This is my first time participating as a parent judge. I will try my best to keep my feedback fair and inclusive. I will look for honest, logical, supported and strong arguments. I will focus on careful listening during the events and look for proper validity of the arguments.

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

Hi, I’m a parent judge

Please send email chain out to amlischan@hotmail.com before starting.
I prefer clarity over speed, spreading is not recommended.
I prefer policy arguments rather than K-debates
Fine with tag team cross x

Former LD debater, current parent, very little Policy experience! Email: cornwall@gmail.com

I myself am a previous debater so I have a good understanding on how everything works.

I prefer speakers who are polite and respectful to their opponents. Also no “spreading” rather speak loudly and clearly and I promise your points will just as efficiently be conveyed. I will vote for the person who is respectful, confident and thoroughly explains their points. Be confident and follow the rules.

Judges for: Sonoma Academy (2019-present)

Previously judged for: Peninsula, MBA, Meadows

UCLA '23

Add me to the email chain: gibran.fridi@gmail.com

Email Chain Format: [Tournament Name Round # : Aff Name vs Neg Name]

Speed is fine, but clarity over speed. I will yell clear, but after the second time if I don't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. Also please disclose on the wiki.

Some Clarifications for this year because these things keep happening in round:

-cross-ex is not prep

-sending marked docs if it takes more than a minute is prep.

-marked docs don't need to have cards that weren't read taken out, that is your job to flow. The only time u should be sending out marked docs is if you actually mark a card.

- if we are having tech or wifi issues, try to resolve it best before the round starts. I would rather start late but everything working than stop after every speech due to wifi issues.

TLDR

Do what you do best. Trying to adapt to me as a judge is a waste of time. Although I am more familiar with policy arguments, I will vote for any argument you run as long as you do it well. K v K, Policy v K, K v FW, Policy v Policy.... i will vote for anything.

Arguments are claims, warrants, and impacts -- means that "dropped" arguments are true only if you explain why they matter and the reasons they're true. I need more explanation than just "they dropped the DA- we win!"

Tech>Truth

Topicality

I'm down to see a good T debate. I think T is vastly underused by 2Ns. If your 1N is a killer T debater, use it to your advantage. Most affs to some extent are untopical, so make them stop cheating. Have a good interp/counter interp and give me some good clash on the standards debate. I don't defer to reasonability or competing interps, so I will be convinced by both.

Theory

If condo is a legit strat for you it should be a big part of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. I will vote on condo, but there has to be in round abuse. If they read states and neolib, I will not be very convinced to vote on condo. And I definitely believe that neg should definitely have condo to test the aff. Other theory args aren't as convincing to me unless the other team completely drops it.

DA

Probably my favorite debate argument. I love a good CP/DA neg start.

A good advantage CP with a sick DA can be a killer neg strat. But have some good evidence on how and why the CP solves. Usually, 1AC evidence can be used as solvency advocates for ADV CPs. Also, the CP better be competitive, cause then I have no reason to vote for it.

K

Yes, most K's are cool and I will definitely still vote on the K even though I'm most familiar with policy arguments. I think Ks are very interesting and probably produce the most real-world change. But if you don't understand your K and can't explain it to your opponents, I will have a hard time voting for it. Have some good links that you can explain. Also, the alt better solve or at least do something. If you can't explain what the alt does and what voting neg does, then please don't read that K. There's nothing more embarrassing than watching a K team not know what they are talking about in cross-ex. What K lit I know well (Cap, Set Col, Gnoseology, Security, Orientalism, Foucault). Bad K debates are worse than bad policy debates.ngl if ur a POMO team, don't pref me lol. I really don't want to listen to Bifo, Baudrillard, D&G etc debates.

Policy Affs

Do what you do best. Have solvency advocates, win the case solves something.

K Affs

Used to err neg on these debates, but as I judge more and more rounds, I feel differently now lol. I don't really have a preference anymore and yes I will vote for K affs. I am more experienced with policy but recently I have really enjoyed K aff rounds. Same rules apply as the K above.

Case

Destroy them on case. Nothing makes the 1AR harder than amazing case debate in the block.

