kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

TOPLEVEL/MOST IMPORTANT

1. Send your analytics in the doc if they are typed out (if they're off the flow then it's fine) or your speaks will be severely lowered, probably capped at 28. This applies even more to stuff like theory or framework shells. this applies to speeches that have cards in them already, you do NOT have to send out your 2nr/2ar, or any speech that is pure analytics because in that case you won't be spreading them anyways so it's not an issue.
2. Do not spread your analytics. If what you're saying matters, you should have the confidence to slow down a bit. This applies equally whether you have or haven't sent your analytics, or if they're off your flow.
3. No offensive arguments or conduct, racism sexism homophobia etc. are an automatic loss and zero speaks. This includes things like death good (not spark, I mean ontologically death good arguments).
4. Be nice to your opponents, and especially your partner. I do not enjoy hostile rounds, no one does. (Heated cross ex is probably fine but there are limits)
5. Constructive questions after the RFD are great and I'm happy to answer them, ask as many as you like. Round-specific questions, general debate philosophy, anything.
6. Do not argue with your judge (me, in this case) during the post-round. That's not me on a power trip, arguing with your judge promotes poor sportsmanship and ruins your ability to actually learn from your mistakes. You can call me a stupid jerk in the car ride home, that's fine, but that stuff stays out of the tournament.
7. Call me Toe or judge, it's up to you. But please if the other team has comitted to calling me one thing, you should do the same. There's something awkward about the aff calling me my name, but the neg calling me judge or vice versa.
8. This is a very opinionated paradigm I realize, but in the end I am a tech>truth judge. So if i'm judging you and you only run baudrillard or whatever, don't lose hope.
9. Remember to KYLE!
10. Have fun and learn or else!

Judge info

I have been debating since humanity discovered fire. Given that I'm currently debating I know stuff about the topic so I probably know certain things without you having to tell me- but that's not an excuse for you to not explain things well.

Yes I want access to the documents. Speechdrop is by far the best option, why email chains are the standard is a mystery to me. If you must make an email chain it's Tobiah-collins@outlook.com but please do a speech drop I will be a happy camper.

One of my cats is named scrampus, I will show you a picture of him if you ask.

Basic stuff (mostly for novices)

- Have fun rounds, unfun rounds make us all sad.

- I actually like judging unlike a lot of judges, so be theatrical, be funny, and i'll have a good time and you will too.

- Be creative, pre-written blocks are cool and everything but making original arguments/solid line by line is going to win you more rounds, and get you higher speaks than any card or block.

- If it's a tournament that is confined to the novice packet then stick to the packet - that includes any blocks that your varisty debaters give you, don't use them (and trust me I will be able to tell if a novice or varsity debater wrote the block).

- Impact calc should start well before the final two rebuttals, if you start making new claims about your impacts like "it has 100% probability" in the final rebuttals that is a new argument and I will reject it. For neg start in the block, for aff start in the 1AR at the latest, but the 2AC is preferrable.

- Prioritize clarity. If you're a novice I guarantee you don't need to get through a 30 page 1NC. Speed is fine, but always secondary.

- If you understand your own arguments, that makes me like you more and you have a much higher chance of winning. Know your cards, and know what you're actually saying when you read them.

Theory stuff

- If you're going for a theory argument in front of me the main thing you need to know is that in round abuse matters hugely. The internal link to 99% of theory impacts is that my ballot is promoting a certain model of debate. That model of debate is the one that is happening in the round, right? So if there's actual in round abuse of condo or whatever, then it's much easier for me to believe the impact story if there's 5 process CPs than if it's like 1K and 1CP. I'll weigh potential abuse if that's what you go for, but it'll be a lot harder for you. This applies to any theory argument, not just condo.

- Generally I think condo is probably good, but in round abuse matters hugely here. My patience starts to wear thin past like 3 conditional advocacies, especially if they're stupid process CPs and such. Sorry Glenbrooks.

- Condo is one of the only reasons to reject the team - if something goes completely dropped i'll still vote on it, but in an actual debate with clash on theory arguments that aren't condo, it's very easy to convince me to reject the argument by just literally saying that.

- Fiat means the plan is passed by congress, that's what I default to. I can be convinced that it actually means you're allowed to dodge arguments like "the plan gets repealed" but that's an uphill battle. I've seen teams try to use fiat to get out of solvency deficits, which is stupid and won't work 99% of the time.

