the tournament has set forth as procedure.

4---People take this game of ours way too seriously. Some of my worst experiences come from people taking it too seriously. If you get to a point where you are yelling, constantly cutting your opponent off, or whatever else you think is justified in the eternal chase for a win that won’t matter in ten years, you will get your points tanked. We are all people who enjoy this game; you making it not enjoyable makes it really hard for people to want to join or come back.

DAs:

1---DA turns case should be the start of every speech in which the da is extended.

2---Link specificity matters a great deal to me. This isn’t to say that I’m not fine with generic links, but that I really do value aff-specific research.

3---Turn the impact not the link. Everyone will enjoy that debate a great deal more.

4---I have a soft spot for politics disads.

5---I generally start at the bottom (uniqueness) and work to the top (the impact) when deciding.

6---I’m not a fan of the DA isn’t intrinsic, or a logical policymaker would do both. The latter doesn’t make sense if the neg doesn’t read a counterplan that’s like “pass x bill.” The former just doesn’t make sense.

CPs:

1---Judge kick is a degradation of argumentation that does not do anything beyond justifying the laziest forms of debating. Suppose you are having an argument with a friend about where you want to go to dinner. If your friend (big ask, I know) is like "let's go get tacos" and you're like "no, let's go get Thai food." Your friend might say "there's a fusion place that does both, what if we went there?" You might then respond with a few options, you could say that they are different types of food that do not do the same thing (functional competition), or you might say Thai food means this, your fusion restaurant does not meet this burden (textual competition), or you might say that Mexican food and you, the speaker, do not get along (net benefit competition). In what world, does your friend disproving any of these arguments mean that you should not go get food? This is the fundamental issue with judge kicking a counterplan. Unless you have some amount of justification for being hungry, the status quo is not a logical option. Beyond this not making a shred of sense, it also means that I inevitably have to intervene in the decision at some point. Beyond all of this, say that I kick the counterplan for you after you spend 1:30 to 2:00 minutes on it and the rest of the time on the disadvantage or some other case turn, there is probably not a world where you have debated either to being enough defense for the status quo to where kicking the counterplan makes sense.

2---I think the ideal 2NR with a cp + external net benefit is ideally 2:00 cp and 3:00 disad.

3---Condo is probably good. That's up for debate though. Most other theory is probably reject the argument; that all depends on how the arguments are presented to me.

4---I think that counterplans that result in the aff generally need rather specific definitions for the perm do the counterplan debate that are in the context of the resolution vs. the mechanism of the counterplan.

5---I enjoy well written advantage counterplans.

T vs Policy:

1---I think T against blatantly topical affs is a waste of time (i.e. NFU on the college nukes topic) (I think that we meet - plan text in a vacuum is more than enough in this instance). Just beat them on a disad.

2---I am good for well researched T arguments that are tailored to specific affs. These are often some of, if not the most, enjoyable debates.

3---I value voting for the interpretation that fosters the best debates possible. This isn’t to say that I won’t vote for reasonability; you need to win the technical level of things.

4---Limits > Ground.

T vs K-Affs:

1---If you don’t defend a plan text, please read as much offense as you can in the debate. The best offense will be offense that operates independent of the counter-interp. I generally find myself thinking that impact turns are more persuasive than reasonability pushes.

2---That being said, a lot of the stuff that I said on T vs Policy about competing interps applies here.

3---Clash > fairness is my personal predisposition, but just do what you do best.

4---A TVA that is from the author the aff is reading will be really good for you.

5---“We would lose to the perm” is not a good answer to the TVA.

6---Fairness is probably an impact, but it is an incredibly weak one at that. I tend to think framework in it's current, minimalist is rather poorly framed. Teams should spend less time doing broad overviews that are read in every round. They should spend more time contextualizing things like fairness and clash through the lens of the offense that the aff presents.

7---That being said, I do not have any particular feeling towards or against framework. I think that it's incredibly boring (listening to both sides, that is). I think that there are better, more strategic arguments that can be framed in a way that's not like "woe is us, they read something that our team of 20 had not time to research." Small schools arguments with framework are more persuasive to me. I would generally say that the more that you innovate framework and the more that you write your blocks to suit whatever idiosyncratic biases you have, the more successful you will be in front of me.

8---I think that the application of philosophy to framework can be some of the most fun research/debates that can happen. I'd encourage you to find the application of fairness/clash in philosophy and apply those ideas to debate.