Speaks

Don't steal prep. Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless it becomes an issue in the round. If you're very unclear, I will dock your speaks. Please don't clip. That's the last thing I want to deal with. You will lose the round, get a 0 and I will have to have a conversation with your coach. Also please don't make sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. comments. You will lose the round and get a 0. Don't be mean to the other team. Friendly banter is always welcome.

Email - jhong@shcp.edu

In high school, I competed in policy debate, public forum, and original oratory in California's CFL. I also attended CNDI and a few circuit tournaments in policy as a junior and senior. Finally, I competed at the California state tournament in policy debate and at the NSDA national tournament in public forum. Currently, I'm a social studies teacher and a debate coach at Sacred Heart Cathedral in San Francisco.

Notes specific to policy:

-It's been a long time since I competed on the circuit. The most important consequence concerns speed. I can handle some, but will likely have a lower tolerance than most regular circuit judges.

-Tabula rasa, as much as possible. Most familiar with fascist "USFG should" debates, but I'm willing to vote for alternative role of the ballot arguments. Love to see the dying art of stock issues, if that's your thing.

-I'd rather see fewer well-researched, well-constructed, and well-articulated arguments than a lot of dubious ones. I know every paradigm says this, but it's particularly important to me. As a student and teacher in the social sciences, I've noticed that a lot of what we do in policy debate is poor social science. Not all of you will grow up to be political scientists or economists, but I do believe that everyone can benefit from a better understanding of what constitutes good social science. Causal inference ought to require a high burden of proof in policy debate, just as it does in academic social science.

-In terms of performance, I'm old fashioned and against things like tag team cross X. For better or worse, my view of speech and debate remains obstinately stuck in the days of jackets and ties.

-Finally, be kind. I have more experience with the activity than a parent judge, but if you wouldn't do it in front of a parent, then don't do it in front of me.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Email: juliaisabellhunter@gmail.com (please put me on the chain)

Background: I debated policy in high school at St Vincent de Paul High School in California, went to the University of Michigan and didn't debate there. I did a little bit of coaching/judging policy throughout college, and now I'm a coach at The Harker School.

TLDR for prefs: If you want to have a technically executed K debate, I'm your girl. I love a good framework debate. Classic substantive topic-based policy debate is great too. If you rely on theory tricks or are big on phil, I'm probably ~not~ your girl. Above all, be respectful and kind.

Lincoln Douglas: I judge Lincoln Douglas now. I coached at an LD camp (SJDI) a few years ago, but still be gentle with the quirks of the activity please. Some thoughts:

• If you want to persuade me on theory arguments, you're going to have to actually debate and explain the theory arguments. I'm not the best judge to go for conditionality in front of. This isn't to say I won't vote for theory arguments, because I will - just note that I have a low tolerance for bad theory arguments and theory debates that arent warranted and fleshed out. Any LD-specific theory arguments (tricks, etc) please take extra time on (or avoid).
• I love a good K debate, but note that my K background is in policy debate (gender, queer theory, high theory, identity stuff, cap, colonialism, etc etc) and I'm less familiar with LD phil stuff so you'll need to be clear/slow and really write my ballot for me.

• RVIs - I will not flow them. Not gonna happen for you. Goodnight moon, game over, no.

• There's a painfully bad trend in LD of sending analytics and then zooming through them in speeches as if they're card text. They're not card text! And I don't flow anything I can't understand! You should not be relying on judges flowing off the doc.

General thoughts:

Debate is a game. I will vote for literally anything* if you argue it well, frame the debate, and have good evidence supporting it. Techy line-by-line is the way to go always but especially in front of me. If someone drops an argument, don't just say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate and why I should vote for you with it in mind. The same is true of critical moments in cross-ex. Framing in the last two speeches is incredibly important - write my ballot for me.

PLEASE slow down on taglines, analytics, theory arguments. If you are not clear I will let you know. If you don't adjust when I tell you you're not clear, speaker points will start to go down.

*Literally anything still has its limits. I will vote for "death good" type arguments, impact turns of critical arguments (heg good, war good), and really any silly argument that you win but I will NOT vote for any argument that defends racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of oppression, or for personal attacks on your opponents' character.

Ks: This is my wheelhouse (any and all). Note that this does not mean it will be easier for you to win a debate just because you read a K - because of my background in this type of debate I will hold you to a higher performance threshold. For the love of god please do line-by-line.