- Debate is a game, education is a side effect, but i'm still perfectly willing to vote on education impacts.

- Killing debate is an impact unto itself for me. If debate wasn't good I wouldn't be here. Same with fairness.

- Read whatever theory arguments you want, just keep the above in mind. You probably shouldn't run spreading theory or "big schools bad" because those necessitate rejecting the team, but again, if it goes conceded I can still vote on it.

Disad stuff

- I like disads, I've gone for plenty of them. I don't have too much to say about them really. Collapsing to just a disad in the 2NR can be great, given sufficient impact comparison.

- Impact calc is easily the most important part of the disad.

- Whether the link shapes UQ/UQ shapes link really depends on the specific disad, so I don't generally lean either way.

- Yeah i've got nothing else to say, disads are cool.

Topicality

- I am certainly not the most experienced T debater, but good T debates with a lot of clash are super interesting and fun to watch.

- I know things about this topic so if you're going for a strange interp on something you might have some more difficulty convincing me because of my subconcious biases. For example, I tend to think of a basic income as being universal, but if you win the tech side of the debate i'll vote for you.

- I default to competing interps, as most judges do, but I actually like reasonability. Cross apply all of the in-round abuse stuff from the theory part of my paradigm. If the model of debate promoted by the aff isn't actually that bad, then it's harder for you to convince me that your impacts are real and it is easier for the aff to contest this.

- Aff should always say "cross checks", if they haven't specified anything that makes the plan untopical, and the neg is just extrapolating then I am probably aff sympathetic, but this is round-specific of course.

- That being said, I still think plan text in a vacuum is a bad response. You can do it, but I won't claim to be a fan.

- Author qualifications are probably most important on T, if you're debating competing interps I think an author indict is a good option. Your evidence should probably be defining whatever word in a legal or policy setting, I don't think webster's dictionary is trying to define fiscal redistribution in the same sense we are.

Counterplan stuff

- Functional competition>textual competition, your CP is not mutally exclusive because you said "ought" instead of "should" (I should say I'm not unwilling to vote on this, but I'll probably be sympathetic to the aff).

- I am often sympathetic to the aff on CP theory but I'll do my best.

- Perm do both - I only vote aff on PDB if it's both possible, and preferable to just the CP.

- Perm do the CP - I really don't know a ton about intrinsic perm theory, so I can't say too much here. If the CP is a possible implementation of the plan, and the aff hasn't specified anything about their implementation that means it isn't the CP then this is an uphill battle for the neg.

- See condo stuff above, like I said in round abuse is a big factor, so if the neg is reading 4 delay CP's than condo is a lot easier to prove your impacts on. That said there are no CP's i'm unwilling to vote on, read tetlock if you want.

Kritik stuff

- I like K's. My experience is mostly with low to middling theory K's, so cap, setcol, fem, orientalism, security, even death K, that sort of thing. Once you get into high theory than you're starting to lose me. Beaudrillard, surrealism, performance K's, I generally do not know that much about and would rather not hear.

- I think a lot of K teams have really nonspecific links, which is bad especially because many of those teams end up dropping the alt and FW and go for the K as a (really really non unique) disad, so try to be specific.

- be careful impact turning Ks.

- Framework - I default to being a policymaker who is trying to solve the most bad/create the most good. I like framework debates that actually clash and answer one another's standards. I'm willing to go for basically any framework as long as you win that flow. However, frameworks that don't allow the aff to weigh the 1AC are probably abusive and hard to win on because the aff can easily turn education and fairness. I'd reccomend against them, but it is of course up to you.

- Perms - A lot of neg teams answer perm do both by saying it's severance because of scholarship or something, but then they drop framework and go for impacts on a policy level, which then makes the perm possible. Perms on K's are generally stupid, but a lot of neg teams don't do that much work on them.

Kritikal affs

Don't

Policy affs

- Don't be extratopical, I will be sympathetic to the neg here (but remember neg teams, in round abuse is key).

- I don't know what else to say I probably shouldn't have made this it's own thing but what's done is done.

Speaker points

- Not sending pre-typed analytics caps your speaks at 28 because I hate when teams do that, all that does is make you look like a coward who is too afraid to clash and relies on dropped analytics because you read your framework block at card speed.