K vs Policy:

1---Please do not read an overview that’s longer than 30 seconds. Put the extraneous parts of it onto the line by line.

2---I think the aff should be weighed. Either beat them on your framework or win under your opponents.

3---Links specific to the aff (NOT THE STATUS QUO) are very important to me.

4---Explain how the alt solves the aff. So many K teams will spend 2 minutes on an overview, 6 minutes on a link;1 minute of calling their opponent a racist. Do line by line, be clear and concise in the overview, and just be a better debater than your opponent.

5---I find people that get upset or angry at their opponents in K rounds often just tank ethos in front of me. We're literally just having a debate and nothing that happens in this round will matter in 10 years (barring a Towson vs. Fort Hayes or NDT final round (this is not targeted at any specific final round; I think that most people forget about all of the rounds in the year that aren't it) type of thing); stop acting like it will.

6---I find that the best rounds where the negative reads a K are the rounds where the negative reads the K as more of a da + cp. This means doing "link turns case" >>>>>> "they link." I think the best link extension in the block would be a two sentence explanation of what the aff does and why that's bad, and then explaining how it means they don't solve,

K vs K:

1---I enjoy these debates quite a bit. I find myself thinking about solvency the most when judging these.

2---I do value link specificity quite a bit. If you’re reading Bataille against an anti-blackness aff, I’d appreciate it if you read stuff about how the specific field of anti-blackness seals off the possibility of expenditure.

3---The perm debate will probably get muddled. Do your best to have it not be.

4---Impact comparison goes a long way. If you can explain why your impact outweighs/turns the case you’ll be doing very well.

5---I have a soft spot for Nietzsche in these rounds. His philosophy makes intuitive sense to me; it also clashes directly with what most K-Affs say. This is not to say "suffering good" but rather "their mode of politics centers it as a reactive revolt which causes ressentiment."

6---I'm pretty familiar with most Ks. The exceptions are D and G, Derrida, and other post-structuralists. This is not an excuse for you not to explain things. Often, debate bastardizes the intricacies of critical theory for the sake of offense. I do not have any specific "good/bad" views of these things; I think me saying I'm familiar with theory will lead to you being lazy.

Misc:

1---I don’t know what speaker points are like at the high school level. On average, I give out a 28.4. If you make good strategic decisions and speak clearly, you'll get higher points. If you don't do that expect lower points. I think that speaker points are not a good tiebreaker because they are way too arbitrary; however, I'm not in charge of running the tournament. Sadly, speaker point inflation is a thing and once again, carve outs exist or boosts exist for reasons that threaten the integrity of the game. I personally think your opponents win/loss ratio is a much better measure of how good you are as a debater.

2---I appreciate humor in rounds. I don’t like listening to debate robots read through blocks that their coaches wrote for them.

3---I think that disclosure is good and that you should do it. I tend to think that the activity is reliant on things like disclosure; we should all strive to make each other better.

4---I appreciate well formatted docs with yellow, blue, or green highlighting. Ideally, line by line happens. I realize that this is not always a possibility for whatever reason people tell themselves. You should do it and watch your results do much better.

5---I flow on computer. I would still appreciate some amount of time to switch between screens.

6---Some people that have been tremendous influences to me are: Eric Morris, Nathan Rothenbaum, and Peyton Reeves.

7---I encourage you to think of debate as a game of chess. It's all about capitalizing on your opponents mistakes. Good prep puts your opponents into a position where they are likely to make mistakes.

8---Inserting highlighting of evidence makes sense to me. The body was introduced by your opponents; you shouldn't have to re-read things they introduced.

9---Post-Round if you want. If you're being excessively rude I'll stop it. Excessively rude would mean that you are yelling at me for something that cannot be undone. I try to be very thorough and use as much decision time as possible.

10---Spend more time explaining things and less time reading cards in the block.

11---LOOK AT ME DURING YOUR FINAL REBUTALLS AND READ MY FACIAL EXPRESSIONS.

Above all, please be respectful to your opponents and me. I take judging very seriously and will be annoyed if you decide to not be a decent human being. Kindness costs nothing.