K affs: When I debated, I consistently read a K aff without a plan text. I also consistently went for framework/topicality against other planless K affs. My knowledge is strong on both sides of this debate, so if you're going to do it, do it well.

DAs/CPs: Not sure if I have anything special to say here. Make sure you do deep impact analysis and case turn work. I err neg on condo + counterplan theory most of the time.

T: Make sure your definitions aren't from silly sources. You have to do internal link and impact debate for topicality too. Topical version of the aff is huge.

Theory: As said above, this is probably my achilles heel in terms of debate knowledge. If you're going to go all in on theory arguments, go slow and explain things.

Public Forum:

I'm new to this, but thus far my policy and LD experience has served me well! A few important things:

1) If I am your judge you must have an email chain or google doc. Calling for cards is a waste of time -- send your speech docs before your speeches WITH YOUR EVIDENCE IN THE DOCUMENT! If you do not do this, I will be taking the time it takes you to find the evidence and send it to your opponent out of your prep time.I cannot emphasize this enough.

2) I don't want your "off time road map" to be a list of the arguments you're going to answer. Just tell me which flow goes where - a simple "our case, then their case" works fine.

3) CLASH IS KEY - in the final speeches I NEED some sort of impact and link comparison or else I end up having to intervene more than I like to. Draw lines through the entire debate - your speeches are not islands. Connect them.

I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

I am based out of East Bay, California.

I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).

I am a parent judge. I have appx. one year of experience judging oratory, debates and extemporaneous.

In prefer oratory, I prefer to have practical content than hypothetical which has real meaning behind it.

I debaters speaking slow/fast but with clarity. State your point clearly. In rebuttal and cross question - address clearly on the points of question raised by your opponent rather that your general/broader view of opposing side. Persuasiveness doesn’t mean that you have to shout and be forceful.

I am a parent. Please add me on the email chain, liujt00@gmail.com

Please speak slowly and clearly, English is not my first language but I will try my best.

I am very interested in debate. If you are able to clearly explain your argument to me, I will vote for you.

If I cannot understand you, then you are most likely not gonna win.

One argument I can understand is probably more important than 10 arguments you think you are winning on.

First time judging policy, please be slow. If you are too fast, apparently judges can say "clear".

Umar Shaikh

Debated at James Logan High School (RS) - 4 bids - Qualled to the TOC twice

Debating at UC Davis (lmk if you wanna talk college debate)

Currently Coaching: Berk Prep

Email Chain: umardebate@gmail.com

Tech>Truth

--TLDR--

You do you, anything and I mean anything goes, when I say tech over truth I mean it, if you can debate/explain it I'll vote on it.

Judge Instruction: Can't emphasize its importance enough, good judge instruction in the 2ar/2nr will always be rewarded with high speaks and likely the ballot. Simplify the round for me and write the ballot for me.

I read the K my whole high school career and am reading it in college if that matters to you

--Specifics--

Ks - absolutely love them. There’s so much space to get creative and generate unique arguments. I’ve gone for arguments ranging from set col to Bataille. Strong link debating with a cohesive strategy and good judge framing will always take you a long way. I love examples. Please don’t just read your blocks. I am a huge sucker for unique and specific examples on the link and ontology debate. Most of my frustration with k teams comes from a lack of specificity and contextualization to affs. If you’re giving the same 2nr vs 3 different affs something should probably change.

Policy Affs vs Ks- I’m persuaded by the more “generic” arguments people make vs the k. Specifically heg good, fairness/clash on FW, ontology/psychoanalysis wrong, extinction o/w’s etc. Policy teams often have excellent cards on these arguments but struggle to utilize them past the 2ac, make the neg teams life hard.

K affs- love them and read them all of high school. I probably have a higher threshold for teams saying that t in of itself is violent. That’s not to say I won’t vote on it if explained well. If you want my ballot all you need is a strong impact turn to the topic/their model of debate and that you either preserve some form of debate through the counter interp or have a substantive reason for why debate is bad. Honestly, when it's done correctly I think the counter interp is a pretty good argument, it is defensive but having some semblance of what debates look like under your model can soak up a lot of the limits stuff teams go for. That said, having a bad counter-interp will probably link to the limits stuff they're going for, just depends on how you debate it.