- Speaker points are mostly vibes based honestly. A lot of people weigh strategy as part of speaks, I don't. Winning the round is your incentive to be strategic, speaks are your incentive to be creative and fun. Speaking off the flow, (good) jokes, and creativity with your analytics in stuff like impact calc are all good ways to get high speaks. Also round specific examples in your analytics will get you higher speaks because it communicates to me that you're doing more than just reading blocks. I'll give you good speaks if you made the debate more interesting and fun to adjudicate.

Bashir(He/Him/His). debate for Iowa City West (2022-2025)

I do PF mainly on the natcirc now. I semi’d the TOC my Junior year and 2x state champ

Mainly a PFer, scroll down for other events

add bashireltyeb01@gmail.com to the email chain

read bolded parts if you're in a rush

quick prefs:

Policy/LARP/normal substance - 1

Theory - 1

K - 2 (ask me before the round about the K you're reading, some are 1s and some are 5s)

phil - 4

Tricks - 4

The substance:

Frameworks are fine, but please warrant them. Don't just say "the framework is structural violence", say “the framework is structural violence because xyz”.

I generally enjoy unique arguments, squirrely cases are cool and really show creativity. At the same time, I think it's super impressive to be able to read a stock contention and frontline it well enough to win. Literally read whatever you want.

Defense isn't sticky

if you weigh i'll look to that first. If you don't, i'll just choose whatever argument i like better. Please weigh. Link Weighing > Impact weighing.

Please weigh in rebuttal/summary and just extend your already existent weighing. I’ll evaluate new weighing in first final but I will not be happy.

I have a soft spot for impact turns. Spark, Climate change good, (existential threat x) good, are all fine. i can't believe i have to say this but please don't try to impact turn inequality impacts

rebuttals don’t have to extend, 2nd rebuttal MUST frontline.

Disads are fine.If you’re basically just reading another contention in rebuttal, then I’ll flow it and evaluate it, I guess. If your disad is responsive to smth your opponent read (e.g discourse of SV perpetuates it) then I will be very happy. Responsive disads are fire.

Overviews are good. Weighing overviews are great.I enjoy debates with weighing overviews a lot and i think it is incredibly underutilized. I don’t know how much I agree with the idea of reading an overview and trying to win that the overview is terminal defense on everything your opponents read, but I’ll flow it if that’s you.

Progressive arguments:

just because I can evaluate prog doesn't mean you should run it. If substance is your thing then run substance. My role as a judge is to adapt to you. I want you to have fun, do whatever makes you happy.

Theory:

I'm pretty comfortable judging a theory round. I default Text > Spirit, No RVIs, CIs > reasonability, Yes OCIs, DTA for evidence violations i.e paraphrasing, DTD for out of round violations i.e disclosure. I would only default to these if no paradigm issues are read; please read paradigm issues.

paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good. I will vote on paraphrasing good/disclosure bad if won.

Nothing is frivolous. I’ve read some really "dumb" theory shells and I had an absolute blast doing it. Do whatever you want in round; if you win it, i’ll vote on it. (As long as it isn’t ___ist)

Kritiks:

I'm good for most of these, but high theory Ks (Camus, Baudrillard, etc.) are probably not a good idea, identity Ks/Cap/Sec/Fem are usually fine. I read afropess quite a bit so I am familiar with a lot of the key aspects of the literature. I have also encountered many SetCol/Cap Ks so I should be good for those unless your K is super unique, in which case please explain it well. I'm good for most performance Ks, just make sure to extend your performance. Stolen from Zion Dixon: "Debate is antiblack. I don’t just believe it, I know it." I will honestly probably be biased towards antiblackness Ks unless the person reading them is not black. Non-black pess is an Auto L25.I am primarily a K debater and really appreciate the concept of Kritiks, so if you have a K you wanna test out, this is your chance.

Callouts are dumb. I refuse to flow them or vote off of them.

IVIs are fine, just warrant them. If the violation is really bad, run a shell. At the same time, I don't expect you to read a shell with an interp like "Debaters must not misgender their opponents". If it's something personally harmful to you then either run an IVI or ask to stop the round. Stopping the round is not a guaranteed win, If it's something that isn't triggering to you or something that you think you can power through, please continue the round.

I will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise. I am a lot less comfortable voting off a misgendering IVI if you don't have your pronouns up on tabroom.

I will drop you for reading any form of argument that advocates for your opponents/partner/yourself to harm themselves. I will stop the round and vote you down with the lowest possible speaks if you even tangentially sound like you're advocating for someone to harm themselves.