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about. I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Add me to the email chain: eadriang17@gmail.com

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

Last updated for Worlando Beach- 1/10/25

Debated for:

University of Wyoming 2021-23

Cheyenne East- 2017-2021

I have more knowledge and experience with policy rounds, but am not opposed to clash or K v K rounds- you guide the direction of the debate, not me

Things to help win my ballot

1. Impact Calculus- Succinct, well warranted impact calc is the key to my heart and can easily steal rounds away. Too many rounds happen where the aff assumes I hear something in the 1AC, and automatically assume their impacts are bigger than the negative's, that often not the case. Without explanation of why I should evaluate your impacts over your opponents, my path to victory should be obvious. The first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be what I write on my ballot.

2. Communication- If I can't hear you, I can't flow your arguments. This is especially true as we're mostly online, but I was never good at flowing 16, unlabeled arguments under one subpoint anyways, so probably best to slow down, even just a little bit. I'm okay with speed in general, but I'm not a machine, and if you're spreading to the point where nobody can understand you, it's impossible for me to evaluate those args. Especially on tags and in theory debates- noticing a trend of folks failing to take a breath, which in theory debates SUCKS for you :)

3. Timing- Grace periods aren't a thing. Who let y'all get away with this? When the timer stops, you're welcome to keep yapping, but know I've stopped flowing and I'm gonna give you weird looks until you sit down.

Argument Specific Stuff

Condo- probably good, but don't overdo it. I find debates where mooting as much of the aff as possible and then owning them on a thing you weren't going for anyways to be very sad, but it's a tool in the tool kit, so just don't abuse it, and for those aff teams out there who think three means go, I'm probably your guy. Also, this is probably the only theory argument that is reject the team, not the arg.

Kritiks- I'm down, just know my K lit base knowledge in general is terrible, and topic specific stuff is even worse. That doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't go for these arguments, it just means you need to do more explanation so I get the gist. Also, probably have an alt.

Tech > Truth

Theory args at the bottom of flows- I'll cry if your 3rd response to the CP is theory, your opponents will cry, and if you have another argument, followed by another theory argument, I'll cry some more. If theory becomes more developed we all need space to write them down, trying to sandwich your subpoint z as to why condo is a good thing between other spots on the flow is messy and unfun for everyone.

Judge Kick- I don't do it unless told otherwise by the neg, and can be convinced by the aff not to do so.

Tech- I'm probably like, medium tech on the scale. I get most complex args, but I won't pretend like my eyes don't glaze over a little bit in some clash rounds, or 20 minute framework overviews on a Kritik. Part of this is absolved by slowing down on these more complex topics (see above) the other part is absolved by not going off the rails.

Meta Debate Stuff

Don't steal prep. I will be upset if you say you're done taking prep, and continue to click things on your computer for up to a minute afterwards, especially if it's obvious other people are prepping. Save you and your opponents the shame of stealing prep and just learn how to save a word document in less than an hour.

Be kind- the world is sad sometimes, the last place we need it is in this activity where hopefully most individuals are really brilliant people. Don't be sexist, homophobic, ablest, or racist.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

danielkatari1@gmail.com

I debated at College Prep for four years. I've been a 2n all four years, going for fairly techy arguments (T, dubious politics disads, abusive counterplans, impact turns). Ian Beier taught me how to debate, so I probably think about debate pretty similarly to him.

First, I believe the debate is a game about framing the ballot. Whichever final rebuttal has a more persuasive explanation for why they win the round will get my ballot. Whatever arguments you're winning, explain not just why they matter, but why they matter more than your opponent's.

Second, do your thing. While there are some strategies I am more familiar with, I will try my best not to come in with preconceived notions about the arguments presented.

Third, in college, I stopped doing Policy and started doing APDA, a format with a lot more emphasis on warrant comparison. This probably means I value in-depth warrant comparison more than I used to.

Lastly, it's worth noting that I have basically no topic knowledge.

Some specifics:

T

- I went for it all the time. Do impact calc and do it as early as possible. Why should I prioritize over limiting vs ground vs whatever other impacts are in the debate?

- I am more familiar with what the world of competing interpretations looks like than the world of reasonability. If you're going for reasonability, I need to know how I should evaluate if the affirmative is reasonable.

- I'm fine with bad interps so long as you can defend them. I have won rounds on T-substantial against the biggest aff on the arms sale topic and similarly absurd violations.

DA's

- Not much to say here. Do impact calc and do it early.

- You should probably read a complete disad in the 1nc.