Neg vs K affs- my 2nr's vs k affs have almost exclusively been going for topicality. That being said, I’ve been in my fair share of k v k rounds mostly reading the cap k, Afro pess, or set col vs teams. Go for fairness. Neg terror is good, spam those off and dare them to go for condo lol.

DA’s/CP’s- I read my fair share of DA’s and CP’s at NSDA Nationals and State but my experience with them ends there. For reference, those rounds were at about half the speed of a normal round. I’m probably not the best for super techy high-level rounds but I can keep up with you. This is not to dissuade you from reading these arguments in front of me, it’s to be transparent and let you know that you might need to over-explain some things for me to keep up. I think of DAs pretty similarly to the k, strong links and impact calc are the way to go. For counterplans I’m working on understanding competition better but as of now, I’m going to be lost. Having a good solvency advocate and explanation will likely get you my ballot.

Theory- Not too familiar but if you explain it I'll vote on it

--Misc.--

At the end of the day debate is a game like no other and I want you to have fun. Cracking a joke or two will probably get you higher speaks but these should never be at the expense of anyone else. Treat others how you wanna be treated and let’s make this a positive and educational environment.

Hello, I am a first year parent judge.

My knowledge on the topic is limited. I am not familiar with arguments, topicality, kritiks, etc, so ballot will likely go to the team who explains their points better. I prefer logical arguments, but I will be open to anything as long as it is well explained.

I am okay with tag team cx.

Please try to explain everything in best detail to the best of your ability. + speak at an understandable, conversational pace. No need to rush as I will better understand arguments that are clearly spoken about rather than arguments being rushed over.

Please also keep track of your own prep time and time your own speeches if you'd like.

Have fun and good luck! :)

Hello, I am a parent judge, and this is my first-year judging.

-Please speak at a normal pace and eye contact would be nice.

-Make clear and understandable arguments.

-Provide justification for your arguments.

-Not familiar with topicality and kritiks, but if they are explained well, I can vote for them.

-Provide a road map of your speech and clearly articulate your talking points. Try not to jump around too much.

-Please be respectful and professional.

Don't forget to breathe and have fun!

DEBATE & GENERAL BACKGROUND:

4 years, high school (1987-1991, Congress, LD)

4 years, Boston College (1991 - 1995, NDT/Policy)

Moot court, Villanova Law School

Assistant Coach/Judge, Kings College (1996 - 1997)

Coaching/Judging: ~ 100+ rounds 1996 - present

Assistant Debate Coach, Sacred Heart Cathedral Prep (current)

Attorney (litigation): 25 years (my ‘day job’)

OVERVIEW

Please send all evidence to: cdsdebatejudge@gmail.com

Remember that at its core, debate is a communication activity and the debater’s job is to persuade. Well presented arguments, with strong links and internal links and supported by credible evidence with authoritative sources, are always the most persuasive. I appreciate clash — debaters should not sidestep their opponent’s arguments. Take them head on and address them.

My quirks, issues, and pet peeves:

• Organization and Roadmapping. I debated back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, man discovered fire, and debaters carried 150 pounds of evidence with them in tubs across college campuses. Affirmative cases lived in accordion folders. But back then, people were organized. Electronic debate appears to have warped everyone's ability to number or name their arguments, or even have a remotely organized speech. If you are debating in front of me, name your off case positions (e.g,, "Disadvantage - IRS" or even "Harold the Counterplan," but SOMETHING that distinguishes them) and organize them. "A. Link, B. Uniqueness, C. Internal Link, D. Impact, etc.), tell me where you are on case and number your arguments ("Now go to Contention III, Solvency, I have five arguments, 1. Aff can't solve because . . . ") Take a beat (or at least a breath) between positions so I know there is a transition. I will stop flowing if I am lost or can't follow you. If you choose not to number or organize your arguments, you do so at your peril.
• Speed is fine. Incoherent debate is not. I can generally follow you if you go quickly and enunciate and number your arguments. If you don't, I can't. It's as simple as that. I'm also not beholden to the blocks that go back and forth, even if you email them to me. The evidence has to be introduced orally. Sometimes debaters debate from the evidence that they exchange and not from the evidence that actually gets introduced in the round, Please remember this fact.
• Baseless evidentiary/ethical challenges. Never, ever, ever make these claims lightly. I have seen many debates where these claims have been thrown around haphazardly like it's just another argument in the line by line. But they're not. If you make a serious ethical challenge to evidence (fabricated source, miscited source, cards cut seriously out of context so as to completely change their meaning), I reserve my right to stop the debate and evaluate the challenge immediately. Teams making an ethical challenge must be able to prove it with an original copy of the source material that clearly shows the violation. Teams that allege an ethical violation that they cannot prove will lose the debate and get zero speaker points. On the other hand, teams proven to have committed an ethical violation will lose the debate and get zero speaker points.