Metatheory > Theory = T > K > Substance

"It's not allowed in PF" isn't a response. "Our coach didn't teach us" isn't a response. "We're not allowed to disclose" isn't a response. "What's the wiki?" isn't a response. If your response to theory/Kritiks is basically “nooo this is PF :(“ you will lose. I'm tired of people pretending like underprivileged debaters have no clue what theory is. There are hundreds of theory rounds online and there are lectures that teach you parts of a theory shell. You don't have to pay thousands of dollars to go to camp to learn what a theory shell is. If you're interested in going to a camp but you can't afford it, google outreach debate. If you have a budget and want to practice a lot of rounds, google PFBC/NSD. I went to both and they taught me a lot. If you're a debater competing in varsity, you should be able to respond to any form of argument including but not limited to theory, kritiks, impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. your response to a shell should either be a “we meet” or reasons why the interp is bad (preferably a counterinterp but anything is fine).I am a debater from a small school and I knew what theory was by the end of novice year. My second year, I was running it. I guarantee you that you're smarter than me. If I could put in 40 minutes to read about it then so can you. I think too many teams try to get away with lying about team policy to get out of theory shells which won't work with me. If your coach tells you explicitly not to do x thing, make sure they give you reasons as to why x thing is a bad norm so you can beat it in round.

contact me for any questions on progressive debate, I'm happy to help.

General things to note:

Your speaks will be fine, I will very rarely give below a 27

I don't care how fast you speak.

I don't care if you're sitting or standing.

I don't care what you're wearing.

I don’t care if you cuss.

Policy

I will vote on anything, a Plan vs CP debate is probably boring but I'm comfortable evaluating it. I'm a good judge for DAs, theory and very basic capitalism kritiks. I can probably evaluate Identity Ks, Performance Ks, and Setcol Ks but reading high theory is really not a good idea

Spreading is fine, with the caveat that you have to 1) Enunciate and be clear 2) Send a speech doc 3) Slow down on analytics and tags

Kritiks are my favorite form of argument, if you have a K you want to test out, this is your time.

I know nothing about the topic, please explain acronyms at least the first time you say them.

Condo is usually good but I'll vote on condo bad if you win it(Same with any other argument)

Please don’t cite my paradigm in round.

If that's not enough for you, most of my views in debate are shaped by:

Miguel Harvey

William Pirone

Ryan Jiang

Sophia Gustafson

they’re way smarter than me and have more in depth paradigms.

Add me to the email chain~ wkauperdebate@gmail.com (although I am also a proponent of speech drop!)

Currently a varsity policy debater at Iowa City High :)

She/Her pronouns~ you can call me Judge, West, Norah, or whatever else you can think of

TECH OVER TRUTH

If you engage in sexism, homophobia, transphobia, racism, or anything of the like your speaks are going to be zero. Don't be uncool.

Tips and Tricks

I have a solid understanding of the topic (I am debating it), but lightning speed spreading with poor clarity is harder for me to keep up with. Slowing down while clearing up your words goes a long way, and I promise you don't need to get through a 30 page 1AC

I am not a fan of spreading analytics, especially if they are not on the doc. I want to hear what you thought up, and it will not get flowed if you are trying to be the flash

I absolutely love when analytics are on the doc and that will help your speaker points, I promise

I time speeches and prep, but you should also be responsible for that yourself.

Try to be creative and have fun- it makes the best rounds :)

Feel free to email me after the round if you have any questions!

Overview-

I prefer policy arguments, I am not a huge fan of theory and it will be hard to get me to vote on it. DAs, CPs, and the simpler Ks (Cap K has my heart) are my favorite neg strategies, and impact calc better be your best friend.

Case-

Try to know your case well and it will take you a long way. Remember to keep extending your impacts!

DAs-

Disadvantage vs. Case have been many of my favorite rounds- don't be afraid to go for them in the 2NR. Impact calc is still your bestie.

CPs-

I am not a huge fan of PICs, but I see their value. Make sure you really understand what your counterplan does and explain it clearly. For the aff, make sure you explain your permutations, that's how you win!

Ts-

Topicality is probably my weakest- so you may have to be extra clear when you're on this flow. Basics are: not a fan of plan text in a vacuum, yes a fan of arguing"cross checks" if there isn't something that was explicitly untopical, and my default is competing interps (although reasonability makes interesting debate)

Ks-

I love most K debates, but I will need some extra explanation when it comes to the more outlandish theory ones. Cap K is the only one i have an extensive understanding of, but I am familiar with setcol, fem, and orientalism. Make sure you understand the alt well as the neg.