- Absent a technical concession (or winning link offense), there is probably a risk of a disad. Even then, I doubt the conceded evidence says 0% risk. If this is your strategy, convince me why rounding down to zero is theoretically good.

CP's

- Having cheated in all the ways possible, I probably lean aff more than most in CP theory debates. I think that on a truth level, 50 state uniform fiat is bad.

- That being said, negative, just cheat and then win the theory debate on a technical level. You have time in the block.

- I have literally never been in a debate where judge kick was relevant. If you think it will be let me know.

K's

- I am not familiar with the lit base or strategies that K teams go for, beyond having given the 1ar to a lot of them.

- I think debate is a game. This probably implicates the way I think about framework debates. Fairness and resolutional predictability both seem like reasonable impacts to me, although people are bad at articulating why that outweighs the K.

- On the affirmative, I am most persuaded by defenses of the assumptions in the 1ac. Against an IR K, be prepared to defend your model of IR. If your aff is capitalist, defend capitalism. Even when you're going for the permutation, you need an offensive reason why the inclusion of some part of the affirmative is good.

- I have also only read policy affirmatives. If the thing I am judging is not going to be a debate about the truth of the resolution, I should know how I should decide which side gets the ballot.

Theory

- I spend a lot of time thinking and talking about debate theory. If the theory debate is good, I will like it.

- Don't just read blocks and then make the debate entirely new in the final rebuttals. Extend your arguments like it's any other debate.

- Do impact calc as soon as possible. A lot of theory debates are super late-breaking.

- Slow down. If I cannot flow the theory block, you are facing an uphill battle extending it.

Case

- Everything I said about DA's applies here. Do impact calc, there's probably a 1% risk etc.

- Most affs I have seen on this topic are not good. The evidence does not say the things that people want it to say and the advantages are kind of nonsensical. Point this out and the DA probably outweighs.

- Impact turns! Do them all. Impact turn everything. Democracy bad. Warming good. PFA's good. I'm here for it.

Hi, I’m a parent judge (lay) and new to judging.

DEBATE: Please speak slowly so I can understand fully. Tech over truth. I’ll be neutral and treat teams equally and be fair.

SPEECH: Do your best job

Ian Lowery (also goes by "Izzy" and/or "Bishop"),

Assistant Director of Debate at George Mason University (2022 - Present).

Former Policy Debater at George Mason University (2014 - 2018).

Former Assistant Coach at James Madison University (2020 - 2022).

Former Head Coach of Speech & Debate at Centreville High School (2018-2019)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top Level: I believe that my role as the judge is to absorb the information provided within the round and decide who wins based on the debater's ability to explain and defend their positions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that may make my decision easier or increase your speaker points.

I mostly ran kritical arguments during my time as a debater. In my earlier years I did traditional policy but most of my best experience is with the K.

Tech over Truth - I believe in voting on the flow, and unless I am more than 95% sure that a statement or argument is universally false, it can be debated and proven true on the flow. Beyond that, I will still try to be unbiased in my evaluation the argument, but you're rolling the dice.

I will evaluate arguments which suggest that I should not flow or not decide the round based on traditional policy argumentation standards - but I need to be given a clear alternative method of evaluating the truth-value of competing arguments. Otherwise, I don't see how I won't just end up voting for whoever I think was more technical or voting for whichever team I vibed with more (which might be the point... I guess. But trying to predict my vibes without knowing me very well is a dangerous game imo).

Conduct - Don't be a jerk. It's aight to be aggressive, if there's a point/reason behind it. At it's core, I think debate is a game, so everyone should have fun.

Time - I don't keep track of time well in my personal life or in debates. Please don't rely on me for that. Keep track of your own and your opponent's time.

E-mail - itlowery20@gmail.com

masondebatedocs@gmail.com ONLY for College Policy

If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

Email: ema3osei@gmail.com

Pronouns: They/She

Debated at University of Pittsburgh

I have biases and opinions but rarity of any round reflecting them substantively instead of aesthetically means my specific opinions don’t matter much. You’ll know how I judge based on decisions instead. Don't care what you read. I don't evaluate sheets, just arguments. Bad arguments bore me. Impact turn case or implicate debate itself when reading a K. On framework, defend actual impacts not just intrinsic goods or intrinsic bads. Buzzwords are buzzwords. Solvency matters. I get fugues, eating issues, and fatigue from travel and long days. Be mindful.