SPECIFICS

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY: I’m a policymaker by default but can shift to other paradigms (stock issues, tabula rasa) if persuaded to do so. Regardless of whether I’m judging LD, PuFo, or Policy, I find good, sound policies persuasive.

ORGANIZATION: Organization is everything in policy. See above. This means not only giving an off-time roadmap but keeping yourself organized on the flow itself. If an argument gets dropped, you win it. But if you don't number/organize your arguments, and I can't find it on my flow, I can't extend it and you can't win it. When you move between positions during your speech (DA, case, CP, etc.), make sure you take a beat and TELL me where you are going. And remember to EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE, because if it's not extended, it effectively ceases to exist.

DECISION CALCULUS/WEIGHING: This is something that the best debaters do well. It's essential for the 2NR and 2AR to tell me what the issues are and why they win, and exactly how I should vote and why, but it's important to start developing these analyses starting from the very first speech. Also, analyze impacts. Why do your 5 nuclear wars outweigh your opponent's global extinction? But don't forget to weigh and impact arguments throughout the debate. If your opponent drops an argument, extend it and explain why that dropped argument wins the round.

On specific issues:

Topicality: It’s always a voting issue. Don’t drop it. But voting on T is disfavored. I need to have a really good reason to vote on T. If it’s a close call, I’ll default to the case being topical. Also, if you go for T in the 2NR, you should really go for it. Fair warning - I have not heard many good T arguments on this year’s topic at all.

Affirmative case. This is always the heart of the debate. While stock issues aren't really my paradigm, cases with little impact or poor solvency don’t persuade me and rarely outweigh the impact to a good DA. Make sure your case is logical and has the requisite internal links to get to your stated harms though. Really key to have strong solvency evidence supporting the affirmative plan.

Counterplans: I don't like topical counterplans, and I’m not a huge fan of introducing them in the 2N. Counterplans should be competitive and provide a clear net benefit that they can solve for. I hate conditionality - especially in cases like where the negative gets up and runs three inconsistent conditional counterplans - because I don't think it's fair to create a moving target that can be jettisoned after the negative block and am very open to “conditionality bad” theory arguments in such circumstances. That said, you need to be able to persuade me of some abuse. A single conditional or dispositional counterplan, by itself, is unlikely to push me to vote aff.

DAs: Links are key. Tenuous links to huge impacts far off in the future are far less persuasive than a compelling link to a moderate impact and a strong internal link. I find link turns to be very persuasive and will happily vote on turns. Not a fan of “nuke war good” arguments but, hey, it’s your debate, and if even silly arguments are not properly addressed they can become voting issues.

Kritiks: These were just coming into vogue when I was in college. I will evaluate and vote on them if they are well developed and coherent. However, I am VERY open to theory arguments on Kritiks, and my bias is that they don't belong in policy debate. This is distinct, of course, from a deontological "decision rule" or another impact analysis-type argument.

One last note on speed. Speed isn’t a problem for me, but speed for speed’s sake is unhelpful and if you're going to go fast, you'd better be organized. Speed is also not a substitute for good arguments.

Good luck!

It is my first time judging today. I would prefer for the rounds to have no spreading. If possible, can I have copy of your arguments? Thanks.

I am a former policy debater in the in mid 1990's, and I have judged back then too. A lot has changed since then so treat me as a parent judge, which I am. This would be my first time judging since then and using the Tabroom format.

Articulate your points and be respectful. Help me follow your logic and reasoning.

email chain: johnwu1978@yahoo.com