Framework debates are so so so interesting when it comes to Ks, go wild here

Theory-

Like I said, not a huge fan, but going for condo in the 2AR is something we all have had to do at some point. My default is condo good, but as a 2A my patience wears thin once the neg gets into multiple advantage CPs and the like. It will still be hard for me to vote on conditionality if there is obvious clash in other parts of the debate.

K Affs-

I'm probably not the dream judge for you if you want to go down this route

Speaker Points-

I will be pretty generous with speaks if it is clear you are having fun. Debate is a game and were all here to experience a little joy. Try to be creative and invested with your speeches, and I am fanatic about actually trying to sound persuasive instead acting like a robot. Be emotional, were talking about the death of the entire human race in most of these rounds here

I will NOT be generous with speaks if you act like you're better than anyone or are straight up rude. Be respectful, and while I LOVE intense cross x, don't make your opponent cry please

I will give speaks based on the cohesiveness of your round, but the majority is weighed on the energy you bring to the room.

:)

add me to the email chain: benjaminkleiman5@gmail.com

TLDR: read anything (unless its discriminatory and/or mean)

defaults: tech > truth, text > spirit, No RVIs, CIs > reasonability, Yes OCIs, DTA for evidence/argument violations, DTD for out of round violations, Metatheory > Theory = T > K > Substance, defense is not sticky, I presume for the team I like more in the round

none of these defaults are set in stone, if u give me a reason as to why spirit > text or why your ur K up-layers theory then thats cool

If I think your behaviour/discourse is bad for the space I will probably drop you and give you exceptionally low speaks

don't read an identity K if ur not of that identity

postround me, idc. i like it when the coaches join in on the fun too.

for policy/LD:

i've never competed or judged policy/LD but if you warrant things well just do whatever.

i dont know about the speech/prep times so just be diligent and keep your opponents in check.

Iowa City West ’24 | She/Her

put me on the email chain! janelamdebate@gmail.com

please be nice. y'all are novices and debate is about learning. -speaks if you are being a jerk.

• try to have fun with the round! it makes it all go faster.
• when in doubt, overexplain. outline the ballot for me and why I should vote for you always.

Top of the Line

Spreading is okay, just don't be incomprehensible, and keep in mind that I'm a human being and won't be able to keep up with a pen if you're going 200 wpm. Best bet is reading at youtube 1.5x.

Put your analytics in the doc.

Quality > Quantity of Arguments.

I know the schematics of debate but haven't dived into this year's topic. explain your arguments.

Why are they important? Why are they better? Keep driving that home and the debate will go a lot smoother.

AFF:

As a 2A, I understand the panic of trying to respond to a bunch of offense but don't let that undercut your coverage of the aff. It's your offense in the round so respond to case args.

NEG:

I'm not going to be the best K judge, but am willing to vote on it. Explain the link, why it's specific to the aff, and why it outweighs.

Bonus:

If AFF, subject your email line: Tournament Name + Year [Round #] Team code vs opposing team

• ex: Simpson Storm [Round 1] ICW KL vs ICW CS
• It makes my soul happy to be organized so it would be pretty cool if y'all did that !

At the end of the day, I'm learning with you so don't be nervous. Arguments always sound better when they're delivered confidently :)

Good luck and feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round.

I have judged three tournaments before. In high school, I competed in the following events: Extemp (1 year), Oratory (2 years), Informative (1 year), Policy (1 year), PF (2 years), and LD (1 year).

During debate, I try to keep a thorough flow of arguments. I prefer a moderate rate of speaking, well-enunciated. I value well-researched arguments supported by clear statistics/evidence. Anecdotes and hypotheticals are fine, but I don't find them as persuasive. I base my decision on the arguments, not on my beliefs on the topic. Multiple times, I've voted against my personal beliefs because that team presented strong and cohesive arguments.

I prefer for competitors should be professional at all times during the round. Some behaviors I've witnessed and find unprofessional: shaking your head / making faces while the opponent is speaking, constantly interrupting/talking over the opponent during CX, and being on your phone. (Time keeping is fine. Yes, I've actually seen competitors text and play games on their phone during a round/session!)

Email: mgrdichian.kailey@iowacityschools.org