I'm a hater. Popular opinion in debate typically annoys me. The outside world exists but it's not 'outside' of rounds. Don't be entitled. I like giving good speaks. Debate the other team, not just your flow. They likely* dropped as many arguments as you did. Sounding like you’re ahead aesthetically doesn’t do much for me. I care about CX until it's a waste of time. Don’t spread faster than is comprehensible/clear. Be a less than a terrible person and certain arguments go away. Otherwise, that's on you.

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

Put me on the email chain: bobby.phillips.debate@gmail.com

Coach and former debater at Wichita State.

They/Them

When I debated I was pretty much exclusively reading policy things. I think that my judging is probably a lot more middle of the road. I really don't care that much what kind of debate you wanna have I just hope it is interesting but my experience is certainly more in the policy direction. This year I have been much less involved in debate than I have for about a decade. Don't assume I am super in the know about the topic.

This is both a research and a communication activity. I will reward well executed rhetoric and good research. I will probably read most cards over the course of the debate but will likely care about specific pieces of evidence only as much as I am instructed to by you all. Judge instruction above everything else.

Fine judge for silly impact turns. I am not asking for you to read bad arguments, but I am expecting you to be able to answer bad arguments.

Be bold and make decisions in the debate. Confidence is valuable. Straight turning things is highly underrated.

Disads

- Aff offense is usually really helpful on disads and can get you out of a jam. Trying to diminish the risk of a disad with a bunch of small arguments is usually less effective than a big defensive argument in the 2ar. Obviously the 2ac should have some diversity.

- Link/ internal link turns case is a big deal. My nuclear war also causes your nuclear war is not a big deal.

- Believing that there is always a risk of DAs/ advantages assumes that A) big mistakes are never made OR B) you can't just be "right" about something. I think both of those are possibilities. Just because you said the word "impact" does not mean there is a risk of an impact. Zero risk is still rare.

Counterplans

- Now I am just going to default to judge kick, but can certainly be convinced its bad if the 1ar says it. If you are a 2N you might want to remind me that it's an option by the 2nr, ideally the 2nc. I really don't want to be put in a position where kicking the counterplan wins the debate for the neg and the 2nr did not tell me I could.

- I will evaluate conditionality bad the same as any other argument. Debated equally, I think that the best arguments suggest unlimited conditionality is good.

- I don't mind big counterplan competition debates on face, but typically 2Ns don't do a lot of debating and just throw as many definitions at the wall as possible. I just want some comparative analysis about why someone's evidence is better or creates better debates.

- "they have conceded sufficiency framing" grandstanding in the 2nr is about as useful as saying that they have conceded the neg gets fiat.

T

- I tend to care more than most about what cards in T debates actually say. I feel like 80% of the time that a T card is good, I have to read a lot of the unhighlighted parts for it to make sense. I tend to care more about evidence quality on T than most other pages. Substance crowd out is a real argument that I will evaluate but I do not have any internal moral problem voting for topicality.

Ks vs policy affs

- If the round is just going to be a framework debate that's fine but I do like it when when a case debate happens. If reading 4 minutes of impact defense on case gets you nothing, then don't do it? I will pick one of the framework interpretations at the end of the debate and use it to decide the rest. I will not divine some arbitrary middle ground of the two. You are obviously welcome to have a more "middle of the road" interpretation.

- Making you link arguments interact with/turn case can be a rounding winning strategy. This is when actually debating the case will get you far and will probably be more difficult for the aff to answer than another 2nr that is 3 minutes of framework.

- The only stylistic thing I will say is if the 2nc is just gonna be straight down reading text you are gonna have to slow down a bit and make sure I get words like the name of the link/ DAs to the perm down, even if you are pretty clear. Overviews are highly overrated. Asking me to draw lines where you didn't is inviting intervention.

K affs

Framework

- I probably default to thinking about these debates in terms of models, but that seems to be less of the trend from the neg these days. I think it can be interesting when the aff defines some words and goes for a we meet but it usually doesn't get you across the finish line unless the neg messes it up. I am okay with the 2ac going all in on impact turns. These debates typically get hard to decide for me when both sides have very different types of offense and don't instruct me on how to weigh them. Tell me how to judge the debate and you will probably win.

- I think that you need to present me with reasons to vote affirmative early and often in the debate. I am okay with voting aff "because it's a good idea" but you need to have some explanation why that is a good framework for debate that achieves something. Presumption is always an important argument and is usually quite helpful to push the aff into various link arguments. I will certainly listen to impact turns to presumption but I generally find them unpersuasive.

- Fairness can be an impact. The length of your rant on the "fairness paradox" is inversely proportional to the likelihood you win the debate. Every framework block from the aff and the neg is massively improved by taking any amount of time before the debate and during prep to at least attempt to contextualize them to the debate in front you. Framework impacts and impact turns increase in quality by comparing them to the other teams arguments, not explaining them in the abstract for longer.

K v K

- Offense is always important but it is at a premium when the disagreements between the aff and the neg get even more narrow. Just give me lots of judge instruction in these debates because I will have less generic dispositions about how to weigh certain arguments. The aff probably should get a perm but who knows what exactly it means to compete.

Grumpy old person opinions

- I will not consider inserted re-highlighting of the other team's evidence. Text must actually be READ if you want it to matter. If you read a line of a card in CX and then send it out in the next speech doc, that seems reasonable. If a 1nc on case is just inserting re-highlighting I will be very unhappy.

- I am willing to listen to and vote on arguments about the stock issues. "No solvency" and "no inherency" can be round winners on their own. I do not think that try or die framing makes sense to me if I am unable to explain to the neg a way the aff could possibly solve some harm no matter how bad the status quo is. The burden of proof is a burden. This risk of an incoherent argument is zero.

- I really dislike the trend of using your CX time as prep instead of asking questions. It is a speech and failure to use it will, at minimum, cause your speaks to suffer. You simply failed to use all of the speech time available to you. I also think that the person being asked is still allowed to speak if you forgo your right to ask questions. It is a speech for both participants that will I will flow, influences my decision, and will matter for your points. Use it wisely.

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

Please add me to the email chain: mariaesan98@gmail.com

Top Level Judging Notes:

· Please keep track of your own prep

· Please be as quick with tech as possible as I want to be respectful of folks running the tournament

· No tag team CX - I really prefer to hear individual 1 v 1 CX clash and this helps me determine speaker points more easily

· Unless this is a reasonable ask, if you care about where a team marked their cards/what cards they did or did not read, then please be diligent about flowing that yourself - I have a very strong preference towards not sending out marked copies of speech docs when there were only one or two marked cards

When I was a debater at Kentucky I was entered as a "hired judge" for all the high school tournaments we hosted. Even though I never really ended up judging, I had to come up with a paradigm or else. I copy and pasted Ava Vargason's philosophy back then and never looked back. I might write a judge philosophy with my own thoughts at a later time when the world isn't collapsing, but for now, Ava is a brilliant person and her 2017 philosophy continues to encapsulate my thoughts about debate and strats:

"I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!

Theory:

Conditionality is good.

Critical Strategies:

I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments."

Ay yo, what up! I'm Niko and I'm finna be your judge!!!

Put me on the chain plz: simsnicwork@gmail.com

Experience:

Debated for 4 years at Washburn Rural High School (go blues) - mostly went for DAs, CPs, and T. Also read USFG plans.

Debated for 4 years at Emporia State University (STINGERS DOWN) - mostly went for anti-Blackness, semiotics, and T.

GTA for Wyoming (Go Pokes) - I do coach-type things.

FYI:

You're here to have fun. Please do!

I'm probs flowing on paper, that I took from you. I know y'all are speed demons, just check to make sure I got your stuff and be clear. If you see me not flowing, it's probs cuz the timer went off or you said the same thing over again. I like to vote off the flow and it would be unfortunate if I didn't get your args down.

But don't be a jerk. If you are you will probs lose.

I've bolded what I think is important but you can read all of it if you want.

T:

I will pull the trigger on reasonability if the impact on T is not extended well. But in general, I think these debates should be about competing interpretations. I think T should be similar to a DA with UQ, Link, I/L, and Impacts. If I think these parts of T aren't clear then...RIP. I am not the biggest fan of SPEC debates, but I will watch it and will vote on it if it is not handled correctly.

FW:

Negative teams should have a solid TVA that has inroads to access some of the aff's offense. (A case list would also be tight.) I’ll vote on switch side, but sometimes it is not the best primary offense. I’ve seen myself more concerned with limits than ground since nobody can articulate what ground is lost due to including the aff. Overall, I just need teams to tell me what debates look like under their model and why their opponents model produces bad debates.

Theory:

If you want me to vote on theory you gotta go all in. I most likely will reject the argument, unless it's just a blowout. I think Condo can be a good thing but can be convinced otherwise pretty easily. Also, I think PIC/PIKs are generally good if they are specific to the aff.Overall, I think theory debates can be hella cool (if they are more than reading blocks).

Kritiks:

I need some explanation of what is happening. I got no beef with any lit base but I do not know your tricks. I think you'll win my ballot easily if you can spin a link specific to the aff. Tell me why the other team dropping that link to the K is a reason to kick the alt. Oh yeah, I should know what the alt does if you think I'm going to vote on it.But is it legit to kick the alt? Fam you better have some sick FW args. Is performance cool? Yo, you do you as long as you tie the performance to some theory. What about that perm tho? I think it's a test of competition. But hey if it's messed up let me know! I bet, I don't even need an impact, right? Slow your boat fam, you better have an impact.

Disads/Counterplans/Case:

I'm cool with any disad. Process and conditions CP are pretty sketchy, especially if they don't have a solvency advocate. PICs are cool - but I could see why they are bad. Impact-turn debates are sick plz go for it fam. Case debates are super tight please do them.

Cherry Creek 23 // KU 27

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

There's nothing out of the ordinary here - just do your job in facilitating a positive debate environment and always be honest and respectful. Ask any specific questions about my preferences before the round!

CX: I started policy in college so I'm still pretty new but I am okay with anything. Prioritize clear judge instruction. Speed is fine but not at the cost of coherency

PF: Always frontline in second rebuttal. Absolutely no new evidence in FF - FF should mirror summary (extend voters, impacts). I flow cx

yes email chain:armaanyarlagadda@gmail.com

Experience:

Pembroke Hill School '23 (TOC '23)

University of Pennsylvania '27 (NDT '24)

TLDR:

1. Tech > Truth
2. Slow down 15%, not a great flow and won't follow along in speech docs
3. Over-explain even if obvious to you
4. Best for policy arguments, significantly worse for K's
5. Fairness is an impact, and T is often the most strategic choice against K Aff's
6. Not good at evaluating competition debates; believe that CP's must be textually and functionally competitive
7. Great for impact turns, politics DAs, topic-specific DAs
8. Competing Interps > Reasonability

General Info:

Decorum: Be rude and lose speaks. Be racist/homophobic/ableist/etc. and lose the round.

People who have influenced the way I evaluate debates: Parker Hopkins, Ethan Harris, Justin Smith, Truman Connor, Bobby Phillips.

When I debated, the 2NR was usually the impact turn, the DA, or the DA + CP. Because of this, these are the debates I feel most comfortable judging. Don't assume I know what is going on. Please over-explain. I'm not someone who understands things on the fly.

Policy:

I used to care a lot about whether you read a plan or not, but I have since deviated and defended a couple K AFFs, so I'll say this, I am less likely to understand the K and more likely to understand calls for procedural fairness and clash. I am still very policy leaning, albeit less than I used to be.

Case: Case debates are the most "real world" part of debate rounds. I feel like negative strategies that do not engage parts of the case miss out. A 2NR just about case seems to be something of the past, but it is definitely a convincing strategy. The AFF must-win a risk of solvency, or I'll vote neg on presumption.

DA's: Generic DA's are fine. But, DA's that have contextualized link scenarios that are specific to the AFF are the best. I need reasons why the DA outweighs and turns the AFF. Impact Calculus is necessary.

CP: I'm better forSolvency Deficits and contextualized Offense. I'm okay for competition debates. I'm probably not the best for theory debates, but lean AFF on cooperation.

T-USFG: Best for this. Fairness is an impact and what I went for when I debated this argument, but I'm fine with clash/skills.

Topicality: Ok for T against Policy AFFs. Impacting out standards and voters is cool to listen to. Your interpretation is a measure of good debate. Remember and defend that. Negative teams that don't run T and try to go for DA's and random solvency deficits against blatantly non-topical AFFs are missing out. The T-Substantial interpretation being a number makes me a little hesitant from the beginning.

Theory: Conditionality is good in most instances, Process CP's are stale and can be beat with theory in most instances, everything else is a debate to be had.

PFD/LD:

I really do not know anything about these events. I know that plans are outlawed in PFD and also that LD is a value/value criterion debate. Besides that, please try to be persuasive. I'll flow it like I do policy, do with that what you will.